NationStates Jolt Archive

Agreed, but at the same time if you go to the toliet and ask a random stranger to watch your drink, or worse just leave your drink on the table for several minutes while your dancing/in the toliet/talking to someone etc then your rather foolish. What I am saying is that women should be careful. Obviously if they are not then they are not to blame for what happens to them, only that they should be told to be more careful if there was an obvious lapse on their part.

But again, the kind of rape cases we are discussing (attacks, date rapes etc) are not the most common sort of rape. The most common rape case brought before a court (at least in the UK) is one useally where the male partener of a relationship is being prosecuted (often in a marriage) when there was a confusion between partners about what was wanted, what was allowed, whether or not there was a refusal etc. Its just that these cases are very hard to sucsessfuly prosecute and hence most juries will have substansial doubt and thus will give a not guilty verdict
which is why it drives me crazy that they keep being brought up. the focus on those very few cases where an even slightly careful woman would have avoided disaster (although she still would not be to blame) takes our focus away from the actual criminal and his responsibility for the crime he committed.

are you saying that british prosecutors have no control over what cases they bring to court?

Agreed, but at the same time if you go to the toliet and ask a random stranger to watch your drink, or worse just leave your drink on the table for several minutes while your dancing/in the toliet/talking to someone etc then your rather foolish. What I am saying is that women should be careful. Obviously if they are not then they are not to blame for what happens to them, only that they should be told to be more careful if there was an obvious lapse on their part.

But again, the kind of rape cases we are discussing (attacks, date rapes etc) are not the most common sort of rape. The most common rape case brought before a court (at least in the UK) is one useally where the male partener of a relationship is being prosecuted (often in a marriage) when there was a confusion between partners about what was wanted, what was allowed, whether or not there was a refusal etc. Its just that these cases are very hard to sucsessfuly prosecute and hence most juries will have substansial doubt and thus will give a not guilty verdict

Again, they highlighted assertion is bullshit.

You keep making it and I keep proving it wrong. You've never offered a shred of evidence.

Most rape is acquaintence rape but that does not mean it was merely a matter of "confusiong between partners." It is rape. Serious, often violent rape. A significant portion of acquaintence rape victims suffer serious injuries.

Rape is not preventable. There is no telling it will happen when it happens, especially violent rapes. It's not like we can wire a security systems in our vaginas that alert the police everytime a penis enters.

That would be an...odd...device. o.O

Rape can happen to anyone of any sex, but sadly, mostly to women. Even the most cautious who do all in their power to prevent it are raped. There is no telling to who, when, or where the crime will happen.

And dressing provocatively does not matter in this case, because women who are dressed conservatively still are raped.

My thoughts: if one dresses/acts like a whore, expect to be treated like one.

However, that doesn't excuse rape ny any means. Personally, I'm all for going back to floggings and castration (assuming the perpetrator is a male) for rape, and then a prison term. After all, in the prison hierarchy, rapists are on the bottom. A death sentence with no State to be blamed.

Again, they highlighted assertion is bullshit.

You keep making it and I keep proving it wrong. You've never offered a shred of evidence.

Most rape is acquaintence rape but that does not mean it was merely a matter of "confusiong between partners." It is rape. Serious, often violent rape. A significant portion of acquaintence rape victims suffer serious injuries.

Firstly, my father is a barister in the UK. He has delt with many and various rape cases, as well as knowing a vast majority of other barristers who have. Most rape cases involve a level of confusion and emotional dysfuntion between partners. Many rapes are not vilonent at all. The point about these cases however is they are rarely sucsessfully prosecuted

Secondly, the reason that you think the majority of cases are violnet ones is the media focus on them, and the fact that in the actual majority of non vilonent cases those involve desire (and should expect) a high level of privacy regarding what is going through the courts.

Firstly, my father is a barister in the UK. He has delt with many and various rape cases, as well as knowing a vast majority of other barristers who have. Most rape cases involve a level of confusion and emotional dysfuntion between partners. Many rapes are not vilonent at all. The point about these cases however is they are rarely sucsessfully prosecuted

Secondly, the reason that you think the majority of cases are violnet ones is the media focus on them, and the fact that in the actual majority of non vilonent cases those involve desire (and should expect) a high level of privacy regarding what is going through the courts.

I know I'm beating my head against a brick wall here, but do you have any actual statistics for this, rather than just anecdotes?

which is why it drives me crazy that they keep being brought up. the focus on those very few cases where an even slightly careful woman would have avoided disaster (although she still would not be to blame) takes our focus away from the actual criminal and his responsibility for the crime he committed.

are you saying that british prosecutors have no control over what cases they bring to court?
It's my honest opinion that there is a psychological hang-up at work in all these repetitive arguments about how women are responsible for causing and/or preventing rapes. Of all those who started with this idea, only Heron-Marked Warriors actually responded to the counter-arguments and evidence by questioning himself, discussing the matter further off-forum, and finally changing his mind. A life-time supply of cookies to him for being truly open-minded and wanting to have opinions that match reality. :fluffle:

All the others cling to this notion that women can prevent rape if they want to as if their lives depend on it (or maybe just their liberty?). No matter what evidence is presented to disprove their assertions, they will just keep repeating it over and over. The most they will give is to switch from "she causes it by acting like a slut" to "she can prevent it by not acting like a slut." I would like to know why they are so insistent on this idea that women are the cause of rape. Why do they resist even considering whether that may not be true after all, even in the face of evidence?

I believe there is a benefit to them in holding onto this idea. Either it excuses their own past bad behavior, or calms fears of being accused by women, or it satisfies a need to keep women "in their place." In other words, it seems to me there is a fundamental misogyny in these arguments, of which the rape issue is only a part.

Hm...I understand what you mean by circular arguments. However the problem is not those cases that are cut and dried obvious "woman was stalked and attacked, jumped and attacked et al". To be blunt, when a woman was clearly ATTACKED or forced in an obvious way while you may have a counsel for the defense attempt whatever tricks are there the fact will remain that the woman was raped, forced to have sex against her will.

The problem is as I think I said before the gray areas such as date rape for instance or spousal rape. When you come into this kind of case where the force is questionable and where consent or lack thereof needs to be clearly established yes I do think inquiry is necessary.

As to the discussion of how a person dresses...that is actuallyl pertinent though not necessary as to the legality of rape. In one sense it is irrelevant: a woman should be able to be dressed however she likes without being assaulted. I think that particular digression belongs in another topic, say about whether or not how a woman behaves (or indeed how any person looks or behaves) should affect how much sexual attention they get. The answer to that is that it is ridiculous to dress in a sexually attractive manner and not expect some kind of sexual attention. But to suggest that this would invite rape is like saying that having a nice car provokes car theft. Well, it does but of course you still have the right to buy a nice car.

Hm...I understand what you mean by circular arguments. However the problem is not those cases that are cut and dried obvious "woman was stalked and attacked, jumped and attacked et al". To be blunt, when a woman was clearly ATTACKED or forced in an obvious way while you may have a counsel for the defense attempt whatever tricks are there the fact will remain that the woman was raped, forced to have sex against her will.

The problem is as I think I said before the gray areas such as date rape for instance or spousal rape. When you come into this kind of case where the force is questionable and where consent or lack thereof needs to be clearly established yes I do think inquiry is necessary.

As to the discussion of how a person dresses...that is actuallyl pertinent though not necessary as to the legality of rape. In one sense it is irrelevant: a woman should be able to be dressed however she likes without being assaulted. I think that particular digression belongs in another topic, say about whether or not how a woman behaves (or indeed how any person looks or behaves) should affect how much sexual attention they get. The answer to that is that it is ridiculous to dress in a sexually attractive manner and not expect some kind of sexual attention. But to suggest that this would invite rape is like saying that having a nice car provokes car theft. Well, it does but of course you still have the right to buy a nice car.
The only quibble I have with this statement is the assumption that date rape or spousal rape will be gray areas where the crime is not obvious.

The only reason these have ever been considered gray areas is because of social prejudices/assumptions that said (1) that a woman considering whether to have sex with a man (dating) is the same as consenting to have sex with him (corollary: that sex is payment for dinner and gifts and must be given -- that's a common argument among date rapists), and (2) that if a woman ever consented to have sex with a man (marriage) then she loses her right to say no to him at any other time. For many years, women who were raped on dates or by their husbands had little protection under the law, even if they were badly injured by the attack. There is still a common assumption that a husband can't rape his wife, or that it's impossible to rape a prostitute.

Another rape myth is that there has to be obvious physical injury associated with rape. It is extremely common for rape to leave no obvious wounds, and this is why rape victims must undergo minute questioning along with close medical examination to get evidence of the crime.

As to the discussion of how a person dresses...that is actuallyl pertinent though not necessary as to the legality of rape. In one sense it is irrelevant: a woman should be able to be dressed however she likes without being assaulted. I think that particular digression belongs in another topic, say about whether or not how a woman behaves (or indeed how any person looks or behaves) should affect how much sexual attention they get. The answer to that is that it is ridiculous to dress in a sexually attractive manner and not expect some kind of sexual attention. But to suggest that this would invite rape is like saying that having a nice car provokes car theft. Well, it does but of course you still have the right to buy a nice car.
oh that topic. here is a list of the most common stolen cars in the US...
CCC Information Services Inc. reports its top 10 with model years included. They are:

1. 1989 Toyota Camry
2. 1991 Toyota Camry
3. 1990 Toyota Camry
4. 2000 Honda Civic SI
5. 1994 Honda Accord
6. 1994 Chevrolet C1500 4X2
7. 1995 Honda Accord Ex
8. 1988 Toyota Camry
9. 1994 Honda Accord LX
10. 1996 Honda Accord LX

(i dont know who the ccc is, i just took the list that made my point best)

this is from a 2003 webpage

anyway, nothing on that list is a luxury car. many of them are pretty old.

the point being that car theft, like rape, is a crime of opportunity. no one is overcome with "car lust" and just cant keep themselves from taking a particular car. the commonly stolen cars are common cars most easily found and stolen. if a thief comes across a car he can successfully steal (there has been a rash of car thefts in albuquerque due to people leaving them warming up in their garages) he'll do it. the attractiveness of the car is quite secondary to the crime.

oh that topic. here is a list of the most common stolen cars in the US...

(i dont know who the ccc is, i just took the list that made my point best)

this is from a 2003 webpage

anyway, nothing on that list is a luxury car. many of them are pretty old.

the point being that car theft, like rape, is a crime of opportunity. no one is overcome with "car lust" and just cant keep themselves from taking a particular car. the commonly stolen cars are common cars most easily found and stolen. if a thief comes across a car he can successfully steal (there has been a rash of car thefts in albuquerque due to people leaving them warming up in their garages) he'll do it. the attractiveness of the car is quite secondary to the crime.

Luxury cars are hard to move without being caught, and harder to find people willing to buy them for a decent price. Its much more economical and low risk to steal cheaper cars. Also I note you said that they are the cars most easily stolen.

Luxury cars are hard to move without being caught, and harder to find people willing to buy them for a decent price. Its much more economical and low risk to steal cheaper cars. Also I note you said that they are the cars most easily stolen.
as i understand it its a combination of easy to steal and cars with parts in most demand.

it is not a matter of "car lust" in any case.

Is a 1000 person poll enough people to realy get a good idea of a nation or regions opinion on a topic? You have to figure a fair number of people will say anything on a poll just for the hell of it.

Is a 1000 person poll enough people to realy get a good idea of a nation or regions opinion on a topic? You have to figure a fair number of people will say anything on a poll just for the hell of it.
its worthless unless its a random poll or an actual vote.

The only quibble I have with this statement is the assumption that date rape or spousal rape will be gray areas where the crime is not obvious.

The only reason these have ever been considered gray areas is because of social prejudices/assumptions that said (1) that a woman considering whether to have sex with a man (dating) is the same as consenting to have sex with him (corollary: that sex is payment for dinner and gifts and must be given -- that's a common argument among date rapists), and (2) that if a woman ever consented to have sex with a man (marriage) then she loses her right to say no to him at any other time. For many years, women who were raped on dates or by their husbands had little protection under the law, even if they were badly injured by the attack. There is still a common assumption that a husband can't rape his wife, or that it's impossible to rape a prostitute.

Another rape myth is that there has to be obvious physical injury associated with rape. It is extremely common for rape to leave no obvious wounds, and this is why rape victims must undergo minute questioning along with close medical examination to get evidence of the crime.

I'm actually not so much trying to perpetuate myths as to explain that these ARE grey areas and that as such that reality must be acknowledged. I believe inquiry is necessary for precisely the importance of clearing up the 'greyness' as it were. And sometimes, to be blunt, there is a blurred line and perhaps it is up to those involved to be clear about their own position. Sometimes women are too silent when they need to speak up for themselves, sometimes men are too insensitive about the needs of others. Bad relationships and bad sex can happen, and yes, I believe that legally you need to figure out where to draw the line.

As for all the car stuff...I was just trying to make an example. Apparently it was a bad one and I know nothing at all about car theft., fair enough.

I know I'm beating my head against a brick wall here, but do you have any actual statistics for this, rather than just anecdotes?

Since they dont make clasifications of rape, its a little difficult to get statistics, but since my Dad actually works for the CPS I think he knows what he's talking about.

I'm actually not so much trying to perpetuate myths as to explain that these ARE grey areas and that as such that reality must be acknowledged. I believe inquiry is necessary for precisely the importance of clearing up the 'greyness' as it were. And sometimes, to be blunt, there is a blurred line and perhaps it is up to those involved to be clear about their own position. Sometimes women are too silent when they need to speak up for themselves, sometimes men are too insensitive about the needs of others. Bad relationships and bad sex can happen, and yes, I believe that legally you need to figure out where to draw the line.

As for all the car stuff...I was just trying to make an example. Apparently it was a bad one and I know nothing at all about car theft., fair enough.

If they are silent and look like a scared rabbit in headlights, it's pretty obvious that they don't want sex. If in doubt, don't do it, or ask the woman if she's sure, simple as. Asking a quick "are you sure you want to do this" removes any greay areas without removing the passion

As for this: "...cases where an even slightly careful woman would have avoided disaster (although she still would not be to blame) takes our focus away from the actual criminal and his responsibility for the crime he committed." implies that even a slightly careful woman would have avoided disaster in a rape situation. In islamic countries there have been many reports, and women have to dress head-to-toe. What you look like is irrelevant. Most rapists would tell you (as they have told others, such as organisations that deal with rape) is that what the person looks like is irrelevant, because it's about POWER and VIOLENCE, which is why it annoys me when people say "non-violent rape" - there's no such thing, even if the law thinks there is.

And as for "dressing or acting like a whore/slut", would you apply the same to men who act like a male whore/slut? Men can dress how they want without fear of being raped, why should it be any different for women? And men can flirt like mad or shag loads of people without fear of being raped, why should it be any different for women? Words like "whore" and "slut" are just words that try to turn women into objects, to try to make it easier to use stupid excuses for treating them bad. If that's not true, then why aren't men in shorts treated like objects?!?!?!

That's a shocking number of people who don't place enough responsibility in the hands of the criminal. Maybe public opinion would be influenced by more brutal punishments for rapists.

Since they dont make clasifications of rape, its a little difficult to get statistics, but since my Dad actually works for the CPS I think he knows what he's talking about.
You would be suprized how many people dont understand statistics

That and I like how you refute the charge of anecdotal evidence with an appeal to athority logical flaw

Is a 1000 person poll enough people to realy get a good idea of a nation or regions opinion on a topic? You have to figure a fair number of people will say anything on a poll just for the hell of it.
It only takes about 360 person survey to get a 95 percent accurate poll of a population of 300 million

I would shoot for 1200 personally but that would cut down my error so I have some breathing room

I do however want to say this. I think it is unfair for a drunk girl to cry rape because she was drunk, if the guy was also drunk. Note that I don't mean "passed out".
Well, what do you mean?

Let's say that the woman who gets drunk and has passionate sex with a man, kissing and caressing him and loving it... well, obviously that's not rape.

But it's a long way from this scenario to "passed out"... and I think we pass rape along the way.

What about the woman who is so drunk that, while she is not passed out, she can neither push her attacker away nor manage any verbal expression without mumbling?

What about the woman who is drunk and making out with a guy... who, due to her inebriated state, does not realize that he has "slipped it in" until it is too late? (A feat easily enough achieved if she is wearing a skirt.) I call that rape.

So where do you draw the line?

Well, for legal purposes anything other than violent or coercive rape is probably impossible to prosecute anyway.

But that does not mean we should ignore the question. In fact, it is especially important for men to ask this question because we are so conditioned to put our dick in things, and to assume that "not saying no" means "yes," that we must be careful to avoid raping a woman... without really meaning to.

Yes, that's what I said. I think that a wide range of supposedly "normal" male sexual behavior constitutes rape, or at least a very borderline behavior. At any rate, it is not right and men should make an effort to change the culture of sex to be more respectful toward women.

When it comes to drinking and sex:

1) If you are with a girlfriend/partner, chances are you will know if she wants to have sex or not. You're probably safe here.

2) If you meet a woman or "hook up" with a casual acquaintance, unless she obviously wants to have sex--e.g. she says "I want to have sex"--then it is probably safer to assume that she does not.

Kissing/touching/etc... no matter how passionate and willing... does NOT automatically constitute consent to sex.

The sooner men (especially young men) come to understand this, the better for all of us.

If I seem especially touchy on this point, it is because a woman very close to me was raped in this way... She met a guy, they were making out (there was actually NO drinking), she felt more and more uncomfortable but kept thinking to herself, "I can always say no"... Well, she never got the chance to say "no," because he was inside her before she could. At first, she thought it was his finger, and she definitely wanted to him to stop there. To broach the subject, she said, "I'm a virgin..." He said, "Not anymore."

As for this: "...cases where an even slightly careful woman would have avoided disaster (although she still would not be to blame) takes our focus away from the actual criminal and his responsibility for the crime he committed." implies that even a slightly careful woman would have avoided disaster in a rape situation. In islamic countries there have been many reports, and women have to dress head-to-toe. What you look like is irrelevant. Most rapists would tell you (as they have told others, such as organisations that deal with rape) is that what the person looks like is irrelevant, because it's about POWER and VIOLENCE, which is why it annoys me when people say "non-violent rape" - there's no such thing, even if the law thinks there is.

And as for "dressing or acting like a whore/slut", would you apply the same to men who act like a male whore/slut? Men can dress how they want without fear of being raped, why should it be any different for women? And men can flirt like mad or shag loads of people without fear of being raped, why should it be any different for women? Words like "whore" and "slut" are just words that try to turn women into objects, to try to make it easier to use stupid excuses for treating them bad. If that's not true, then why aren't men in shorts treated like objects?!?!?!

True, true, and very true. It's not as if only very attractive women (or men, if we're being fair all around) are victims of rape. I think many rapists choose their victims based on availability as opposed to their looks. If they're walking alone, maybe already look kind of nervous, are small or weak, etc.

It bothers me to no end that men (notice that women never make this argument) often say that women "have it coming" because they dress provocatively. I think that's a load of crap. If men could control themselves, how women dress wouldn't be a problem. Then again, I'm all for castration as punishment for rape. So maybe that's just me. I personally don't dress slutty, but I've been known to wear short skirts, and any decent guy I know can handle it.

I think some people assume that rape is all about the attractiveness factor because women are more likely to be raped in the summer, when they tend to wear less clothes, and women in their teens and early to mid 20's are more likely to get raped than older women. Neither of those factors though have anything to do with physical attractiveness. They are more likely to get raped in the summer because there are more of them outside, when it's easier to get at them. Younger women are more likely to get raped because they are the ones more likely to walk alone in the dark, or wear headphones, or do other careless things. They are also more likely to be vulnerable in some way.

I took their post as meaning if the girl and guy have consensual sex while they're both drunk, to someone they wouldn't have if they were sober- the girl shouldn't be able to say it was rape simply because she sobered up... and was ok with it while she was drunk.
Agreed. The problem is defining "consent," which may be especially difficult when a woman is drunk.

Men have a tendency to take this "grey area" as "license"... since it's not clear what constitutes consent, they can "get away with it." This is exactly the wrong way to look at it. When consent is "unclear," that counts as a "no" until the matter is clarified.

Now, no matter how drunk someone is, no is no- if someone doesn't want to have sex, no matter how far along it is, they should stop, and the person who wants to continue can finish themselves off, or take a cold shower.

Well, what if she doesn't say "no"? What if she just doesn't seem very "into it"... as in, she's not resisting in any active way, but she's also not welcoming your advances?

First of all, guys should not want to have sex with a woman who does not want to have sex with them... who just "lets" them.

Second of all, this should count as a "no".

Imagine what might be going through a woman's mind... She's been making out with you, and it's been good... Now you're starting to go too far... So, she backs off a little... but you don't stop. She stops kissing you... but you don't stop. She pulls back a little... but you don't stop.

Now, she knows where this is going... and she wants you to stop. But you have not responded to any of her many other signals that she is no longer interested... so what if you don't stop when she says "no"? Then it will definitely, unequivocally, be RAPE... so that by not actually saying "no" she at least throws up a psychological barrier to help herself deal with it. She can tell herself she wasn't raped, even though she was.

There are a thousand other reasons that a woman may NOT say "no" when she wants to. The point is, if she does not clearly want it, you have no business "giving it to her."

Now, it may also be that she is just nervous, and she really wants to have sex with you. But do you want to take the chance that she is really slowing down and becoming unresponsive because she wants you to STOP? Do you want to risk raping her?

If she wants to have sex, and you start to slow down to... then she will tell you to keep going. Best of all, you should ask her -- and no, this does not have to be a mood-killer. You don't need to come to a full stop and say "so, would you mind having sexual intercourse at this point?" You can tell her that you "really want her" or whatever dirty talk seems appropriate at the time... and if she does not say "I want you too" or something to that effect, then... oh well, you got shot down.

As a woman though,
Sorry for addressing the above to men... :) Since I meant it for men in general, I hope you don't mind if I leave it as-is.

No it isn't. If this woman has a past history of constantly sleeping around with different men and has a past of lying then it should be allowed in court because it brings into account 'reasonable doubt' of his guilt.

Lying is one thing. That should be admissible.

But I don't care if she's had consensual sex with 1000 men. That in no way implies that she wanted to have sex with this one.

And some women freeze and don't know what to do.

Exactly. And it may not take a knife, a gun, or even a threat to make them freeze. It may be as simple as an aggressive sexual advance, and it may happen in the middle of making out.

That is precisely why "not saying no" does not count as a "yes."

(Again, this would be a damn-near impossible legal case to make, so it's not especially relevant to the legal definition of rape. But I mean to insist on a broader definition of rape in order to highlight the repugnant sexual behavior of many "non-criminal" men.)

I think the question is "where is the rape line drawn." I believe we can all agree on the "she said no." What about the "she said yes, we screwed like (drunken?) rabbits, now she's embarrassed and says she didn't really mean yes."

I think we can all agree about both of those.

The case that needs examination is the "we were drunk as hell, and she didn't really say anything, but I screwed her anyway" scenario.

More amusing, perhaps, is that two people under the age of consent having sex are "statuatorily raping" each other.
Not in most places, not anymore... The first problem with statutory rape was that it only applied to female victims, so that a fourteen-year-old boy could be guilty of raping a sixteen-year-old girl who was not guilty of anything. So, they changed the law to be gender-neutral... leading to the sort of situation you describe, in which couples "rape each other." Lately, however, the statutes have been re-written so that they only criminalize people who have sex with children who are also younger than them. Thus, for instance, a 15-year-old boy might be guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl who has committed no crime, or a 20-year-old woman might be guilty of raping the same 15-year-old boy... who in that case did nothing wrong.

Do I believe the women can be to blame for getting raped? Sure, if the woman says yes then no.
Well, if you mean she changed her mind after having sex, that's one thing. But I hope you don't mean to imply that she cannot change her mind before or during sex. If a man is having sex with a woman at any time after she expresses her desire for him to stop, that's rape.

Thus, where does the light shade of gray turn into that darker grey that makes sex a rape and not something mutual?

In one sense, there is no shade of grey: either both partners want to have sex, or they do not. The only "shades of grey" occur when one tries to identify refusal "objectively." Thus, if you want to be on the safe side of the shades of grey, you should live by a stricter standard than that used by the law.

women who are raped are a lot of the time at least partially to blame. and a lot of times women claim it was rape after the incident because they either want attention or just realized it was a bad decision in the first place.

Where do you get this "a lot of times"?

I think if she goes out looking for sex, and she gets it... it's not rape.

So if a woman "goes out looking for sex," that means that she automatically "wants it" from any random guy who sticks his penis in her?

Even as a man, you should realize that "wanting sex" is not the same as "wanting sex with ____."

If you don't want sex, just say no.
That's easy for you to say. How about, "if you want sex, say yes." Anything short of "yes" (or responsiveness to sexual advances) should be taken as a "no." And by responsiveness I mean she is responding... kissing you back, touching you back, enjoying herself. Non-resistance is NOT the same as willingness!!

Where something attractive, yet conservative. If you dress like someone who sells yourself, don't be suprised when people offer money!

Why? Maybe she wants to have sex, just not with you. Maybe she just wants to look sexy. The fact that she may be "attracting" men (perhaps intentionally) does not mean that she is "asking for it" when one of them presumes to have sex with her without her consent!

If she decides in the throws of climax that she really didn't want to have this sort of relationship... well, I'm sorry but it's not rape.
No... unless the guy refuses to stop.

She may be in the "throws of climax" but if she says "stop" or "you're hurting me"... then you better damn well stop, unless you want to be a rapist.

If two people are inebriated at the same time and (ignorantly) decide to go at it... that's not rape.
Right, and if I get drunk and drive, killing someone with my car, it's not vehicular homicide... If you're too drunk to know what you're doing, you shouldn't be driving. You shouldn't be having sex, either... unless, perhaps, it is with an existing partner whom you know and trust. And even then, you are risking doing something to them that you might not want to... when your girlfriend says "stop, you're hurting me"... "I was too drunk" is no excuse for continuing to rape her.

Vhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests.
And even more people suggest that Gun Owners are responsible for Gun Crime.

So what else is new?

Criminals are never responsible for their crimes. Somthing else always made them do it. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Now, take the same scenario where a woman is brazenly flirting with a guy in an attempt to drive him wild and succeeds much more than she was counting on. I suppose in this case you could say she was using "f*cking words", although admittedly, flirtation is more than the spoken language.

Much in the same way that nobody feels much sympathy for the trash-talking drunk guy that gets the snot beat out of him, how is a trash-talking woman that gets raped any different?

Simple.

The trash-talking man is provoking an attack. The notion of "fighting words" is that a reasonable person can understand how, being attacked by them, an individual might be driven to violence.

The flirtatious woman is trying to get the man to want to have sex with her. Nothing about flirtation is intended or supposed to make a man want to have non-consensual sex with her. Since reasonable people (i.e. non-rapists) would never want to have non-consensual sex with anyone, there can be no such thing as behavior that "provokes" rape.

Agreed. The problem is defining "consent," which may be especially difficult when a woman is drunk.

This would become a non-issue if people would only get drunk with other people they trust absolutely. Getting messed up with strangers is pretty stupid and with all the bastards out there it is only common sense that you don't allow yourself to be placed in a situation where you are alone with a strange man. Stick with your best friends.

You do realise that a rapist might force a woman to undress herself by threatening her?
Right. Or, they might have been skinny dipping when he decided to rape her. Or, they might have been "fooling around" when he decided he wanted to go further than she desired.

Or... any number of things. Rape = non-consensual sex. It is entirely possible to consent to taking one's pants off without consenting to sex. It is only in the minds of guilty men who wish to excuse their actions that "she took off her pants, so clearly she wanted it."

Simple.

The trash-talking man is provoking an attack. The notion of "fighting words" is that a reasonable person can understand how, being attacked by them, an individual might be driven to violence.

The flirtatious woman is trying to get the man to want to have sex with her. Nothing about flirtation is intended or supposed to make a man want to have non-consensual sex with her. Since reasonable people (i.e. non-rapists) would never want to have non-consensual sex with anyone, there can be no such thing as behavior that "provokes" rape.

Well, one could argue that reasonable people would never want to beat someone else up either.

That's easy for you to say. How about, "if you want sex, say yes." Anything short of "yes" (or responsiveness to sexual advances) should be taken as a "no." And by responsiveness I mean she is responding... kissing you back, touching you back, enjoying herself.How about you ask you girlfriend to fill out a "willing-to-have-sex-with-Anarchyel" legal affidavit form.. with carbon copies for your lawyers? :rolleyes:

Dont forget to keep blank forms in your Car.. everytime you go out dating :D

"No. I said I'm done. If you idn't get off too bad." At this point, under the influence of alchohal, having been brought nearly to the point of orgasm but not allowed to climax, and (though I don't think this part makes any difference) rightfully pissed off at being left hanging (pun not intended), the man forces himself on the woman.
How is he "rightfully pissed off"? It sounds like they had a good time, and she even gave him a great deal of pleasure. Does a man have a "right" to be "finished off"? Many women do not enjoy having a man ejaculate in their mouths, and their is no reason to "expect" that they should like getting it all over them, either. What is there to be angry about? Can't he finish himself?

Now, in such a situation, however unlikely, can you honestly tell me that the woman didn't put herself in a situation were she was very likely to get raped?
Yes, I can. What is "very likely to get raped"? Any normal, self-respecting man would: a) finish himself off; b) volunteer to "repay the favor"; and c) never, ever force himself on anyone! If she were unlucky enough to have hooked up with the kind of asshole who would commit rape, this is in no way her fault!!

Can you honestly tell me that her actions didn't help provoke the crime?
There is no such thing is "provoking" rape. Getting a man excited "provokes" his desire to have sex... but nothing "provokes" the desire to have non-consensual sex.

Ordinarily, lack of consent is kind of a turn-off anyway. He should be successfully "unprovoked" as soon as he realizes she doesn't want him.

Can you say that to no extent should she be held accountable for putting herself in such an obviously bad situation?
I guess it only seems obviously bad to you. I see two people who had a good time, and a woman who went as far as she was willing to go. End of story.

Hell, can you even tell me for sure it was rape?
Yep.
Can you be sure that she doesn't enjoy the power these actions give her over men?
Maybe she does. So what?

That she doesn't like to make them feel so out of control that they can't stop themselves from taking her, because it turns her on?
You specified that he "forced" himself on her... If he "couldn't stop himself" from "taking" a still-willing partner, that's fine. And if she were enjoying it so much, presumably it would be pretty obvious.

If I go into a bad nieghborhood were there are a lot of robberies, at night, alone, with no weapon, and a lot of jewelry on, and cut through poorly lit back alleys, would you feel bad for me if I get robbed?
Not if you were purposely trying to get robbed, no. Otherwise, yes.

You would have been foolish, perhaps... but being foolish does not make you responsible for being a victim. Many women do many foolish things, like letting their friends go home from a party without them, and it may put them in dangerous situations. They should be educated about these risks, and strategies to avoid them, as good ways to protect themselves. But never does their foolishness excuse the criminality of a rapist.

And seriously there are woman out there who say no just to get you to come at them harder. Ever here of playing hard to get? You think that only happens outside the bedroom? There are also women who like to be dominated during sex. Maybe she's saying no to you so you'll be ruffer and make her do it? You don't know until you try.
No, you would know because you would have discussed it before-hand. Women who like to be dominated in bed can tell their partner what they want, and they can agree to a "safe word" to indicate when things go too far.

If this is the first time you are having sex with a woman, perhaps someone you just met, it is not the time to play "you don't know until you try." If a woman says no, you stop... If by "no" she meant "yes" then she will probably waste no time at all in making that clear. It is for her to express her intentions, not for you to second-guess her.

But if you stop at the first little half-assed, coy "No" you could be robbing the both of you of a fufilling sexual experience.

You don't necessarily need to "stop"... but you should definitely BACK OFF and give her the chance to express what that "no" meant. If she meant "do it harder" she will have many, many ways--physical and verbal--to make sure you know EXACTLY what she meant.

If you say 'no' and I continue, that's called being insistant. Just say the word 'rape'.
Gee, how do you know she's not playing a game then, too? If not one, why the other?

You should be able to see how illogical your position is. The only consistent position is to assume that if she says ANYTHING that rejects your advances, back the hell off. If she didn't mean it that way, she will surely let you know.

And as I pointed out, 'No' doesn't always mean 'No'. As a guy who flirts very often and very dirty, I'm always one step away from a sexual harrasment case.
Given that women are inclined to ignore sexual harassment until it becomes truly unbearable, you are probably already past sexual harassment.

For someone who claims to understand that people do not always mean what they say, you seem curiously unwilling to consider the possibility that the women you harass may not enjoy your advances even when they appear to tolerate them.

Therefore, I have to be able to quickly distinguish between when a woman is offended and when she isn't.
You don't seem to have a very robust set of criteria. According to you, a woman is only offended if she says the words "sexual harassment," yet I think that if you ask most women they will tell you that this is a "last straw" sort of accusation that is likely to follow a long string of abuses.

I'm well aware of the fact that women often act like they don't like things that they really enjoy. They don't want to appear slutty so they say something like, "Stop, don't say that," and then giggle and give you a look that you know means they actually like what you just said.
Given contradictory reactions, what basis do you have to assume that the look is true, but the words aren't? Why wouldn't it be the other way around?

Many people are unwilling or unable to really stand up for themselves. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a woman might say "stop," but "back down" by giggling... How do you know that this is not what is happening, rather than assuming that her "stop" is "playful"?

It is a dangerous game you play.

All I'm saying is this happens in the bedroom too. Most communication in a sexual situation is non-verbal, it's body language. Like I said, if you say 'rape', I know damn sure you're not playing hard to get.

Why should this be the line? Most women have been told that "no means no," so that "no" is the equivalent of crying "rape" for them. If what they perceive to be crying rape is not the line, why even bother with a line?

Just like once, and only once, a woman said to me the words, 'sexual harrassment'. Never again did I flirt with that woman, because she had made clear to me in no uncertain terms that she wasn't playing.

And yet, you will behave in exactly the same way (or worse) with women who are not bold enough, or fed-up enough, to actually accuse you of a crime.

You disgust me. Seriously.

The 'No' boundry is not hard and fast, at least not to everyone. There can be no question that the 'rape' boundry is.

Really? Some women have "rape fantasies" -- which does not, in any way, mean they want to be raped. They may want to act out these fantasies with willing partners... but, that takes a partner that you trust, and with whom you can discuss boundaries.

Testing boundaries in that way is healthy. "Testing" the boundaries of rape with a partner you barely know--by, for instance, ignoring her demand to "stop" or her complaint that "no" she doesn't want it--is dangerous and sick.

For all you know, she meant it... but after you ignored her once, she is afraid to say it again.

Judging by everything you have said, I hardly doubt that you have raped more than one woman already.

In many cases, crimes clasified as rape are merly where a girlfriend and a boyfriend have slept together but the boyfriend coersed her slightly and later the girlfriend rethinkgs the coercion into meaning her being forced into bed and so it comes under rape.

If he "coerced" her at all, it's rape. It sickens me that so few men are willing to admit this.

This would become a non-issue if people would only get drunk with other people they trust absolutely. Getting messed up with strangers is pretty stupid and with all the bastards out there it is only common sense that you don't allow yourself to be placed in a situation where you are alone with a strange man. Stick with your best friends.
I agree BUT that does not excuse the guy that takes advantage of that either

Are you not reading my full posts? Are you not reading the rest of this thread? Are you not aware that there are plenty of people that do not agree with the idea that 'no' means 'no'. So, I propose a simple change to the law so that there can be no disagreement.

Great. It's bad enough men try to get off as it is by insisting that "she never said no." Now you want to make it so that even if she does say no, he can argue, "Well, but I thought she meant yes. She never said 'rape'."

And of course, then you'll go further... If she says rape, perhaps he'll argue "but I thought she was playing! She didn't say, 'get the hell off of me or I'll have you arrested!' How was I supposed to know that's what she intended?"

If you don't want to "play it safe" because you think you might be denying yourself a "great" sexual experience... then you are taking a "bet" about whether she "meant no" or not. When the police haul your ass into the station, would you be man enough to say, "Well, I guess I was wrong. She really did mean 'no'." ???

I sincerely doubt it. Instead, you'll have committed rape, and you will put that poor woman through a rape trial trying to excuse yourself on the grounds that you "didn't know she meant it."

Great. It's bad enough men try to get off as it is by insisting that "she never said no." Now you want to make it so that even if she does say no, he can argue, "Well, but I thought she meant yes. She never said 'rape'."

And of course, then you'll go further... If she says rape, perhaps he'll argue "but I thought she was playing! She didn't say, 'get the hell off of me or I'll have you arrested!' How was I supposed to know that's what she intended?"

If you don't want to "play it safe" because you think you might be denying yourself a "great" sexual experience... then you are taking a "bet" about whether she "meant no" or not. When the police haul your ass into the station, would you be man enough to say, "Well, I guess I was wrong. She really did mean 'no'." ???

I sincerely doubt it. Instead, you'll have committed rape, and you will put that poor woman through a rape trial trying to excuse yourself on the grounds that you "didn't know she meant it."


While I agree with you, the arguement stands without the use of a slippery slope

If he "coerced" her at all, it's rape. It sickens me that so few men are willing to admit this.Lets say: Johnny tells his girlfriend he will kick her out of HIS condo.. Unless she gives him sex pronto... She does not want to go back live with her mom's so she gives his the sex.

Is Johnny coercing her?

A pointless scenario....
Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay.

Me: "Let's have sex"

Girlfriend: "OK"

Sure, we've all done that. But it's beside the point, because this would be the scenario relevant to the discussion at hand:

You: "Let's have sex."
Girlfriend: "No."

You decide "no" meant "yes," so you push her panties aside and stick your penis inside her.

So if a woman says 'no', and don't believe it and I continue.
In your example, she said "no" to sex and then you did other things before she finally said "yes". You did not "continue" with anything to which she said "no", so the example is pointless.

Do a large percentage of the population think 'no' does not always mean 'no'? The answer is yes.
Yes... oddly, they all seem to be men...

If the standard was 'rape' means rape, would the percentage of the population who thinks there could be confusion drop to near neglegible? Once again, the answer is yes.
Right. Said men would be more than happy to adopt a standard that restricts the meaning of rape.

Wouldn't it be better if the standard were something that 99% of people see as hard and fast instead of (to throw out a figure) 80%.

No. At least some balance must be struck between a standard that accurately describes the crime and a standard that satisfactorily identifies the crime.

An accurate definition of "rape" is "non-consensual sex."

This covers a wide range of sexual encounters that are, in fact, rape... but which would be impossible or near-impossible to prosecute. Thus, this cannot be a meaningful legal standard.

On the other side of the scale we have standards that people can all agree identify an act as rape. One that might get 100% agreement is "threatening someone with a weapon to coerce sexual intercourse."

However, this standard is far too narrow... It is possible to prosecute many of the rapes that it excludes. Thus, we seek a standard somewhere in the middle.

"No" or its equivalent includes far more rapes than "crying rape" does... and it is both understandable and it can be successfully prosecuted. It's not the best standard in the world (I would argue for others), but it is a far sight better than "rape."

I agree BUT that does not excuse the guy that takes advantage of that either

I didn't mean that it does, the guy should still be punished, but it would help if some common sense would be used so this would not happen to begin with.

I didn't mean that it does, the guy should still be punished, but it would help if some common sense would be used so this would not happen to begin with.
Prevention is always better

Hopefully some day we wont have to worry bout that sort of situation

Me: "Let's have sex."

Girlfriend: "No."

Kissing leads to touching leads to foreplay. However, this is my girlfriend so I am aware of what indicates that she is ready to have sex. Therefore, I don't ask again to confirm that she is now willing to have sex. After I'm done she doesn't say anything about me being wrong. In fact this girl continues to be in a relationship, and have sex with me. I'm from that day forward a rapist, because she said 'no' and I continued without her at some point actually saying the word 'yes' or 'OK'?

Well, if she was really willing, then no... it's not rape.

However, that just means that the question you have to ask yourself is this: "How confident am I that I read her signals correctly, and do/did not merely read what I want to see?"

The fact of the matter is that after she said "no" and you continued without her affirming that she wanted to have sex with you, if you were wrong in your guess about her wishes, then she would have every right to call it rape.

Now, does she actually have to say "yes" or "OK"? Well, that you make one pretty confident about her wishes. Her jumping on top of you and initiating intercourse would also be a good sign. Grabbing you and helping you to initiate intercourse: also good sign.

Anything short of that, and you're in a grey area in which you'd better hope you can read her signals correctly. Because "I know what she wants better than she does" is NOT a defense.

Now, with a girlfriend or long-term lover, it is entirely possible that you can read her signals very well (although you should always be careful to avoid reading what you want to see). The same is not likely to be true of a one-night stand or first-time hook-up... which is what this discussion has largely been about, since in a long-term relationship "no" may not mean "no" because the two of you have agreed to "role-play," something not likely to happen spontaneously in a first-time hook-up.

By the way... for someone who a) complains that women "put themselves in dangerous positions" and b) women are often guilty of falsely accusing men of rape... you seem strangely unwilling to admit that by fucking a woman who says "no" you are putting YOURSELF in a dangerous situation, in which she can easily accuse you of rape.

By your own argument, if you are dragged into court, it would be your own damn fault.

Prevention is always better

Hopefully some day we wont have to worry bout that sort of situation

That would requrie a whole change of our society. Parents learning how not to raise their boys to turn into assholes would be a start. But put a little drink into some people and they just turn into scum. I don't see this ever changing so women are going to have to be careful. What should be done is actively encouraging women to go after the guy and then not offer the jerk any kind of plea bargain. Send a message that you can't get away with crap like that.

So clearly you would never say 'no' just to play hard to get. Are you telling me that every woman does the same thing?

Let's put it this way. In your world, doesn't it seem likely that the women who would say "no" to play mind-games would also be the most likely to have consensual sex and call it rape? Are you not putting yourself at risk by pursuing such women?

[NOTE: I am not admitting that any of this behavior is actually very prevalent, just that your attitude towards it seems contradictory.]

Tell that to someone who got 'raped' because she said 'no' in a manner that wasn't convincing enough.
So you are admitting that it is possible that you have raped a woman who said 'no' in a way that did not convince you?

If that risk exists, why take it?

Maybe if she had said 'rape' instead the man would have realized she meant it and stopped.
If a man is not convinced by a woman's honest "no," coupled with the fact that she is either not encouraging his advances or resisting him, what makes you think he will care any more about her honest "rape"?

Perhaps one of those mentioned earlier where the man didn't even realized the woman felt she was being raped.
Again, you have already told us you have continued to have sex with a woman after she said "no." Yet here you claim that it is possible that men do not realize they are raping a woman who says "no."

Thus, you must be admitting the possibility that you are a rapist. How can you live with yourself? Wouldn't it be better to simply stop when a woman asks you to stop... and if she wants to "roleplay", discuss the roles first?

Wouldn't the prevention of even one rape be worth telling women they should say 'rape' instead of 'no'.

Wouldn't the prevention of even one rape be worth giving up the potential for "great" sex that you might have with a woman who says "no"?

How is he "rightfully pissed off"? It sounds like they had a good time, and she even gave him a great deal of pleasure. Does a man have a "right" to be "finished off"? Many women do not enjoy having a man ejaculate in their mouths, and their is no reason to "expect" that they should like getting it all over them, either. What is there to be angry about? Can't he finish himself?...

<snip>

...Gee, how do you know she's not playing a game then, too? If not one, why the other?

You should be able to see how illogical your position is. The only consistent position is to assume that if she says ANYTHING that rejects your advances, back the hell off. If she didn't mean it that way, she will surely let you know.
I didn't feel like reading through over 50 pages, so I don't know if this is a new thread or a resurrected old one that I've already participated in, but it just drives me crazy that this stupid shit is still going on.

AnarchyeL, thank you, thank you, thank you for just being sane. When I read posts like the one you were responding to, I am amazed at how far people will go to make up excuses for rape. In just one post there was:

1) The woman is obligated to get the man off no matter what the circumstances. That is just treating all women like prostitutes, but even with a prostitute, he'd still have to tell her in advance how much he expected her to do. He doesn't get to just assume, even with a sex pro (and yes, actually, it is legally possible to rape a prostitute). With a regular gal, he's not guaranteed a happy ending any more than she is.

2) If a woman drinks or parties or goes out late, she's asking for it. A variation of the filthy whore(tm) argument.

3) The "if I go into a tough neighborhood while wearing an expensive suit, I'm asking to be attacked" argument. This guy is actually giving an excuse for someone to violently victimize him just so he can claim for himself the privilege of violently victimizing someone else. Lovely. Plus he's also implying that he has no self-control. He's saying men can't be expected not to rape, just like the poor can't be expected not to rob (who is he insulting more, men or the poor?). PLUS, he's doing the filthy whore(tm) argument again -- she looks good and parties so she's asking for it.

4) The "she didn't say no" argument accompanied by an ever narrowing catalogue of magic words that would get him to stop forcing himself on a woman. The more this argument gets pressed, the fewer and fewer words will work to stop an attack. This is just another attempt to claim some kind of right to use a given woman's body to get himself off whether she likes it or not.

5) The "no means yes" argument. A perennial favorite. I don't think there's a single rapist in prison right now who doesn't think that. They all think no means yes, screaming means yes, crying means yes, struggling means yes -- hey maybe calling the cops and pressing charges means yes, too.

The basic idea under it all is that "she got me hot so now she's obligated to get me off." This idea shows zero respect -- in fact, active disrespect for women. Especially when you start parsing out all the situations in which a woman can be "asking for it" and you realize that she doesn't really have to do anything deliberate to get a guy hot and thus be obligated to let him use her body. A woman who says "I like you" is asking for it. A woman who flirts is asking for it. A woman who rejects a guy after flirting with him a bit is asking for it. A woman who goes out on a date but decides she's not into the guy after all is asking for it. A woman who drinks or parties is asking for it. A woman who dresses well is asking for it. A woman who is just physically pretty is asking for it. A woman who goes out late is asking for it. A woman who goes running in the park alone is asking for it. A woman who is weaker than a man is asking for it. It all boils down to one thing: Women have no right to refuse sex, according to these men.

Lets say: Johnny tells his girlfriend he will kick her out of HIS condo.. Unless she gives him sex pronto... She does not want to go back live with her mom's so she gives his the sex.

Is Johnny coercing her?
Yes, Johnny is coercing her by threatening to take something away from her if she does not give him sex. This is sexual harassment at least. If he did not tell her that sex was part of the deal to let her stay in his condo before she moved in, then his behavior is even worse.

In addition, he is betraying an extremely disrespectful, maybe even hostile, attitude towards his girlfriend. Just because she is his girlfriend, that doesn't mean she has given up her right to say no to sex with him.

Lets say: Johnny tells his girlfriend he will kick her out of HIS condo.. Unless she gives him sex pronto... She does not want to go back live with her mom's so she gives his the sex.

Is Johnny coercing her?

Well, he is certainly not behaving very honorably. At best, he is asking her to prostitute herself.

Yes, Johnny is coercing her by threatening to take something away from her if she does not give him sex. So johnny raped her.. (If we continue on the Coercion=rape logic)

So johnny raped her.

Yes. Little Johnny is a rapist.

<snip>
Right. Said men would be more than happy to adopt a standard that restricts the meaning of rape.
<snip>
An accurate definition of "rape" is "non-consensual sex."


Men who make excuses for rape, try to restrict the definition of rape, and argue over "magic words" to clue them to the mysterious secret of whether a woman wants them to stop trying to penetrate her, are all actually saying that they want to have sex with women who are saying no and who are struggling against them. In other words, they want to live out their own little rape fantasies with as much realism as possible -- they want it so real that the woman and, probably, the police and courts too, won't be able to tell they didn't plan to rape someone from the start.

So johnny raped her.. (If we continue on the Coercion=rape logic)
I like my logic to follow reality. That's why I called it sexual harassment, which is the type of sexual misconduct he would actually be guilty of. He might be guilty of a non-violent sexual crime if he misled her about the conditions under which he would let her live with him, but even if it's not that bad, his conduct is equal to other forms of sexual harassment: give me sex or I'll take your job away; give me sex or I'll flunk you out of this course; give me sex or I'll sue you; give me sex or I'll write you up for a traffic violation; give me sex or I'll throw you out into the street (Johnny-boy).

If you want to know if it's possible for Johnny to rape his girlfriend with whom he presumably has a sexual relationship, try this scenario:

Johnny wants sex. His girlfriend's not in the mood and says no. He says, "this is my condo, and I only let you live here so I could have sex with you," and then he jumps on her and fucks her. If he does that, then he has raped her.

Johnny wants sex. His girlfriend's not in the mood and says no. He says, "this is my condo, and I only let you live here so I could have sex with you," and then he jumps on her and fucks her. If he does that, then he has raped her.In the original scenario Johnny does NOT "Jump her"..
He asks her to make a simple choice.
stay here and have sex with me.. or go back to your mama's

Yes. Little Johnny is a rapist.Ok..

Lets try this scenario.

Larry is married with Debbie.. Debbie used to be a nympho before the marriage.. now she don't like doing it with him anymore..

Larry one day says: either have sex with me or I leave.. at that point she decides to sleep with him.

would you say Larry is a Rapist too?

I like my logic to follow reality. That's why I called it sexual harassment, which is the type of sexual misconduct he would actually be guilty of.

Ahh, see I think "sexual harassment" when applied to coercive sexual relations is a term invented by white-collar men to avoid an accusation of rape.

If a man says, "fuck me or I'll kill you," we can all agree that is rape.
But if he threatens, "fuck me or I'll fire you," we call that sexual harassment.

Yet if there are degrees of harm between death and losing a job, I would argue that the point at which we cut the difference is either arbitrary, or subject to non-universal value judgments. Thus:

Fuck me or I'll...

... kill you.
... kill your husband/son/daughter/friend/etc.
... kidnap your husband/son/daughter/friend/etc.
... cut your face.
... burn your house down.
... steal/destroy your car.
... blackmail you with _____.
... ruin your business.
... deny your raise.
... fire you.

Where do you draw the line? What kind of coercion "counts" as rape? What doesn't?

I think perhaps we make value judgments, such as "you can live without your car" or "it's not the end of the world if you lose your job," so that we define rape as involving "life-threatening" coercion or coercion that threatens physical damage to you or those you love.

But who are we to make these kinds of judgments for women? What matters is that they feel coerced, as if they "have no choice" other than to have sex with someone. Maybe losing her job will be devastating to a particular woman.

If a woman feels like she "has no choice"... then what can it be but rape?

Larry is married with Debbie.. Debbie used to be a nimpho before the marriage.. now she don't like doing it with him anymore..

Larry one day says: either have sex with me or I leave.. at that point she decides to sleep with him.

would you say Larry is a Rapist too?

Maybe.

Look, it is basically a given that in none of these scenarios would the law ever call the behavior rape.

So the question is, should we consider it rape from a moral perspective?

Well, if Debbie is in a position such that Larry's ultimatum is a real threat, making her feel like she "has no choice" (and probably intended to do so), then it is rape.

On the other hand, if Larry's leaving is not a huge burden to Debbie, then he is just discussing their relationship... and she may have decided that she values her husband and wants to have sex with him.

Why should we care about this "moral" perspective?

Because too often we think that it is a woman's responsibility to "stop" rape... Men presume that if they don't stop us, they must want it. But men need to realize it is not so simple, and we need to be aware to possibilities in which we may be coercive (sometimes without even realizing it until we actually think about it).

If we are being coercive to get sex, we are rapists... whether we meant to be, or not. And as moral beings, we should learn to give a shit about that.

Continuing previous post...

In other words, if Larry's intent and/or the effect of his ultimatum is to "make" Debbie have sex with him, then it is rape.

Given that in your example he gave an ultimatum, rather than raising the issue of his dissatisfaction with their sex life and how they might be able to fix it (perhaps he could do something differently to interest her?), this does in fact seem to be his intent.

*snip*
I do however want to say this. I think it is unfair for a drunk girl to cry rape because she was drunk, if the guy was also drunk. Note that I don't mean "passed out".

I mean the girl who gets drunks, has sex, and then sobers up and says it was rape because she was drunk. I think it hurts the cause of true rape victims.

*snip*

Hmm in this case couldn't the man say he was raped by the woman. After all he was drunk and was not able to consent to sex. So technically I guess they are bolth rapist...hmmm interesting trial that would be.

In the original scenario Johnny does NOT "Jump her"..
He asks her to make a simple choice.
stay here and have sex with me.. or go back to your mama's
The more I think about this, the less I think it is harassment and the more I think it's rape by coercion. Let's look at the girlfriend's options:

1) They have not been dating long, and the girlfriend was not aware that Johnny expected the relationship to be sexual if she became his housemate. When she moves in, he springs it on her and when she refuses he threatens to throw her out. The interesting thing is he is not just breaking up with her and throwing her out. He is making an ultimatum out of it -- do this or else -- that's what makes it coercion, which is a non-violent form of rape. Depending on the location where this happens, she could probably get him charged with attempted rape, even if she did choose to leave rather than give in.

2) Or let's say they have been dating a long time, and the girlfriend has been living in the condo for some time. She has been contributing to the household expenses and upkeep. She says no to him one time and now he's throwing her out? In this case, she has a more serious complaint against him. Depending on where they are, Johnny will either get sued by his girlfriend or charged with a crime by the DA and sued by his girlfriend. What crime could he be charged with? Most probably promoting prostitution and trying to force his girlfriend into prostitution, as he would have been demanding that she had to give out sex in order to keep a roof over her head -- that's sex in exchange for something of value. And if it was clearly against her will, then it would also be rape or attempted rape.

3) Or let's say that moving back in with her mother isn't a real option for some reason -- it's a bad environment or mom lives in another part of the country, for instance. Now Johnny is threatening his girlfriend with homelessness, which qualifies as a fate so bad that she can reasonably believe she has no choice but to submit to sex. That is rape, plain and simple.

So, now that we've really worked it out, it turns out Johnny is a rapist.

If it was only 1% of the population who thought it was the victim's fault, then it would still be abhorrant and disgusting.

A defense lawyer shoudln't be able to present a victim's past history, a woman only has to say no once for there to be a rape. What she did in the past with other men, or at other times with the same man does not matter and is completely irrelevant.
you would think that a promiscuous<sp?> woman would have an easier time crying rape. After all she lets everyone ride so when she says no she means it.

Continuing previous post...

In other words, if Larry's intent and/or the effect of his ultimatum is to "make" Debbie have sex with him, then it is rape.

Given that in your example he gave an ultimatum, rather than raising the issue of his dissatisfaction with their sex life and how they might be able to fix it (perhaps he could do something differently to interest her?), this does in fact seem to be his intent.
Wow that is a wide brush you paint rape with! Wow... I guess all men are rapists then. Because we all give ultimatums. Whether it is, "if you don't sleep with me I will date someone else," or "if you want that diamond ring you will." That is why I don't see non violent coercion as rape. The other person has a choice. Even if it is something they don't want.

Wow that is a wide brush you paint rape with! Wow... I guess all men are rapists then.
Yeah... pretty damn close.

Of course, if they actually think about what they say before they say it, maybe that will be less true in the future.

Because we all give ultimatums.
I don't. Do you?

That is why I don't see non violent coercion as rape. The other person has a choice. Even if it is something they don't want.

See my post above. "Having a choice" is not the same as "having an easy choice." It's not like many men say, "sex or I won't cook breakfast this morning." I suppose I wouldn't count that as rape. But when you make it a difficult choice, that is the definition of "coercion."

If you really want a woman to have sex with you because she feels like she has to, and not because she wants to... then you want to rape her.

It is that simple.

Ahh, see I think "sexual harassment" when applied to coercive sexual relations is a term invented by white-collar men to avoid an accusation of rape.

If a man says, "fuck me or I'll kill you," we can all agree that is rape.
But if he threatens, "fuck me or I'll fire you," we call that sexual harassment.

Yet if there are degrees of harm between death and losing a job, I would argue that the point at which we cut the difference is either arbitrary, or subject to non-universal value judgments. Thus:

Fuck me or I'll...

... kill you.
... kill your husband/son/daughter/friend/etc.
... kidnap your husband/son/daughter/friend/etc.
... cut your face.
... burn your house down.
... steal/destroy your car.
... blackmail you with _____.
... ruin your business.
... deny your raise.
... fire you.

Where do you draw the line? What kind of coercion "counts" as rape? What doesn't?

I think perhaps we make value judgments, such as "you can live without your car" or "it's not the end of the world if you lose your job," so that we define rape as involving "life-threatening" coercion or coercion that threatens physical damage to you or those you love.

But who are we to make these kinds of judgments for women? What matters is that they feel coerced, as if they "have no choice" other than to have sex with someone. Maybe losing her job will be devastating to a particular woman.

If a woman feels like she "has no choice"... then what can it be but rape?
As a woman who has been sexually harassed, I have a pretty good sense of how it works. The legal rules are difficult to explain, but in real application it works like this:

A man pressures a woman to have sex with him or else he'll fire her, flunk her, slander her, etc. Everything that man does or says to that woman on this subject is harassment -- until she unwillingly gives in to his demands. Then it becomes rape.

In other words, any sex in which one person is an unwilling participant is rape.

The non-violent pressure a man uses to force her to submit is harassment.

If the woman never gives in, then the man is charged with harassment. If she does, then he's charged with rape.

PS: I know you don't need all that bold type. It's for the idiots in the thread.

PPS: Luckily, I've never been raped so far in my life, and I have never been harassed for longer than a month and never by the same man twice -- but that part's not so much luck.

1) Depending on the location where this happens, she could probably get him charged with attempted rape, even if she did choose to leave rather than give in.Torino.

Wow that is a wide brush you paint rape with! Wow... I guess all men are rapists then. Yeah... pretty damn close.Depends... what Country are you from Anarchyel?

Depends... what Country are you from Anarchyel?
The United States, why?

Wow that is a wide brush you paint rape with! Wow... I guess all men are rapists then. Because we all give ultimatums. Whether it is, "if you don't sleep with me I will date someone else," or "if you want that diamond ring you will." That is why I don't see non violent coercion as rape. The other person has a choice. Even if it is something they don't want.
Coercion is force. When a person is coerced into doing something, it means they had no choice but to do it. It doesn't have to be physical force. It can be any threat to the person or pressure on the person that the person takes seriously enough to believe they have no other way out. It's illegal for a man to coerce sex from a woman just like it's illegal for a cop to coerce a confession from a prisoner.

This is why, if a woman is harassed and does not give in to the threats and pressure, then the crime is just harassment, whereas if she does give in then it's rape. If she doesn't give in, then she thought she had a choice. If she did give in, then she thought she had no choice. It's not that subtle a concept. Wrap your brain around it.

Torino.
I was talking about US states, but I believe rape is illegal in Italy, too.

I don't. Do you?


Yes all the time.


See my post above. "Having a choice" is not the same as "having an easy choice." It's not like many men say, "sex or I won't cook breakfast this morning." I suppose I wouldn't count that as rape. But when you make it a difficult choice, that is the definition of "coercion."

If you really want a woman to have sex with you because she feels like she has to, and not because she wants to... then you want to rape her.

It is that simple.
Nothing in life is an easy choice. By that same mentality working for survival is coersive<sp?> After all you have to choose between doing something you would not want to do or starving.

just for kicks can I get a bull dyke count off?

I was talking about US statesi was not.
Its MY scenario... remember? ;)

Yes all the time.

Nothing in life is an easy choice. By that same mentality working for survival is coersive<sp?> After all you have to choose between doing something you would not want to do or starving.
I'm sorry, that is just idiotic. It takes the desire to justify rape to the point of pure stupidity. Are you saying that it is a woman's job to have sex with you or else she can starve? Are you saying that you have the same right to demand sex from a woman that an employer has to demand work from an employee? Well, you know what, an employee has the right to quit and get work elsewhere, and a woman has the right to say no to you and still live her life.

i was not.
Its MY scenario... remember? ;)
I'll take your bullshit (above) as an admission that you are wrong.

Wow that is a wide brush you paint rape with! Wow... I guess all men are rapists then. Yeah... pretty damn close.Depends... what Country are you from Anarchyel?The United States, why?
.
Then I guess you could accuse/persecute most US men as being rapists (good luck with that).

But you cant accuse Italian men.. or French men.. or Asian men etc..etc..etc..
US laws do not apply there. US definitions do not apply there. US customs do not apply there.

I'm sorry, that is just idiotic. It takes the desire to justify rape to the point of pure stupidity. Are you saying that it is a woman's job to have sex with you or else she can starve? Are you saying that you have the same right to demand sex from a woman that an employer has to demand work from an employee? Well, you know what, an employee has the right to quit and get work elsewhere, and a woman has the right to say no to you and still live her life.
A woman has the same right to refuse sex and stay with her man as I have of refusing work and staying with my job. I am not saying a woman must be willing at all times or ever most of the time. But if she wants to stay with a man who has a higher sex drive than herself then she may have to take one for the team even if she doesn't feel like it. Straughn John Silver is in this boat. I fully expect his wife to occasionally rape him because his sex drive is running on watch batteries...which, I guess is ok for a watch....

2) Depending on where they are, Johnny will either get sued by his girlfriend or charged with a crime by the DA and sued by his girlfriend. What crime could he be charged with? Most probably promoting prostitutionYou dont like Italy?
Lets try Barcelona.

just for kicks can I get a bull dyke count off?
And are you now suggesting that only lesbians say no to sex with men. Or should I edit that sentence to read "only lesbians say no to sex with you"? Trust me, they don't have to be lesbians.

Or perhaps you're saying it's okay to rape lesbians?

(Just another insult against women for not giving in to you. :rolleyes: )

You dont like Italy?
Lets try Barcelona.
Rape is a crime there as well.

Rape is also a crime in France, the UK, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia, and the Czech Republic.

Sorry, I've misplaced my atlas, but if you intend to go through yours, I'll be happy to point out all the countries in which rape is a crime, as you name them.

Yes all the time.
And it really doesn't bother you that you are having sex with women who do not have sex with you because they want to, but because they have to?

Or, at best, you are having sex with women for whom having sex with you is "better than [whatever unpleasant thing you threaten]"?

If you are not bothered by this, then you are a sick person... and if you should not already be considered a rapist, you are certainly prepared to become one.

Rape is a crime there as well.

Rape is also a crime in France, the UK, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia, and the Czech Republic.

Sorry, I've misplaced my atlas, but if you intend to go through yours, I'll be happy to point out all the countries in which rape is a crime, as you name them.Oh My God!!

you can only name 9 countries other than "United States"?

And are you now suggesting that only lesbians say no to sex with men. Or should I edit that sentence to read "only lesbians say no to sex with you"? Trust me, they don't have to be lesbians.

Or perhaps you're saying it's okay to rape lesbians?

(Just another insult against women for not giving in to you. :rolleyes: )
hahahaha

Thanks for the laugh. It isn't right to physically force anyone into sex, sexual orientation aside. It just seemed there was alot of bull dyke feminazi tag teaming going on so I was just curious how many would stand up as one. You will be interested to know that I had a chance to sleep with an inebriated hot lesbian. I had to turn her down. My personal morals won't allow my taking advantage of someone who doesn't possess their full facilities. Which is why for the most part I, unlike Straughn, don't engage in debates merely smart ass remarks. It isn't my job to educate the moronic. That is what school is for, I don't get paid so I am not going to teach you. I just like tweaking your nipples, in a manner of speaking, every now and then.

Oh My God!!

you can only name 9 countries other than "United States"?

USA's education system isn't known for teaching geography.

But you cant accuse Italian men.. or French men.. or Asian men etc..etc..etc..
US laws do not apply there. US definitions do not apply there. US customs do not apply there.

Since you clearly have not noticed, I am not talking about laws, legal definitions, or customs.

I am making an ethical point, and unless ethics has suddenly become an exclusively American field, we should be able to discuss it across borders, yes?

And it really doesn't bother you that you are having sex with women who do not have sex with you because they want to, but because they have to?

Or, at best, you are having sex with women for whom having sex with you is "better than [whatever unpleasant thing you threaten]"?

If you are not bothered by this, then you are a sick person... and if you should not already be considered a rapist, you are certainly prepared to become one.
would you have sex with someone who wouldn't take you out to dinner or spend any money on you. if not then you are certainly half way to being a prostitute.

USA's education system isn't known for teaching geography.well...
She probable does better than BUSH.. (did not "forgot Poland") :D :D :p :D

A woman has the same right to refuse sex and stay with her man as I have of refusing work and staying with my job. I am not saying a woman must be willing at all times or ever most of the time. But if she wants to stay with a man who has a higher sex drive than herself then she may have to take one for the team even if she doesn't feel like it. Straughn John Silver is in this boat. I fully expect his wife to occasionally rape him because his sex drive is running on watch batteries...which, I guess is ok for a watch....
<sigh>

What part of willing versus unwilling do you not understand?

A woman who willingly has sex with her man even if she's not really in the mood but she wants to please him is not being coerced or forced to do anything she doesn't want to.

A woman who is unwillingly submitting to sex because a man has threatened her if she doesn't is being forced to do something she doesn't want to.

When that something is sex, then the crime is rape. If you claim you don't get this now, then you are just trying to justify rape.

Since you clearly have not noticed, I am not talking about laws, legal definitions, or customs.

I am making an ethical point, and unless ethics has suddenly become an exclusively American field, we should be able to discuss it across borders, yes?
There is no such thing as universal ethics so no. All of your ethical standards are shaped by the culture you live in. Thanks for playing.

But if she wants to stay with a man who has a higher sex drive than herself then she may have to take one for the team even if she doesn't feel like it.

Why is she "taking one for the team" and not the man?

I think it should be obvious that it is his moral responsibility to restrain himself, if he wants to be in a relationship with a woman with a lower sex drive than he. This makes so much more sense than the notion that a woman should be expected to let a man use her body for sex.

Which is more objectionable? That a man keep a lid on it, or that a woman prostitute herself to him?

Seriously.

Oh My God!!

you can only name 9 countries other than "United States"?
And Oh My God!! You've got nothing but bullshit left to throw at me. You lose.

<sigh>

What part of willing versus unwilling do you not understand?

The part where coercion is involved

A woman who willingly has sex with her man even if she's not really in the mood but she wants to please him is not being coerced or forced to do anything she doesn't want to.

A woman who is unwillingly submitting to sex because a man has threatened her if she doesn't is being forced to do something she doesn't want to.

Didn't someone say earlier that any form of coercion is = rape. Therefore if I tell my gf if you don't perform then I will go elsewhere then that would by earlier examples seem to equate rape on the part of the bf.

When that something is sex, then the crime is rape. If you claim you don't get this now, then you are just trying to justify rape.
Justify or define. I don't like any statement that makes all women victims and all men perpetrators.

would you have sex with someone who wouldn't take you out to dinner or spend any money on you.
Umm... maybe. But if you are suggesting that this person is not interested in "giving" much of anything, then I doubt I'd be in a relationship with her at all...
if not then you are certainly half way to being a prostitute.
Just for the record... are you under some bizarre misperception that I am a woman?

And Oh My God!! You've got nothing but bullshit left to throw at me. You lose.

Whatever Missed Geography 2006

Just for the record... are you under some bizarre misperception that I am a woman?

Cannot men be prostitutes as well...how narrow minded of you

There is no such thing as universal ethics so no. All of your ethical standards are shaped by the culture you live in. Thanks for playing.

Then what's the point of this conversation at all? What's the point of discussing politics/ethics on Nationstates?

I suspect that you, like most moral "relativists", only pull this one out of your hat when it suits you.

Why is she "taking one for the team" and not the man?

I think it should be obvious that it is his moral responsibility to restrain himself, if he wants to be in a relationship with a woman with a lower sex drive than he. This makes so much more sense than the notion that a woman should be expected to let a man use her body for sex.

Which is more objectionable? That a man keep a lid on it, or that a woman prostitute herself to him?

Seriously.

I think bolth are of equal value. Bolth show a sacrifice of sexual action for the desire to be with each other. Surely there is a middle ground.

Cannot men be prostitutes as well...how narrow minded of you

Yes... just something about your wording, and your attitude, that suggested you thought I was in the "men are rapists" crowd because you believed I was a woman.

Then what's the point of this conversation at all? What's the point of discussing politics/ethics on Nationstates?

I suspect that you, like most moral "relativists", only pull this one out of your hat when it suits you.
Actually I argued in front of my Ethics class this point. Let's just my list of friends didn't grow in that class. People who don't understand what morals are tend to feel that there are moral "relativists" I prefer to call those people idiots...feel free to try it on, I think it suits you.

Since you clearly have not noticed, I am not talking about laws, legal definitions, or customs.

I am making an ethical point, and unless ethics has suddenly become an exclusively American field, we should be able to discuss it across borders, yes?its unethical to Break with your Girlfriend is she does not wanna have sex with you..

But it is NOT Rape.. It is not a crime. (the minute you talk about Crime.. you are in the Legal "arena".. and thats where you kick air.)

If you want.. You can post all nite about "ethical" nonsense.
But that concept is too silly..anything can be ethical rape.. breastfeeding can be ethical rape.

Yes... just something about your wording, and your attitude, that suggested you thought I was in the "men are rapists" crowd because you believed I was a woman.

Actually honestly I did, but it was more fun to see if I could salvage my image as a honest debator, which I am not as I seldom play fair. After all debate is merely means by which ones world grows. I figured you were a PA fan who liked one of their characters. Since you are taking a very unarchist view towards this.

hahahaha

Thanks for the laugh. It isn't right to physically force anyone into sex, sexual orientation aside. It just seemed there was alot of bull dyke feminazi tag teaming going on so I was just curious how many would stand up as one. You will be interested to know that I had a chance to sleep with an inebriated hot lesbian. I had to turn her down. My personal morals won't allow my taking advantage of someone who doesn't possess their full facilities. Which is why for the most part I, unlike Straughn, don't engage in debates merely smart ass remarks. It isn't my job to educate the moronic. That is what school is for, I don't get paid so I am not going to teach you. I just like tweaking your nipples, in a manner of speaking, every now and then.
Oh I see, you just assume that anyone who blows the whistle on guys trying to justify rape as if they have a right to do it is a man-and-sex-hating "feminazi." This despite the fact that AnarchyeL is a man and I am a heterosexual woman? For all you know, he and I could be banging each other right now while we get off on beating your sniveling ass into the ground.

For instance, you are so beaten, you're reduced to trying to change the venue of the argument -- this other countries angle is bullshit and both you and OceanDrive know it. And now you have nothing left at all but insults against my sexuality, my intelligence, and my education -- none of which you actually know anything about. You have no jargon left but insults like "bull dyke" (not just any kind of dyke), "feminazi", and "moronic" and borderline sexually harassing jokelets like "tweaking your nipples." And yet you claim not to be a smart ass. Well, you're half right. And 100% defeated.

its unethical to Break with your Girlfriend is she does not wanna have sex with you..

But it is not Rape.. It is not a crime. (the minute you talk about Crime.. you are in the Legal "arena".. and thats where you kick air.)

If you want.. You can post all nite about "ethical" nonsesnse.
But that concept is too silly..anything can be ethical rape.. breastfeeding can be ethical rape.

Wow I didn't even grasp that part of the arguement...after all I wanted an arguement.

I think bolth are of equal value. Bolth show a sacrifice of sexual action for the desire to be with each other. Surely there is a middle ground.

There is.

When a woman voluntarily tries to "get in the mood" or even has sex when she's not really in the mood, because she knows it will make her partner happy and she enjoys his happiness for its own sake... then she is a willing partner and there is no coercion.

Naturally, her horny partner should also try to restrain himself because he knows its not fair to her to be advancing on her all the time, when he knows she is rarely as into it as he. He should prefer to let her make the first moves.

Only when one partner starts making threats and ultimatums does it become coercive.

And yes, "fuck me or I'll leave" counts as a coercive ultimatum. In the context of a human relationship, she is probably invested in any number of ways, both material and emotional.

It is NOT coercive, however, to say, "Look, I'm not satisfied with our sex life... I can't make you want to have sex with me, but I wish you would... If there is any way to improve our sex life, I want to try it. But, I have to tell you, if we can't figure it out... well, this is not the kind of relationship I want to be in."

It is not coercive for a variety of reasons. For one thing, you are making it clear to her that what you want is for her to WANT to have sex with you... You do not want her to do it because she feels she "has to," and you don't even want her to consider that possibility. Secondly, you are not demanding that SHE "just do it"... You are naming a problem, and suggesting that you would like to work on a solution TOGETHER. Finally, you are giving her the option of TIME... If she does not want to become more sexual with you, she has time to work out her options and to reconcile herself with the end of the relationship.

Relationships take work. For both partners. Making demands and expecting them to be fulfilled is not "work" on your part... It is an expectation based on sexist assumptions about male power and the objectification of women as sex-objects.

its unethical to Break with your Girlfriend is she does not wanna have sex with you..

But it is not Rape.. It is not a crime. (the minute you talk about Crime.. you are in the Legal "arena".. and thats where you kick air.)

For the last time, I have already said I'm not talking about legally enforceable crimes!

If you want.. You can post all nite about "ethical" nonsense.
But that concept is too silly..anything can be ethical rape.. breastfeeding can be ethical rape.

Yes, I could argue that breastfeeding is "ethical rape"... but I doubt I could come up with a very good argument.

The point of a debate is to discuss the quality of the argument at hand, not to point out how easily I could be defeated if I happened to be making some other argument...

Oh I see, you just assume that anyone who blows the whistle on guys trying to justify rape as if they have a right to do it is a man-and-sex-hating "feminazi." This despite the fact that AnarchyeL is a man and I am a heterosexual woman? For all you know, he and I could be banging each other right now while we get off on beating your sniveling ass into the ground.

For instance, you are so beaten, you're reduced to trying to change the venue of the argument -- this other countries angle is bullshit and both you and OceanDrive know it. And now you have nothing left at all but insults against my sexuality, my intelligence, and my education -- none of which you actually know anything about. You have no jargon left but insults like "bull dyke" (not just any kind of dyke), "feminazi", and "moronic" and borderline sexually harassing jokelets like "tweaking your nipples." And yet you claim not to be a smart ass. Well, you're half right. And 100% defeated.

Wow are you even shooting at the right target. I actually pointed out that Straughn is the one that engages in actual debates and that I, Verdigroth, am the smartass...thanks for playing have a nice life.

Anyway are we discussing rape as a ethical dilemma or as a legal question? Ethics are not universal, and as Oceandrive continues to point out neither are laws.

As for 100% defeated. Well that would require me to admit defeat. Look at the US presidency. It swears that Iraq has been beaten...but someone over there is still fighting.

I just thought there might be a high probability of you being a bull dyke as you don't seem to have anything good to say about the male species except for unarchy which is most likely kept in a kennel you have him so well trained.

Actually honestly I did, but it was more fun to see if I could salvage my image as a honest debator, which I am not as I seldom play fair. After all debate is merely means by which ones world grows. I figured you were a PA fan who liked one of their characters. Since you are taking a very unarchist view towards this.

What is PA, and what is "unarchist"?

And yes, "fuck me or I'll leave" counts as a coercive ultimatum. In the context of a human relationship, she is probably invested in any number of ways, both material and emotional.

It is NOT coercive, however, to say, "Look, I'm not satisfied with our sex life... I can't make you want to have sex with me, but I wish you would... If there is any way to improve our sex life, I want to try it. But, I have to tell you, if we can't figure it out... well, this is not the kind of relationship I want to be in."



Wow does anyone have hip waders cause this is getting really deep...hell I will settle for a match.

Great you went from taking responsibility for your desires to being passive agressive. They are equally coercive as they bolth imply the same thing either I get sex or I walk. Rephrasing to make you sound more caring doesn't make the message change.

This despite the fact that AnarchyeL is a man and I am a heterosexual woman? For all you know, he and I could be banging each other right now while we get off on beating your sniveling ass into the ground.

Haha!! Now that gave me a genuine laugh!! :D

Now, if only I could figure out how to screw and type at the same time....

For the last time, I have already said I'm not talking about legally enforceable crimes!..We are talking about Rape.. All over the world.. Rape is a Crime. (a legally enforceable crime)

What I am showing you is that (most of) the rest of the world does NOT agree with you (with your extreme definitions of Rape)

What is PA, and what is "unarchist"?

P enny A rcade

well if someone who espouses freedom is anarchist what does that make someone who doesn't;)

Rephrasing to make you sound more caring doesn't make the message change.

You're right, it doesn't.

You actually have to care.

I just thought there might be a high probability of you being a bull dyke as you don't seem to have anything good to say about the male species except for unarchy which is most likely kept in a kennel you have him so well trained.

Out of curiosity, could you actually give an example of her saying anything negative - or, for that matter, anything at all - about the male "species"? It seems like her negative comments have been directed at those who attempt to justify rape, not at men in general.

What I am showing you is that (most of) the rest of the world does NOT agree with you (with your extreme definitions of Rape)

Did I ever say they did?

well if someone who espouses freedom is anarchist what does that make someone who doesn't;)

Umm... certainly not "unarchist," which, if we were to read this non-word according to the meaning of its several parts, would seemingly mean pretty much the same thing as "anarchist."

But to return to the point, how is anything I've said antithetical to anarchism, or repugnant to the concept of freedom? I seem to be aiming for precisely the contrary, namely the liberation of women from male oppression.

I'll take your bullshit (above) as an admission that you are wrong. You lose... And 100% defeated.LOL.. so desperate to claim victory.. yet she does not have a clue how deep she is in her hole.

Out of curiosity, could you actually give an example of her saying anything negative - or, for that matter, anything at all - about the male "species"? It seems like her negative comments have been directed at those who attempt to justify rape, not at men in general.
Honestly I am not sure it was her. I just remember that someone mentioned that most males were essentially rapists. But because I am lazy I am not going to sift through all the pages to find it.

LOL.. so desperate to claim victory.. yet she does not have a clue how deep she is in her hole.
hmm is that a sexual reference about her and unarchy?

Umm... certainly not "unarchist," which, if we were to read this non-word according to the meaning of its several parts, would seemingly mean pretty much the same thing as "anarchist."

But to return to the point, how is anything I've said antithetical to anarchism, or repugnant to the concept of freedom? I seem to be aiming for precisely the contrary, namely the liberation of women from male oppression.

replacing female opression with individual oppression so that no one is made to have to make either or choices. Hmm..thanks for everything.

Did I ever say they did?You remind me of a very-very good debater.. TheCatTribe.

take that as a compliment. ;)

The part where coercion is involved

Didn't someone say earlier that any form of coercion is = rape. Therefore if I tell my gf if you don't perform then I will go elsewhere then that would by earlier examples seem to equate rape on the part of the bf.

Justify or define. I don't like any statement that makes all women victims and all men perpetrators.
Okay, so you are just trying to justify rape. I base this conclusion on the following:

(a) I have already defined coercion three times so if you claim not to understand it then you are either stupid or in denial. You pick.

(b) I have already made it clear in my definitions that the simple stating of a sexual ultimatum is not coercion unless the woman believes she has no choice but to give in to your demands. You can demand any ultimatum you like. If I were your girlfriend, you could say to me, "Have sex with me right now or I'll never speak to you again," and I could easily just laugh and be free of ever having to hear your voice again. It means nothing unless you've set it up that I can't refuse. This is such an obvious point that your refusal to see it can only be taken as you thinking you do have a right to force a woman into sex, despite your claims otherwise.

(c) Neither I nor AnarchyeL has said that all men are perpetrators. That is your way of trying to twist our statements. We have been clear that men who force women to have sex against their will are rapists. By saying that accuses all men and complaining that it's unfair, you are saying that all men force women into sex and some of them should be allowed to. This is so untrue, that I wonder why you insist on it. Are you trying to justify your own behavior, by any chance? It sure looks like it.

hmm is that a sexual reference about her and unarchy?nah..

she was wrong several times.. I am not even interested in showing her "knowledge/logic flaws"

replacing female opression with individual oppression so that no one is made to have to make either or choices. Hmm..thanks for everything.

What a beautiful little straw man.

Oh! How easily he falls down!

I hope that was fun for you, because only an idiot would believe it advanced your argument.

You remind me of a very-very good debater.. TheCatTribe.

take that as a compliment. ;)

I certainly do!! Cat-Tribe is one of the few NSers who have truly earned my respect.

:)

I certainly do!! Cat-Tribe is one of the few NSers who have truly earned my respect.

:)good.

Gotta go.. see you all tomorrow.

I must also sleep now... I have to teach in about six hours.

I hope to pick up on this tomorrow.

What a beautiful little straw man.

Oh! How easily he falls down!

I hope that was fun for you, because only an idiot would believe it advanced your argument.

who is trying to advance an arguement. I am just trying to make you show your ass. I don't give a crap about rape. It is, how shall I say this, a stupid arguement. I have stated that the only form or rape I am willing to acknowledge is that in which physical force is used. Coercion is not rape. You have a choice neither of which is pretty. If you give in then you have failed as a human whether male or female. At least in America there are laws that deal with sexual coercion. I believe Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas is familiar with them. My sole purpose has been to have fun at your expense.

I coerced a woman into having sex with me by pretending I was really rich. Was that rape?

I coerced a woman into having sex with me by pretending I was really rich. Was that rape?

actually it was rape through fraud. I think it is on the books in a few states...honestly in my own opinion though...no. If a women will give it out for money...well she gets what she got.

Wow are you even shooting at the right target. I actually pointed out that Straughn is the one that engages in actual debates and that I, Verdigroth, am the smartass...thanks for playing have a nice life.

Anyway are we discussing rape as a ethical dilemma or as a legal question? Ethics are not universal, and as Oceandrive continues to point out neither are laws.

As for 100% defeated. Well that would require me to admit defeat. Look at the US presidency. It swears that Iraq has been beaten...but someone over there is still fighting.

I just thought there might be a high probability of you being a bull dyke as you don't seem to have anything good to say about the male species except for unarchy which is most likely kept in a kennel you have him so well trained.
Squirm all you like; you got yourself into this trap.

Rape is a crime everywhere you go. The laws that define it and determine punishment vary. In fact, in some countries rape is used as a punishment, but only certain people are authorized to do it and if unauthorized people do it, they get punished too because it's a crime. In every country it is recognized that if you force someone to have sex against their will, you are raping them. That is universal. And OceanDrive's sporadic naming of random countries is not going to prove otherwise.

And no, you're not a smart ass, as evidenced by the fact that you don't know you're beaten. You've got no ammo left. You're even repeating the same insult words. And you're repeating the lie that either I or AnarchyeL ever denounced all men (like I implied before, just because I have nothing good to say about you doesn't mean I don't like men). And now you're even insulting people other than me in posts directed at me (AnarchyeL is a dog on a leash because he doesn't like rapists?). You're just shooting wild and hitting nothing. Pathetic.

LOL.. so desperate to claim victory.. yet she does not have a clue how deep she is in her hole.
Point out where I'm wrong, not just where I call you for being wrong. You know what though -- I'd rather you wait on that because I'm going to come up with an answer to this assertion of yours that other countries don't punish rape as a crime. It's 4AM where I am now, so I'm going to go to sleep soon, and tomorrow, I will search for some actual data to prove you wrong. It will be a big post. Look for it here within the next 24 hours or less. And then I will have fun watching eat your words.

I think of a few countries in Africa where rape is sanctioned by the government. So I would imagine that it wasn't illegal there wouldn't you. Of course those same countries are being investigated by the UN for human rights abuses...but the USA is a little too busy right now to save a bunch of poor people in a country with no oil. Wow good thing we have a compassionate christian president now, imagine if he was a hard assed democrat.

Squirm all you like; you got yourself into this trap.

Rape is a crime everywhere you go. The laws that define it and determine punishment vary. In fact, in some countries rape is used as a punishment, but only certain people are authorized to do it and if unauthorized people do it, they get punished too because it's a crime.

But certain people can legally rape? Well in that case I guess rape isn't universally illegal is it? Nice trap...I like the curtains

Honestly I am not sure it was her. I just remember that someone mentioned that most males were essentially rapists. But because I am lazy I am not going to sift through all the pages to find it.
Great, so now you admit you're blaming me for something I never did. Do you use the same amount of effort in making sure the woman you're with actually wants to have sex with you, or do you just jump on and work it out in the morning?

Great, so now you admit you're blaming me for something I never did. Do you use the same amount of effort in making sure the woman you're with actually wants to have sex with you, or do you just jump on and work it out in the morning?

I am coercive. I plainly state up front, "this is my sex drive, you can satisfy it or bugger off!" After all life is made of choices. She can then choose to be "with" me or get the hell out of my flat can't she?

But certain people can legally rape? Well in that case I guess rape isn't universally illegal is it? Nice trap...I like the curtains
Wrong -- it's still illegal and often punishable by death if the man doing it has not been specifically authorized by the court and if the woman has not already been convicted of a crime for which that is the specific punishment. So even in those countries you would not have the right to coerce a woman into having sex with you.

Wrong -- it's still illegal and often punishable by death if the man doing it has not been specifically authorized by the court and if the woman has not already been convicted of a crime for which that is the specific punishment. So even in those countries you would not have the right to coerce a woman into having sex with you.
Well apparently someone in the nation is legally sanctioned to. So rape is not universally illegal. Which means in some cases rape must be ethical. At least for that culture. Very well I agree.

I think of a few countries in Africa where rape is sanctioned by the government. So I would imagine that it wasn't illegal there wouldn't you. Of course those same countries are being investigated by the UN for human rights abuses...but the USA is a little too busy right now to save a bunch of poor people in a country with no oil. Wow good thing we have a compassionate christian president now, imagine if he was a hard assed democrat.
Heh. Anticipating what I'll find in my research tomorrow? Just for you, I'll look up whether those African countries had laws against rape before they were taken over by dictators or juntas that are being investigated for human rights abuses now.

Oh, and such a cute effort to change the subject.

Heh. Anticipating what I'll find in my research tomorrow? Just for you, I'll look up whether those African countries had laws against rape before they were taken over by dictators or juntas that are being investigated for human rights abuses now.

Oh, and such a cute effort to change the subject.

What they had no longer matters. New regime new rules. Same the world round.

I like to think I am cute. My wife says so....when she isn't choking on a ball gag or tied in my basement.

I don't give a crap about rape.

How charming of you.

I have stated that the only form or rape I am willing to acknowledge is that in which physical force is used. Coercion is not rape. You have a choice neither of which is pretty. If you give in then you have failed as a human whether male or female.

That is one of the most absolutely disgusting things I have ever read. I'm hoping you're just trying to provoke a reaction and you don't actually believe that rape victims have "failed as humans" if they didn't actually have guns held to their heads. If you do believe that crap...well, then, I'm kind of scared for humanity.

My wife says so....when she isn't choking on a ball gag or tied in my basement.
Is this the right time for me to defend someone's honour? :eek:

I am coercive. I plainly state up front, "this is my sex drive, you can satisfy it or bugger off!" After all life is made of choices. She can then choose to be "with" me or get the hell out of my flat can't she?
Since you can't be bothered to keep track of the thread, I'll explain what you and I are fighting about. It's your misuse of the word "coercion."

What you claim to do in your relationships -- what you describe above -- is not -- repeat, not -- coercion. It's bastardliness, but it's not coercion. This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you, so pay attention. Your poor, suffering girlfriends do have the ability to just walk out on you. You cannot coerce them into giving you sex because you can't hurt them in any way if they refuse.

It's only when there is a threat attached to the demand for sex that the woman believes she can't escape so that she has no choice but to give in that it becomes coercion. This is simple. Anyone can understand this. I do not believe you don't understand it.

Yet you keep saying, "Well, I coerce women, but I don't force them, so therefore, coercion isn't force and there's no such thing as non-violent rape." Only, if you're telling the truth, then you don't coerce women. You demand and possibly harass them, but you don't coerce them. If you did, you would be forcing them and then so much for your assertion that you don't believe in forcing women to have sex.

So which is it? You either force your girlfriends or you don't. You either think guys have a right to force sex or you don't. You don't get to hide rape by claiming that coercion and force aren't the same thing.

What they had no longer matters. New regime new rules. Same the world round.

I like to think I am cute. My wife says so....when she isn't choking on a ball gag or tied in my basement.
Uh, not if the current regime is illegal.

Well apparently someone in the nation is legally sanctioned to. So rape is not universally illegal. Which means in some cases rape must be ethical. At least for that culture. Very well I agree.
You're splitting your hairs so fine, you'll be bald soon. Wait until tomorrow for the Whole Earth Catalogue of Rape Laws.

How charming of you.



That is one of the most absolutely disgusting things I have ever read. I'm hoping you're just trying to provoke a reaction and you don't actually believe that rape victims have "failed as humans" if they didn't actually have guns held to their heads. If you do believe that crap...well, then, I'm kind of scared for humanity.
I leave him in your capable hands. Have fun til tomorrow.

But certain people can legally rape? Well in that case I guess rape isn't universally illegal is it?

I don't know anything about this rape as punishment stuff... but assuming it's true, that would only put it on the same legal status as capital punishment. Surely the death penalty does not imply that "murder isn't universally illegal," does it?

I don't know anything about this rape as punishment stuff... Rape as punishement is Wrong.
JMO.

Rape is not preventable. There is no telling it will happen when it happens, especially violent rapes. It's not like we can wire a security systems in our vaginas that alert the police everytime a penis enters.

Rape can happen to anyone of any sex, but sadly, mostly to women. Even the most cautious who do all in their power to prevent it are raped. There is no telling to who, when, or where the crime will happen.

And dressing provocatively does not matter in this case, because women who are dressed conservatively still are raped.

Sadly, this is wrong. While I wouldn't claim that all rapes are avoidable, the fact is, drink fueled sex (consentual or otherwise) is rampant throughout Britain, and if women genuinely wanted to minimalise the risk of rape, they would not drink to get drunk - for that matter, men who don't want to be accused of rape would equally wish to minimalise this risk by not getting drunk.

Firstly, the vast majority of reported rapes happen between people who know each other, often people who are or have been involved sexually behaviour or people some may beleive intend on having sex.

Secondly rape, in this day and age is more a power crime than a crime of lust, disempowering men even more for the sake of women's votes risks a rise in the number of rapes that happen.

The great problem with rape is not proving that sex has happened, but proving that consent has been given or recinded. The major problem with the aims of the reforms of rape laws set forward in Britain at the moment is not that they might send some inocent men to jail on the accusations of some embittered women, which happens (rarely) now with the presant set of laws, but that they may set a precident and dislodge the primacy of Habius Corpus (which requires the proof of a crime) and the assumption of inocence because they demand that the accused to prove he recieved consent. How long would it take a government, desperate to stay in power to accuse its detractors of unsubstanciated crimes if they knew it was the accused job to prove him/herself inocent.

The sum total of my arguement is this, rape happens, the presant system while not very good at prosicuting rape in particular, exist primaraly to prevent dictatorship and should not be sacrificed on the alter of appealing to women voters. The money wasted on trying to change the law would be better used on counciling programmes and education of young disempowered men, on sports facilities and rewarding military careers.

3) Or let's say that moving back in with her mother isn't a real option for some reason -- it's a bad environment or mom lives in another part of the country, for instance. Now Johnny is threatening his girlfriend with homelessness, ..forgot to mention the name of Country: how'bout... Japan.

So far we have tried Italy, Spain, Japan...
But still.. you do not get it.. do you? (yes.. Rape is a crime in all those Contries.. No thats not what we are talking about)

Since they dont make clasifications of , its a little difficult to get statistics, but since my Dad actually works for the CPS I think he knows what he's talking about.
Unfortunately, a lot of guys like your dad work in law enforcement. And they don't know what they're talking about. One judge said that a woman was lying about being d in a standing position because it's impossible to have in that position. I can personally attest to that not being so.
There is still a lot of prejudice and misinformation out there, even among law enforcement.

All right, I'm tired and I want sleep, but I'm just going to say this: walk around any major British city on a Friday or Saturday night, and you're guaranteed to see inebriated women staggering around with half their bodies on show for every (equally inebriated) man passing by's benefit. Now think: if you combine men (who, and I speak as a man myself, are basically here to fight, feed and f*ck, if you'll excuse the crude alliteration) with alcohol and then place a lot of attractive women (or come to think of it any woman once the beer goggles come on) in front of them, it's hardly likely to lead to anything good. Both men and women know this, but it is especially the fault of the woman. Why? She knows full well that most men will be aroused upon seeing her - after all, I can't think of any other reason for wearing a skirt three inches long in November - and she also knows that alcohol will swiftly remove what little inhibitions your average Joe Moron has. Yet still she continues not only to do her damnedest to "pull" any guy she can (and for all you people who whine about how it's not true, I challenge you to open your eyes next time you're in a nightclub) but does so while being so damn drunk that she barely knows what's going on. Under these circumstances, therefore, which can be summarised as:

1) Alcohol-induced loss of control and inhibition;
2) Human nature in the man;
3) Behaviour intended to attract and arouse men on behalf of the woman,

it is hardly surprising that women get raped when drunk, and for that matter hardly surprising that many people consider that they've brought it on themselves, an opinion I entirely share. If you're drunk, and you're begging for it, then don't expect drunkards who're also begging for it to restrain themselves.

That said, the removal of alcohol from either side of the equation changes things rather markedly. A sober woman being raped by a drunken man is, if you'll excuse me, screwed, unless she fights back very well; a sober man taking advantage of a drunken woman is utterly beneath contempt. The latter especially is a worrisome trend; I have always been taught that one should never take advantage of anyone, especially a girl/woman, who's drunk - it's simply not honourable, and I wouldn't dream of doing it, even when I'm pretty bladdered myself. However, the fact that plenty of men evidently are happy to do so is a concern that needs addressing, and in my opinion is primarily a fault of a poor upbringing stemming from the "I WANT THIS AND I WANT IT NOW!!!" attitude that's infesting our country. As for women being raped by drunken men, in those cases I support the woma to some degree; but it must always be borne in mind that if a woman is wearing revealing clothing and in the presence of drunken men, she must know that she is at risk. While I do not think that this makes these men's lack of any self-control any more excusable - I fully support compulsory castration in such cases - women must bear in mind that tempting any man without meaning it is perhaps unwise, and a drunken one especially so. Sadly, I can think of no other suggestion other than that, perhaps, women ought not to dress like harlots (which I think is not unfair when one sees how they dress around Manchester a fair bit of the time) if they don't want to get treated like them.

I don't feel like wading through 61 pages of people calling men uncontrollable and women the constant victims, but I quote this because it is the point I have tried to make in the past, but couldn't say it quite this well. Like DPUO said, if you're not a whore, don't dress like one. And if you don't want to get treated like one, don't act like one.

We've already looked at why this study was flawed. It basicly made several leaps in logic. Firstly it asked not "Do you think women are to blame for rape" but "Is rape more likly when..." and gave a list of scenerios. Some of these scenerios were within the womans control to change thus AI made the leap that it was the British public blaming the women.

Rape as punishement is Wrong.
JMO.

Agreed, I was just replying arguendo.

That is one of the most absolutely disgusting things I have ever read. I'm hoping you're just trying to provoke a reaction and you don't actually believe that rape victims have "failed as humans" if they didn't actually have guns held to their heads. If you do believe that crap...well, then, I'm kind of scared for humanity.
Actually physical violence as a form of coercion I would still classify as rape. But not the "sleep with me or get out" type

Uh, not if the current regime is illegal.
There is no such thing as an illegal regime. Legality is determined by force. Hence if you can do it and no one can stop you it is now legal where you are.

Rape as punishement is Wrong.
JMO.
I concur

So, you think there are countries whose laws say it's legal and/or ethical to rape women? Read on:

This is PART 1 of my response to the international legal argument presented by Oceandrive and Verdigroth, as I promised them last night. First, I will lay out their argument and then I will present the information from my research.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
They both attempted to claim that there are countries in which rape is either legal or considered ethical, and that, therefore, there are legitimate arguments in favor of an ethic that assumes men can have a right to coerce sex from women. That is a very specific claim, which they failed to back up with any facts.

This argument was started by Oceandrive to save his Johnny-pressures-his-girlfriend-for-sex scenario.

OCEANDRIVE2 POST 791
Lets say: Johnny tells his girlfriend he will kick her out of HIS condo.. Unless she gives him sex pronto... She does not want to go back live with her mom's so she gives his the sex.

Is Johnny coercing her?

After I indicated that in US law, varying from state to state, there were several sex offense laws and civil torts under which Johnny could be in trouble, Oceandrive then claimed that he was talking about Italian law rather than US law, a distinction he never made in his original scenario.

OCEANDRIVE2 POST 817
Originally Posted by Muravyets
1) Depending on the location where this happens, she could probably get him charged with attempted rape, even if she did choose to leave rather than give in.

Torino.
OCEANDRIVE2 POST 824
Originally Posted by Muravyets
I was talking about US states
i was not.
Its MY scenario... remember?
Considering that so many others in the thread are American and British and were talking about US and British law, one would expect, if Oceandrive wanted bring Italy into the mix, he would have said so and included some reference to Italian law to illustrate his point. He did not. Instead, upon my pointing out that rape is illegal in Italy, he started switching countries.

OCEANDRIVE POST 829

You dont like Italy?
Lets try Barcelona.
OCEANDRIVE POST 900

forgot to mention the name of Country: how'bout... Japan.
Verdigroth joined this argument with

VERDIGROTH POST 883
I think of a few countries in Africa where rape is sanctioned by the government. So I would imagine that it wasn't illegal there wouldn't you. Of course those same countries are being investigated by the UN for human rights abuses...<snip>
and references to punishment-rape rules as proof that rape is considered ethical by some countries.

VERDIGROTH POST 884
Originally Posted by Muravyets
Rape is a crime everywhere you go. The laws that define it and determine punishment vary. In fact, in some countries rape is used as a punishment, but only certain people are authorized to do it and if unauthorized people do it, they get punished too because it's a crime.

But certain people can legally rape? Well in that case I guess rape isn't universally illegal is it?
VERDIGROTH POST 888
Well apparently someone in the nation is legally sanctioned to. So rape is not universally illegal. Which means in some cases rape must be ethical. At least for that culture. Very well I agree.

Though, as AnarchyeL beautifully pointed out:

ANARCHYEL POST 897
I don't know anything about this rape as punishment stuff... but assuming it's true, that would only put it on the same legal status as capital punishment. Surely the death penalty does not imply that "murder isn't universally illegal," does it?


MY RESPONSE:
Verdigroth and Oceandrive’s argument falls apart because they both failed to name a single country in which rape is considered okay.

My research found no country that has no laws against rape, including the countries named by OceanDrive, countries with bad human rights records, and countries that have issues with punishment-rapes, where, by the way, there are widespread, current, public debates about banning such traditional cultural punishments (such as is happening in Pakistan). If there’s a widespread debate, then there is obviously not widespread acceptance. Here is a link to Women’s Human Rights Net which provides text and info about the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):

http://www.whrnet.org/treaty_bodies.html

The signatory nations to CEDAW include all of the nations OceanDrive tried to claim do not punish rape -- Italy, Spain and Japan -- as well as most Middle Eastern and African countries. All signatory nations already have laws against rape and sexual violence against women, including physical and psychological abuse, and submit regular reports to the UN on their progress in carrying out the provisions of the Convention to expand protection of women from sexual abuses both violent and non-violent. The link below lets you view the entire list and connect to their reports (PDF warning).

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports.htm#i

Of the eight (8) non-signatory countries, I was able to confirm that Brunei, Iran, and the United States all do have quite severe laws against rape. I was unable to confirm such laws for Qatar, Narau, Palau and Tonga, but I’d be willing to bet they’ve got them, if you’d like to check them out. As for Somalia and Sudan, both of those countries are currently and/or were recently torn by civil war with the accompanying breakdown of civil legal systems. As Verdigroth himself pointed out, those governments are now being or recently have been accused of war crimes and atrocities, which are crimes under international law. If order is ever restored in those countries, there will probably be trials and convictions for those crimes including any supposedly state-sanctioned rapes, just as are being sought in Bosnia, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, all of which are recent CEDAW signatories. Just because a criminal hasn’t been convicted yet, that doesn’t mean a crime was not committed.

By the way, Verdigroth insisted that only the rules of current regimes matter, so, before he tries to claim that the lack of law in, say, Sudan means that you can’t say rape is illegal there, I will point out that rape committed as part of war or terrorism is a war crime and a crime against humanity under international law including the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, state-sanctioned rapes are illegal, even if the state doesn't feel like prosecuting them. After all, we don't let criminals decide if they are breaking the law or not, do we? See the following links for detailed overviews of international law in this regard:

http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art2-02.html
Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women in International Law
Section III: International Legal Responses -- Rape as war crime, international crime; International law enforcement

http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm
UN Report: Women and Violence
The article includes information on commitments by governments against violence and abuse of women and definitions of Gender-Based Violence including the following:

- Physical, sexual and psychological violence that occurs in the family, including battering; sexual abuse of female children in the household; dowry-related violence; marital rape; female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women; non-spousal violence; and violence related to exploitation;

- Physical, sexual and psychological violence that occurs within the general community, including rape; sexual abuse; sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere; trafficking in women; and forced prostitution;

- Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.

Further, former perpetrator nations like Congo, Rwanda, and Bosnia do not claim that rape has ever been okay in their countries. Instead, their leaders tried to deny they knew anything about rapes committed during their respective wars. Why? Because they know it is a crime. As they are specifically denying a crime, Verdigroth cannot claim that they think it was not a crime.

QUOTE VERDIGROTH POST 857
Ethics are not universal, and as Oceandrive continues to point out neither are laws.
I think it is clear that, no matter how many times either Oceandrive or Verdigroth points it out, this claim remains nonsense. Neither of them has shown us a single country whose laws condone a man forcing and/or coercing sex from a woman. No country will provide laws for them to hide behind in their attempts to justify rape.


Next (tomorrow), PART 2, in which I analyze the internal inconsistencies in their arguments including their inability to decide whether they are arguing ethics or law.

In fact, in some countries rape is used as a punishment, but only certain people are authorized to do it
If you post something I am inclined to believe you. If rape is a punishment then it must not be universally wrong huh? As far as murder and the death penalty...who says murder is wrong?

[QUOTE=Originally Posted by Muravyets]
[B] In fact, in some countries rape is used as a punishment, but only certain people are authorized to do it [/B /QUOTE]
If you post something I am inclined to believe you. If rape is a punishment then it must not be universally wrong huh? As far as murder and the death penalty...who says murder is wrong?
HAHAHAHAHA! Out of all that post, this is all you could come up with? You have not one single serious point to make. Like Golem in LOTR, you have been transformed from a real, thinking being to an obsessed troll who is actually going to argue in favor of violent rape (as you did in your previous posts by claiming countries like Congo and Sudan as examples of your way of thinking), and now in favor of murder, and next, what? In favor of war, famine, pestilence, and death? And all just so you can claim some kind of privilege to coerce sex from women without being branded a bad person (too late). Justifying such huge crimes for the whole world, just so you can hold onto to your own little personal satisfactions. HA!

Well, wait for PART 2. Maybe that will give you more to work with.

EDIT: PS: By "believe" my posts, I suppose you mean latch onto any phrase that you think you can use to support your argument while ignoring all else, since in the post you snipped, I made clear the difference between that and criminal rape, and since in the big post, I made it clear that the countries who have this tradition are looking at abandoning it because an increasing number of people are saying publicly that these punishment-rapes are crimes against humanity. Your safe havens get smaller by the minute.

[QUOTE=Verdigroth]
HAHAHAHAHA! Out of all that post, this is all you could come up with? You have not one single serious point to make. Like Golem in LOTR, you have been transformed from a real, thinking being to an obsessed troll who is actually going to argue in favor of violent rape (as you did in your previous posts by claiming countries like Congo and Sudan as examples of your way of thinking), and now in favor of murder, and next, what? In favor of war, famine, pestilence, and death? And all just so you can claim some kind of privilege to coerce sex from women without being branded a bad person (too late). Justifying such huge crimes for the whole world, just so you can hold onto to your own little personal satisfactions. HA!

Well, wait for PART 2. Maybe that will give you more to work with.

EDIT: PS: By "believe" my posts, I suppose you mean latch onto any phrase that you think you can use to support your argument while ignoring all else, since in the post you snipped, I made it clear the difference between that and criminal rape; AND since AnarchyeL pointed out the parallel with the death penalty (which I guess you are now trying to deny); AND since in the big post, I made it clear that the countries who have this tradition are looking at abandoning it because an increasing number of people are saying publicly that these punishment-rapes are crimes against humanity. Your safe havens get smaller by the minute.

I have never raped anyone so feel free to eliminate all of them, nor do I intend to. Once again I am not Straughn I don't post links I just point out your own failings.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]

I have never raped anyone so feel free to eliminate all of them, nor do I intend to. Once again I am not Straughn I don't post links I just point out your own failings.
So you say and very likely so you think. I wonder what some of your ex-girlfriends might say about it? AnarchyeL has already done an excellent job of pointing out the faulty assumptions of you and Oceandrive and Painelandia in this thread.

EDIT: Besides, weren't you the one mentioning over and over how "coercive" you are? And didn't you cite certain African countries' sanctioning of rapes during war as justification for the idea that rape is not always illegal? And aren't those countries (Sudan and Congo among them) guilty of violent atrocities in those rapes, which were war crimes against civilians and involved mutilation and murder? And doesn't that add up to you justifying violent rape in order to also justify your "coerciveness"? I.e., justifying giant crimes so you can hold onto your little satisfactions? Don't snap back a retort right away -- think about it for a bit.

As for you pointing out my failings, let me know when you intend to start.

And, finally, what did poor Straughn do to deserve being used like a decoy by you? He's not even participating here, and I really don't care what he does.

[QUOTE=Verdigroth]
So you say and very likely so you think. I wonder what some of your ex-girlfriends might say about it? AnarchyeL has already done an excellent job of pointing out the faulty assumptions of you and Oceandrive and Painelandia in this thread.

As for you pointing out my failings, let me know when you intend to start.

Oh, and what did poor Straughn do to deserve being used like a decoy by you? He's not even participating here, and I really don't care what he does in comparison to you.

If you want to know about my sexual history ask Straughn's wife as she is pretty much it. I am contrasting the debate difference between myself and Straughn as he is the only one on here I know well enough to contrast myself to. Your problem is that you continuously think you have won an arguement based on research you might post. You also don't pay attention to your footing and lead with your left.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]

If you want to know about my sexual history ask Straughn's wife as she is pretty much it. I am contrasting the debate difference between myself and Straughn as he is the only one on here I know well enough to contrast myself to. Your problem is that you continuously think you have won an arguement based on research you might post. You also don't pay attention to your footing and lead with your left.
Like I said, wait for PART 2, in which, in further dissecting your arguments, I may mention this post in which you admit you don't know anyone but Straughn but then go on to make assumptions about my "style" as if you know me (and include another meaningless sex insult, though I can't tell who it's aimed at, me or him). How much of my style have you really observed? Judging from the kinds of responses you give me, it hasn't been enough. But you'll learn. In time.

Here, I'll give you a hint. If you want to figure out my style, ask yourself what does she want? Because I do want something very specific -- only it has nothing to do with the debate of the thread. 'Night.

dp

This is why, in some Asian countries they have the anti-rape condom.

It's a condom for women to put in their vagina and it has little fishhooks inside it.

A mans penis has no trouble going in, but when it wants to go out ....


Ps.: Sorry if somebody already posted this, but reading over 50 pages was a little to much for me. :)

Oceandrive’s argument falls apart because they both failed to name a single country in which rape is considered okay.If you don't know how to read.. its not my fault.. I Never said there is such a country.

you are pitiful.. Let me help you.. Let me say that again (maybe this time you understand)
There is No country where Rape is okay.

If you don't understand my previous posts.. try to read them again S-L-O-W-L-Y..

Good Luck.. hope your brain does not explode. ;)

Like DPUO said, if you're not a whore, don't dress like one. And if you don't want to get treated like one, don't act like one.

Interpretation of dress-code is rather subjective. What one person may call 'like a whore', another may qualify as 'standard'. Compare for instance the changes in common dressing styles in western countries for the past few decades. There was a time when showing any skin above the ankle was deemed 'like a whore'.

Also, rapists do not treat their victims like whores. When was the last time a rapist paid his victim the going rate for what he forced upon her?

Ballotonia

That's what's missing from your post. This isn't a news aggregator - next time, supply your own thoughts on the matter instead of just a copy&pasted article, so that we have something to discuss.
He was asking for people's opinions.

My opinion, as the world's one and only God's Gift To Women is....



1. No woman or man can consent to sex while they are drunk. They are not in the right frame of mind. Because they are drunk they do not have the right to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, I equate having intercourse with a drunk woman, to having intercourse with a minor. Neither one is capable of making consensual contracts or agreements.
If you have sex with a drunk woman, even if she said she wanted it, the fact that she is drunk and not in her right mind, means that if you do her, you are guilty of rape. Point blank.
2. Revealing clothing: There seem to be a lot of women who like to dress up like whores and guttersluts. They'll wear something that makes look attractive to men. Just because their looks or their clothes gives you a boner doesn't give you the right stick it in if she says no (or if she out of her right mind). Though I must note that women who dress thus, are more likely than other women to be raped. This is the man's fault. In fact in such cases it almost always the man's fault. Because men are supposed to be self controlled.
3. She was a flirt. This is just a form of social play. Flirting does not always mean she wants sex. I flirt with every single girl I meet in person. That does not mean I want to have sex with all of them. And they always flirt back. But you have to have self control and the mindfulness to know that just because they are flirting does not mean that they want to bed with you.
If you are thinking a girl wants sex just because she is flirting, you are in a sad mental state. Most girls who flirt are only playing with you. They don't mean. And if they do want sex, girls will usually come right out and ask you for it.
While on flirting, just cause you meet a girl, and you go out with her or you talk to her a lot, that does not give you the right to have sex with her either.

People, sex is supposed to be a consensual two way street. It's not something you can just trade booze for, or being nice for, or anything like that. If you want to buy sex go find a hooker but even with them, rape is still one of the world's greatest evils.

Just because a girl chooses to be your girlfriend does not make her your property or your little personal sex toy. She still has the God given right to refuse sex.
And if you make her have sex with your friends, that is still rape too and you are still guilty even if you weren't the one who did it to her. Cause you coerced her into doing it. Therefore, though you did not do anything sexual to her, you would still be guilty of rape.

So, you think there are countries whose laws say it's legal and/or ethical to rape women? -- PART 2:

Took a while, but here is PART 2, of my response to Oceandrive and Verdigroth and their argument that coercing sex is not a form of rape. In this part, I suggest that the internal inconsistencies in their statements, and even their style of arguing, indicate that their entire argument is in fact completely bogus.

In POST 908 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611297&postcount=908), I outlined and debunked their international law argument in detail. Why did I do this if I think they’ve just been bullshitting us this whole time? I just like to be thorough. I did it to provide a one-stop reference to the specific argument that I’m challenging out of this whole thread, as follows. I cited posts rather than quoting them here because I'm going after their whole argument here, not debunking claimed supporting facts. The post citations are representative, not exhaustive.


1. Oceandrive2 claimed that the only proper guide regarding rape is the law and that ethical arguments are nonsense (POSTS 836, 851). He said that rape is defined by the law and that coercion isn’t part of it (POST 861). That is a statment of fact and it is either true or not. When it was pointed out that it is not true, he instigated a little international trip, looking unsuccessfully for some place that would support him and finally tried to get out of it by claiming he never said any country condoned rape (POST 917). (He forgot, apparently, that we were arguing over whether any country had laws against rape by coercion, which pretty much every country does.)

The telling detail is the way he just randomly jumped from country to country, with no reference to their actual laws, as if he didn’t care whether he was right or not. I mean, really, who thinks there’s no law against coercing sex in Italy, Spain and Japan? Was he hoping that, if those countries have poor prosecution rates, it means they don’t have a law against it? I think he was just bullshitting because he had made a factual claim about the content of countries’ laws, and he couldn’t back it up because he had never bothered to research it. He was just making all this up on the spur of the moment.

Look at how, when challenged by me, he had no facts to counter me with. His only response was to insult my education and intelligence (POSTS 833, 917). Even these insults seem bogus because they are so extreme, and he couldn’t even be bothered to try to actually prove me wrong. He even brags about choosing not to do so (POST 873).


2. Verdigroth takes the opposite tack and claims that neither law nor ethics can define rape because they are not universal (POSTS 840, 857). This is nonsense, too. If every country and international law do prohibit rape by coercion, he can’t claim that they don’t. And having laws against it is a pretty strong indicator that it’s considered wrong. “Wrong” is an ethical/moral judgment, so his dimissal of ethics falls flat, too.

The telling part with Verdigroth is the way he first dismisses both law and ethics and then cites both of them in support of himself (POSTS 840, 857, 883, 884, 888, 889). If he thinks neither is valid, why doesn’t he have some other authority to cite? Like Oceandrive, he just didn’t bother to build a coherent argument, as if he didn’t care whether he was right or wrong. The more he argued, the more he was proven wrong on his facts, until he even tried to claim that I misled him (POST 909). The fact is he can’t defend this argument because it’s empty. There’s nothing to it. He’s just blowing smoke, reacting to whatever is thrown at him, vascillating between it’s not law/it is law; it’s not ethics/it is ethics.

Verdigroth also personally insulted me, and AnarchyeL as well, going after our sexuality. He started by calling us both lesbians (POST 823, 852 -- I guess he thinks that’s an insult), until AnarchyeL explained that he is male. Then, interestingly, he quit insulting AnarchyeL, but kept insulting me (POSTS 834, 857) -- except in POST 857 where he insulted AnarchyeL in a post to me. Does he think that counts as talking behind AnarchyeL’s back? As with Oceandrive, these insults are so over the top, they sound like just so much hot air.


3. This brings us to the third point: Do these guys actually believe their own arguments? I say they don’t, and I’m basing that on both what they say and how they say it.

They are both arguing that they have a right to coerce sex on the idea of “Hey, bitch, it’s MY house, so bend over or hit the road” (POSTS 791, 806, 807, 886). They’ve been told several times that this is not coercion, because it gives the option to leave, while coercion is force because it allows no options (POSTS 805, 809, 820, 839, 855). But for some reason, they insist that it is coercion/force. Even when it is shown that coercing sex is a form of rape under the law, they still insist on calling this scenario coercion. Then they get upset when people accuse them of supporting rape. (POSTS 911, 917) If they would quit insisting on “coercion” and just change to a different wording, they could avoid getting branded as rapists, but they will not do it. This makes no sense at all.

The telling part here is that their whole style of presenting the “give out or get lost” argument is such a classic negative male stereotype, that it looks fake. Just like the way they called me stupid and “feminazi” and “bull dyke”, and the way they backed off insulting a man but kept up insulting a woman, and the way Verdigroth makes jokes about nipples and ball gags and banging another man’s wife (POST 913). Seriously, we are teetering on the edge of a “You Know You’re a Redneck If...” comedy routine. Verdigroth’s POST 913 even seems to hint that he is waiting for me to get the joke. Add this to their bogus facts outlined in POST 908, and it becomes clear these guys have hijacked this thread with a bullshit argument.

It’s kind of a shame because it was a decent and serious thread in its day and a lot of people partipated in good faith. If these guys want to roleplay, they should stick to the RP forums.

This is my interpretation of what they are doing. If they want to prove me wrong, I invite them to quit quibbling over what “coercion” means and whether breaking up with your girlfriend is a crime or not, and address the points I raised in my POST 799 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605667&postcount=799), which are about blaming women for rape -- remember, the actual topic of the thread?

Rape is NEVER excusable. Rapists are at the top of my list of people I will beat into a coma if I ever meet them.
I do however want to say this. I think it is unfair for a drunk girl to cry rape because she was drunk, if the guy was also drunk. Note that I don't mean "passed out".

I mean the girl who gets drunks, has sex, and then sobers up and says it was rape because she was drunk. I think it hurts the cause of true rape victims.

But just to reinforce my position, I'll say it again.

Rape is NEVER excusable. Rapists are at the top of my list of people I will beat into a coma if I ever meet them.

what you said!!!

Put The Rapists In A Bull Pen With An Amorous Bull - And Paint A Bulls Eye On The Rapists Ass - And Then Ask Him How Was It Was It As Good For The You As It Was For The Bull -

Oops! Sorry About The Spelling Errors And Such - I,m Just Getting Tired - Goodnight All

He was asking for people's opinions.

My opinion, as the world's one and only God's Gift To Women is....



1. No woman or man can consent to sex while they are drunk. They are not in the right frame of mind. Because they are drunk they do not have the right to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, I equate having intercourse with a drunk woman, to having intercourse with a minor. Neither one is capable of making consensual contracts or agreements.
If you have sex with a drunk woman, even if she said she wanted it, the fact that she is drunk and not in her right mind, means that if you do her, you are guilty of rape. Point blank.
2. Revealing clothing: There seem to be a lot of women who like to dress up like whores and guttersluts. They'll wear something that makes look attractive to men. Just because their looks or their clothes gives you a boner doesn't give you the right stick it in if she says no (or if she out of her right mind). Though I must note that women who dress thus, are more likely than other women to be raped. This is the man's fault. In fact in such cases it almost always the man's fault. Because men are supposed to be self controlled.
3. She was a flirt. This is just a form of social play. Flirting does not always mean she wants sex. I flirt with every single girl I meet in person. That does not mean I want to have sex with all of them. And they always flirt back. But you have to have self control and the mindfulness to know that just because they are flirting does not mean that they want to bed with you.
If you are thinking a girl wants sex just because she is flirting, you are in a sad mental state. Most girls who flirt are only playing with you. They don't mean. And if they do want sex, girls will usually come right out and ask you for it.
While on flirting, just cause you meet a girl, and you go out with her or you talk to her a lot, that does not give you the right to have sex with her either.

People, sex is supposed to be a consensual two way street. It's not something you can just trade booze for, or being nice for, or anything like that. If you want to buy sex go find a hooker but even with them, rape is still one of the world's greatest evils.

Just because a girl chooses to be your girlfriend does not make her your property or your little personal sex toy. She still has the God given right to refuse sex.
And if you make her have sex with your friends, that is still rape too and you are still guilty even if you weren't the one who did it to her. Cause you coerced her into doing it. Therefore, though you did not do anything sexual to her, you would still be guilty of rape.



". No woman or man can consent to sex while they are drunk. They are not in the right frame of mind. Because they are drunk they do not have the right to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, I equate having intercourse with a drunk woman, to having intercourse with a minor. Neither one is capable of making consensual contracts or agreements. "
"If you have sex with a drunk woman, even if she said she wanted it, the fact that she is drunk and not in her right mind, means that if you do her, you are guilty of rape. Point blank. "

that is ludicrous...you are absolving the women for being drunk and blaming the man for being drunk...i call bullshit.

i know very aggressive women when they are drunk,and show me a man that is not always horny...when drunk,and i'll show you a liar.
are you going to honestly say it is ok,for a guy and a girl..both drunk(knowing mens predisposition for sexual activity)and a girl disrobes and starts on the guy cause she is horny...and we all know how 99.9% of guys would respond...(part of my argument)the guy is a rapist?i would say the girl is in this situation..to be technical.is the rapist.
just because the girl has regrets cause she was drunk,does not refute the fact that she was a willing(as much as the guy)participant.
how can you say it is ok for a girl to be sexually promiscuous,but for the guy to reciprocate...makes him a rapist...baffling...and illogical.
2 people drunk...both willing..and then when morning comes around...the guy is the rapist...bullshit,cause she is gonna be stigmatized for being a slut,so she says..he raped me,bullshit.
if anyone should have control of themselves(human nature wise)the girl should.
i know that sounds prehistoric...but really...a girl,drunk,humping on a guys lap and then sleeps with him,has no right to cry foul in the morning,cause she was drunk...if the guy got her drunk,stayed sober and had his way..then shoot the fucking pos...i'll pull the trigger,but to imply,men who are vulnerable to women to begin with,are responsible for them getting equally drunk and screwing around...then feeling bad later,then branding a guy a rapist is plain bullshit.
if thats the way the world works..i am going gay...anf fuck you.

whatever happened to persone responsibility?

i got stupid drunk and get robbed..it is my fault...you get stupid drunk with me,take off your clothes and have sex with me while i am also drunk..it is my fault?wtf...get a grip.

or quit drinking so much,or gather some self respect.

p.s.i got a daughter in college,and if she was raped i would kill the bastard..if she was drugged and taken advantage of by a guy..he dies..if she got stupid drunk and slept with him...her bad...i would be pissed..at her.

sounds like you got issues with drinking...sorry if i am wrong,i just dont buy the whole i was drunk and he took advantage of me crap...if he was drunk and you were drunk...then you BOTH WERE ASSHOLES...but to blame the guy is bullshit...just trying to make yourself exonerated for your own poor decisions,and put the blame on someone equally stupid and innocemt...but you ruin his life,and you walk away like your the victim...bullshit.

". No woman or man can consent to sex while they are drunk. They are not in the right frame of mind. Because they are drunk they do not have the right to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, I equate having intercourse with a drunk woman, to having intercourse with a minor. Neither one is capable of making consensual contracts or agreements. "
"If you have sex with a drunk woman, even if she said she wanted it, the fact that she is drunk and not in her right mind, means that if you do her, you are guilty of rape. Point blank. "

that is ludicrous...you are absolving the women for being drunk and blaming the man for being drunk...i call bullshit.

i know very aggressive women when they are drunk,and show me a man that is not always horny...when drunk,and i'll show you a liar.
are you going to honestly say it is ok,for a guy and a girl..both drunk(knowing mens predisposition for sexual activity)and a girl disrobes and starts on the guy cause she is horny...and we all know how 99.9% of guys would respond...(part of my argument)the guy is a rapist?i would say the girl is in this situation..to be technical.is the rapist.
just because the girl has regrets cause she was drunk,does not refute the fact that she was a willing(as much as the guy)participant.
how can you say it is ok for a girl to be sexually promiscuous,but for the guy to reciprocate...makes him a rapist...baffling...and illogical.
2 people drunk...both willing..and then when morning comes around...the guy is the rapist...bullshit,cause she is gonna be stigmatized for being a slut,so she says..he raped me,bullshit.
if anyone should have control of themselves(human nature wise)the girl should.
i know that sounds prehistoric...but really...a girl,drunk,humping on a guys lap and then sleeps with him,has no right to cry foul in the morning,cause she was drunk...if the guy got her drunk,stayed sober and had his way..then shoot the fucking pos...i'll pull the trigger,but to imply,men who are vulnerable to women to begin with,are responsible for them getting equally drunk and screwing around...then feeling bad later,then branding a guy a rapist is plain bullshit.
if thats the way the world works..i am going gay...anf fuck you.

whatever happened to persone responsibility?

i got stupid drunk and get robbed..it is my fault...you get stupid drunk with me,take off your clothes and have sex with me while i am also drunk..it is my fault?wtf...get a grip.

or quit drinking so much,or gather some self respect.

p.s.i got a daughter in college,and if she was raped i would kill the bastard..if she was drugged and taken advantage of by a guy..he dies..if she got stupid drunk and slept with him...her bad...i would be pissed..at her.

sounds like you got issues with drinking...sorry if i am wrong,i just dont buy the whole i was drunk and he took advantage of me crap...if he was drunk and you were drunk...then you BOTH WERE ASSHOLES...but to blame the guy is bullshit...just trying to make yourself exonerated for your own poor decisions,and put the blame on someone equally stupid and innocemt...but you ruin his life,and you walk away like your the victim...bullshit.

Reread the first few lines of S.W.'s post:

1. No woman or man can consent to sex while they are drunk. They are not in the right frame of mind. Because they are drunk they do not have the right to make decisions for themselves.

I could be wrong, but it looks to me like he agrees that one can rape a drunk man, too. Drunk people of either gender are not qualified to give consent. Okay? :)

That said, please, give guys a little more credit. One's gender is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for lacking self-control; men are as capable of controlling their impulses as women if they choose to be.

This is why, in some Asian countries they have the anti-rape condom.

It's a condom for women to put in their vagina and it has little fishhooks inside it.

A mans penis has no trouble going in, but when it wants to go out ....
Can you say "urban legend," boys and girls? :p

Can you say "urban legend," boys and girls? :p

It's true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145415/

It's true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9145415/
Wow! I stand ( er ... sit? ) corrected! That's just so ... weird! Heh!

So, you think there are countries whose laws say it's legal and/or ethical to rape women? -- PART 2:

Took a while, but here is PART 2, of my response to Oceandrive and Verdigroth and their argument that coercing sex is not a form of rape. In this part, I suggest that the internal inconsistencies in their statements, and even their style of arguing, indicate that their entire argument is in fact completely bogus.

In POST 908 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611297&postcount=908), I outlined and debunked their international law argument in detail. Why did I do this if I think they’ve just been bullshitting us this whole time? I just like to be thorough. I did it to provide a one-stop reference to the specific argument that I’m challenging out of this whole thread, as follows. I cited posts rather than quoting them here because I'm going after their whole argument here, not debunking claimed supporting facts. The post citations are representative, not exhaustive.


1. Oceandrive2 claimed that the only proper guide regarding rape is the law and that ethical arguments are nonsense (POSTS 836, 851). He said that rape is defined by the law and that coercion isn’t part of it (POST 861). That is a statment of fact and it is either true or not. When it was pointed out that it is not true, he instigated a little international trip, looking unsuccessfully for some place that would support him and finally tried to get out of it by claiming he never said any country condoned rape (POST 917). (He forgot, apparently, that we were arguing over whether any country had laws against rape by coercion, which pretty much every country does.)

The telling detail is the way he just randomly jumped from country to country, with no reference to their actual laws, as if he didn’t care whether he was right or not. I mean, really, who thinks there’s no law against coercing sex in Italy, Spain and Japan? Was he hoping that, if those countries have poor prosecution rates, it means they don’t have a law against it? I think he was just bullshitting because he had made a factual claim about the content of countries’ laws, and he couldn’t back it up because he had never bothered to research it. He was just making all this up on the spur of the moment.

Look at how, when challenged by me, he had no facts to counter me with. His only response was to insult my education and intelligence (POSTS 833, 917). Even these insults seem bogus because they are so extreme, and he couldn’t even be bothered to try to actually prove me wrong. He even brags about choosing not to do so (POST 873).


2. Verdigroth takes the opposite tack and claims that neither law nor ethics can define rape because they are not universal (POSTS 840, 857). This is nonsense, too. If every country and international law do prohibit rape by coercion, he can’t claim that they don’t. And having laws against it is a pretty strong indicator that it’s considered wrong. “Wrong” is an ethical/moral judgment, so his dimissal of ethics falls flat, too.

The telling part with Verdigroth is the way he first dismisses both law and ethics and then cites both of them in support of himself (POSTS 840, 857, 883, 884, 888, 889). If he thinks neither is valid, why doesn’t he have some other authority to cite? Like Oceandrive, he just didn’t bother to build a coherent argument, as if he didn’t care whether he was right or wrong. The more he argued, the more he was proven wrong on his facts, until he even tried to claim that I misled him (POST 909). The fact is he can’t defend this argument because it’s empty. There’s nothing to it. He’s just blowing smoke, reacting to whatever is thrown at him, vascillating between it’s not law/it is law; it’s not ethics/it is ethics.

Verdigroth also personally insulted me, and AnarchyeL as well, going after our sexuality. He started by calling us both lesbians (POST 823, 852 -- I guess he thinks that’s an insult), until AnarchyeL explained that he is male. Then, interestingly, he quit insulting AnarchyeL, but kept insulting me (POSTS 834, 857) -- except in POST 857 where he insulted AnarchyeL in a post to me. Does he think that counts as talking behind AnarchyeL’s back? As with Oceandrive, these insults are so over the top, they sound like just so much hot air.


3. This brings us to the third point: Do these guys actually believe their own arguments? I say they don’t, and I’m basing that on both what they say and how they say it.

They are both arguing that they have a right to coerce sex on the idea of “Hey, bitch, it’s MY house, so bend over or hit the road” (POSTS 791, 806, 807, 886). They’ve been told several times that this is not coercion, because it gives the option to leave, while coercion is force because it allows no options (POSTS 805, 809, 820, 839, 855). But for some reason, they insist that it is coercion/force. Even when it is shown that coercing sex is a form of rape under the law, they still insist on calling this scenario coercion. Then they get upset when people accuse them of supporting rape. (POSTS 911, 917) If they would quit insisting on “coercion” and just change to a different wording, they could avoid getting branded as rapists, but they will not do it. This makes no sense at all.

The telling part here is that their whole style of presenting the “give out or get lost” argument is such a classic negative male stereotype, that it looks fake. Just like the way they called me stupid and “feminazi” and “bull dyke”, and the way they backed off insulting a man but kept up insulting a woman, and the way Verdigroth makes jokes about nipples and ball gags and banging another man’s wife (POST 913). Seriously, we are teetering on the edge of a “You Know You’re a Redneck If...” comedy routine. Verdigroth’s POST 913 even seems to hint that he is waiting for me to get the joke. Add this to their bogus facts outlined in POST 908, and it becomes clear these guys have hijacked this thread with a bullshit argument.

It’s kind of a shame because it was a decent and serious thread in its day and a lot of people partipated in good faith. If these guys want to roleplay, they should stick to the RP forums.

This is my interpretation of what they are doing. If they want to prove me wrong, I invite them to quit quibbling over what “coercion” means and whether breaking up with your girlfriend is a crime or not, and address the points I raised in my POST 799 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605667&postcount=799), which are about blaming women for rape -- remember, the actual topic of the thread?
meh. Being forced into sex or being coerced into sex. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could reasonably claim there is a difference between the two. Either way, it's rape. Especially in a situation where you tell a girl to put out or get out. And if she chooses the get out part, she ends up on the street, starving. That is not a real choice. Hence, if she chooses the put out option, you are guilty of rape cause what you did was coercion on a person who had no real choice.

Reread the first few lines of S.W.'s post:



I could be wrong, but it looks to me like he agrees that one can rape a drunk man, too. Drunk people of either gender are not qualified to give consent. Okay? :)

That said, please, give guys a little more credit. One's gender is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for lacking self-control; men are as capable of controlling their impulses as women if they choose to be.
You're not wrong. That is precisely what I meant.

Unfortunately it's the primary reason why I'm still a virgin at 32.

1. Oceandrive2 claimed that ....(blah- blah- spin- spin-spin Blah- blah- blah- spin- spin- spin- blah, etc)
3. .. Do these guys actually believe their own arguments? I say they don’tI have bad news for you, You are wrong.. I do 100% believe my arguments .. And I do 100% stand by everything I said here.


like I said:
It is not my fault if you do not understand my posts.
read my posts again S-L-O-W-L-Y..
http://www.littleprankster.com/pics/reading_for_dummies.jpg

Good Luck Muravyets.. hope you get around to it.. some day. :D

show me a man that is not always horny...when drunk,and i'll show you a liar.That'd be me! I become melancholic when I get drunk.

meh. Being forced into sex or being coerced into sex. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could reasonably claim there is a difference between the two. Either way, it's rape. Especially in a situation where you tell a girl to put out or get out. And if she chooses the get out part, she ends up on the street, starving. That is not a real choice. Hence, if she chooses the put out option, you are guilty of rape cause what you did was coercion on a person who had no real choice.

Freedom means choice, but doesn't imply a choice free of bad things.

I have bad news for you, You are wrong.. I do 100% believe my arguments .. And I do 100% stand by everything I said here.


like I said:
It is not my fault if you do not understand my posts.
read my posts again S-L-O-W-L-Y..
http://www.littleprankster.com/pics/reading_for_dummies.jpg

Good Luck Muravyets.. hope you get around to it.. some day. :D
Okay, then you don't mind being labeled as someone who supports rape? Fine with me. I'm not the only one who has said as much to you. Some people who think your views amount to support for rape are actually men. Do you think they are as stupid as me, or does a penis automatically make them smarter, in your opinion?

Okay, then you don't mind being labeled as someone who supports rape? Fine with me. I'm not the only one who has said as much to you. Some people who think your views amount to support for rape are actually men. Do you think they are as stupid as me, or does a penis automatically make them smarter, in your opinion?
so when does part two of your torrential rain of info come...or did I miss it?

so when does part two of your torrential rain of info come...or did I miss it?
You missed it. Post 920:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10617445&postcount=920

You missed it. Post 920:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10617445&postcount=920

Thank you.

Okay, then you don't mind being labeled as someone who supports rape?LOL.. Lots of people want to Label me.. all kinds of oxymoron stuff..
"Pinko-Communist",
"Ultra-Capitalist Pig",
"Terrorist",
"Negro-Lover",
"KKK-Racist",
"End-of-the-World-Anarchist",
"Pot smoking Hippie",
"Feminazi",
"Die-hard Libertarian",
"Al-Quaeda",
"Kim-Jon2",
"Arafat-reincarnated",
"Hitler-reincarnated"
etc,etc,etc

You wanna Label me?.. You better take a Number honey. ;)

men, Do you think they are as stupid as me, or does a penis automatically make them smarter, in your opinion?No, our penises does not make us smarter.. I fact sometimes our penises makes us very dumb (hopefully for a short period of time). :D :D :p :D

I can actually see the reason behind the sentiments, I share them for the most part. The average British common tart who is raped on a saturday/ friday night is, to an extent, asking for it. They become inebriated to the point of incapacity because they are supposed to, roundly ignore government warnings, yet bemoan the system that has indeed tryed to help them.

No, our penises does not make us smarter.. I fact sometimes our penises makes us very dumb (hopefully for a short period of time). :D :D :p :D
Don't worry about it. Since I've decided that you're not serious, I don't care whether you're smart or dumb or whether you think I'm smart or dumb. Say anything you like without further interference from me. Not like some of the real jerks in this thread, who I do take quite seriously.

There's lots of posts and I can't remember what page my last one on here is on, so I don't know exactly what the response was. But anyway I read a
post that says something like "so you think rape can never be prevented?"

Well, theft from me could be prevented if I didn't go out. That wouldn't mean it was mine fault if I chose to go out and got robbed.

Murder can be prevented if you set a security system on your house linked to a police forced, stay in all day, employ excellent security guards, and carry a gun everywhere. But that wouldn't mean it would be my fault if I was murdered for failing to do that.

Physical attacks can be prevented if you decide not to walk to the shop because there might be someone around who wants to beat you up. But that wouldn't mean it would be my fault if I decided to go to the shop and got beaten up.

Rape can be prevented if you decide to dress in a really uncomfortable way to make it SLIGHTLY more difficult to rip your clothes off, or/and you don't go out to meet friends anywhere or don't walk to your house on your own just because there might be someone around who wants to rape you. But using the same logic as above, that wouldn't mean it was your fault if you got raped.

When a crime happens, it's the fault of the criminal, whatever crime it is. Sure, there are things that the victim COULD have done that MIGHT have prevented the crime (or made it more difficult if not prevented it), but number one, not everyone thinks of everything they could do to prevent a specific type of attack before they go anywhere, and number two, they shouldn't have to. When a crime happens, it can ONLY be the fault of the criminal, unless the criminal was forced into it (and even then they may still be partially at fault). No matter what type of attack. To say that other attacks are the fault of victims and that rape is, in some circumstances, not the fault of victims, is stupid. It has to be the same logic for all crimes, otherwise you're being a hypocrit.

And like I've said before, if a man wants to dress a certain way, no-one thinks anything of it. So why should it be any different for a woman? Why should a woman be treated like crap just because she chooses to dress nice? They're people, not objects. At the end of the day, you can make all the excuses you want. But women are still people, raping still destroys lives (regardless of the gender of the victim) and can even cause the victim to kill theirself, and making excuses isn't going to make the victim feel any better. They are still a PERSON with FEELINGS.

No matter what you say, no matter what you call them, no matter how much you want to see them as a "slut" or a "slag" or any other word that objectifies them, they are not objects, they are still PEOPLE. They still have FEELINGS. And rape still TRAUMATISES THEM.

LOL.. Lots of people want to Label me.. all kinds of oxymoron stuff..
"Pinko-Communist",
"Ultra-Capitalist Pig",
"Terrorist",
"Negro-Lover",
"KKK-Racist",
"End-of-the-World-Anarchist",
"Pot smoking Hippie",
"Feminazi",
"Die-hard Libertarian",
"Al-Quaeda",
"Kim-Jon2",
"Arafat-reincarnated",
"Hitler-reincarnated"
etc,etc,etc

You wanna Label me?.. You better take a Number honey. ;)

How about the most simple and accurate one? TROLL.

Rapists are responsible for rape. But some women do go too far. The kind that flirt with a guy all night, take him home, and only when they are naked in bed say no, should take some responsibility for what happens.

I have stated that the only form or rape I am willing to acknowledge is that in which physical force is used. Coercion is not rape. You have a choice neither of which is pretty. If you give in then you have failed as a human whether male or female.

Suppose a man and a young girl are out in a car, far from home or other houses. He is a family member taking her to a function in town - someone she trusts and is supposed to obey. He stops the car and refuses to continue until she pleasures him. She doesn't know what else to do. It is dark, she has somewhere to be, and here is this guy she trusts telling her that the car isn't going to budge until she does it. She is uncomfortable, but unsure what to do. He keeps pushing. Finally, she complies and he begins to drive, all the while telling her that he will drive faster the better she does.

THAT is coercion and THAT is rape. The choices given are really no choices at all, other than to comply. There was no consent given, thus, it is rape.

How about the most simple and accurate one? TROLL.sure.. whatever rocks your World :p
Its not like if I care. ;)

Rapists are responsible for rape. But some women do go too far. The kind that flirt with a guy all night, take him home, and only when they are naked in bed say no, should take some responsibility for what happens.

Why?

No behavior can make the right to say "no" magically disappear or erode. A woman has the right to change her mind at any time.

Maybe she got naked in bed, and then he said something really obnoxious. Maybe she suddenly came to her senses. Maybe she just wanted to make out and have all kinds of fun, but not have sex. Hell, maybe she just doesn't like the look of his naked body.

It's her choice. And the same, of course, would go for a man. It's just that women tend to understand, or at least not oppose, a man's sudden decision to stop short. Perhaps women tend to want to have sex with a willing partner, while men just want to have sex.

Ya...I'll say the next woman I work into a near-orgasm and wants to fuck me is raping me. :rolleyes:

Women do it to guys and shouldn't be fickle.

THAT is coercion and THAT is rape. The choices given are really no choices at all, other than to comply. There was no consent given, thus, it is rape.

Good example.

The point that I was making earlier is that the degree of "choice" is always subjective. In your example, it is rather clear to most of us that the young woman must have felt coerced, as if her "choice" was "really no choice at all." Of course, some idiots will insist that she "could have" run, or "could have" bitten his penis off... or "could have" done any number of things. In some "objective" sense, this is true; but we know that objective choice is not what constitutes coercion: coercion occurs when the victim feels that he/she has no choice.

Thus, I think it is arbitrary to insist that some threats or ultimatums are coercive, while others are not. It is probably true that some sorts of ultimatums are "less likely" to exert coercive influence, but this does not mean that they cannot exert such influence.

A man tells his girlfriend that she must have sex with him, or he will "never talk to her again." It may be that she feels no particular need to comply; indeed, most self-respecting women would be so insulted they would not want to talk to such a man again.

However, we cannot be inside a woman's head. We cannot assume that she does not feel coerced because "we" would not feel coerced, or "a self-respecting person" would not feel coerced. It is entirely possible that she has been victimized in the past, her self-respect has been eroded, or for some other reason she feels genuinely threatened.

Perhaps more importantly, the intent of the statement is coercive. The man who says "fuck me or else," no matter what the "or else" is, intends to get a woman to have sex with him whether she wants to or not.

I call this rape, or attempted rape when it doesn't work. If the woman walks out the door, then the man's attempt to coerce her failed: perhaps he misread how self-respecting she could really be. The man who gets a woman to have sex with him, when she does not want to have sex, because she feels threatened by some "choice" he has presented to her, is a rapist.

Probably this kind of rape will never by punished by the law. In most cases, at least, it is probably too difficult to prove.

However, men who care about women--who care about the women we "love" if we really do love them--need to think about these things. We need to examine ourselves, and when we find ourselves pressuring women for sex, we need to stop long enough to think, "Am I trying to get her to want to have sex with me... or am I just trying to get her to have sex with me?"

This sort of rape can be prevented or minimized in two ways:

1) Continuing efforts to assure women that they are valuable human beings deserving of respect, coupled with efforts to provide options to women who feel abused or coerced.

2) The self-policing of men, who must resist the urge (biological? social? ... does it matter?) to "demand" sex, and who must learn that the only sex worth having is with a partner who wants it, rather than a partner who merely does not resist it.

(That having been said, I am confident that most of the men reading this on Nationstates are of the sort who do not really need this "lecture." I mean it primarily for the few who do.)

Good example.

The point that I was making earlier is that the degree of "choice" is always subjective. In your example, it is rather clear to most of us that the young woman must have felt coerced, as if her "choice" was "really no choice at all." Of course, some idiots will insist that she "could have" run, or "could have" bitten his penis off... or "could have" done any number of things. In some "objective" sense, this is true; but we know that objective choice is not what constitutes coercion: coercion occurs when the victim feels that he/she has no choice.
<snip>
Excellent expression of the argument.

I was a bit worried that you and I seemed to have a difference of opinion on this, though I agree with you completely. You have been arguing the ethics of the way men think about women and sex, while I had been arguing the lines drawn by the law. As you pointed out in another post though, if we are ethical people, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the law demands.

The law is a last resort that only comes into play after the crime has been committed. And when it comes to these "coercive" scenarios, you're right, it's often hard to prove the elements that will give the law something to act on. Whether a rape happens in these situations often depends on whether the man is able to exploit emotional or psychological issues the woman has -- elements of her personality, her personal history. Woman A may be able to walk away, while woman B legitimately thinks she has no choice. When it comes to such subjective situations, whether the law will help her or not all depends on whether she is lucky enough to get a cop who cares, a prosecutor who cares, a judge and jury who care. Just knowing how difficult it can be is enough to make a woman think she has no choice when faced with a coercive ultimatum -- if she thinks there's no one out there to help her, then where can she go, what can she do?

I'm encouraged a bit by the fact that there is a strong effort to bring all countries' laws up to speed on this. That international conventions like CEDAW specifically recognize that coercion is a form of psychological violence and that it is a form of rape and sexual abuse. But no matter how good the laws eventually get, they are no substitute for personal ethics.

Rape is not an involuntary infraction, like accidental manslaughter. Men have to choose to rape, choose to abuse, harass, coerce women. What you are saying is right -- Men have to ask themselves why they feel they can make such a choice. They have to be willing to question themselves and their societies. And in many cases, they may find that they have to go against the grain of what society expects of a man in order to make better people of themselves.

This reminds me of an public message campaign on US television -- in Massachusetts at least -- in which young boys walk up to random men on the street and ask them questions like, "I'm getting mixed messages about women and violence. Can you help me clarify my thinking?" The ads end with the message, "Boys won't come to you" and urges men to talk about this with their sons, students, etc.

But one of the questions strikes me as kind of sad and a little alarming: the boy asks his uncle, "How can I grow up to respect women when I have such terrible role models?" That question is dismaying because it's bad enough to have lousy role models in the media, but one wonders what kind of role model that uncle has been for that boy.

Men need to question their own ethics and choose not to victimize others -- even when it comes to sex. Then the law might never need to come into play.

Zolworld, a person has the right to change their mind about something. And that includes rape. It doesn't matter if a woman is naked and a man is about to penetrate, or if he already has penetrated - if the woman no longer wants to continue, the man should stop, and if he doesn't, it's rape and it's traumatic. Anyone, male or female, has the right to change their mind about something. It's as simple as that, except for the people who just want to make excuses for traumatising people.

Muravyets, you say "Whether a rape happens in [specified] situations often depends on whether the man is able to exploit emotional or psychological issues the woman has..." etc. You're wrong. It doesn't. Use it as an excuse if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Whether a rape happens depends on whether the other person consented to it. It's written in the law of countries that are civilised enough to realise that. It's as black and white as that, and if people would just realise that, instead of thinking up excuses to try to justify this type of violence, there would be no need for a debate that has lasted many pages of a forum. It's not a case of what the victim MIGHT feel or not feel afterwards, just like classing a punch in the face as "assault" doesn't depend on how the victim felt afterwards. It's a simple case of if the person didn't agree to it, then the crime took place - and if that applies to other crimes such as assault, it has to logically apply to rape also, otherwise you're a hypocrit.

And for consent to be true consent, the victim has to be free and willing. If they are "consenting" because of coercion, then they are CLEARLY not free and willing. You say something like "woman A may be able to walk away"... well you could say that about beaing beaten up: "women A may be able to run off, while woman B stands their fearing for her life" - does that mean woman B has not been assaulted? Of course not, so apply this to rape: Just because woman A may have been able to walk off, that doesn't mean woman B has not been raped, when she was coerced into the sex.

And like I said, you can make all the excuses you want, but women are still people, raping still destroys lives (regardless of the gender of the victim) and can even cause the victim to kill theirself, and making excuses isn't going to make the victim feel any better. They are still a PERSON with FEELINGS.

No matter what you say, no matter what you call them, no matter how much you want to see them as a "slut" or a "slag" or any other word that objectifies them, they are not objects, they are still PEOPLE. They still have FEELINGS. And rape still TRAUMATISES THEM.

Anyone, male or female, has the right to change their mind about something. It's as simple as that....Some National Guardsmen in Iraq wish ...

I agree its normally the dudes fault but here are some special cases.

Woman pulls guy on top of her, bites his lip and forces her tongue down his throat before taking off her clothes then deciding to make a sandwich.
...
thats pretty much the only scenario

Zolworld, a person has the right to change their mind about something. And that includes rape. It doesn't matter if a woman is naked and a man is about to penetrate, or if he already has penetrated - if the woman no longer wants to continue, the man should stop, and if he doesn't, it's rape and it's traumatic. Anyone, male or female, has the right to change their mind about something. It's as simple as that, except for the people who just want to make excuses for traumatising people.

Muravyets, you say "Whether a rape happens in [specified] situations often depends on whether the man is able to exploit emotional or psychological issues the woman has..." etc. You're wrong. It doesn't. Use it as an excuse if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Whether a rape happens depends on whether the other person consented to it. It's written in the law of countries that are civilised enough to realise that. It's as black and white as that, and if people would just realise that, instead of thinking up excuses to try to justify this type of violence, there would be no need for a debate that has lasted many pages of a forum. It's not a case of what the victim MIGHT feel or not feel afterwards, just like classing a punch in the face as "assault" doesn't depend on how the victim felt afterwards. It's a simple case of if the person didn't agree to it, then the crime took place - and if that applies to other crimes such as assault, it has to logically apply to rape also, otherwise you're a hypocrit.

And for consent to be true consent, the victim has to be free and willing. If they are "consenting" because of coercion, then they are CLEARLY not free and willing. You say something like "woman A may be able to walk away"... well you could say that about beaing beaten up: "women A may be able to run off, while woman B stands their fearing for her life" - does that mean woman B has not been assaulted? Of course not, so apply this to rape: Just because woman A may have been able to walk off, that doesn't mean woman B has not been raped, when she was coerced into the sex.

And like I said, you can make all the excuses you want, but women are still people, raping still destroys lives (regardless of the gender of the victim) and can even cause the victim to kill theirself, and making excuses isn't going to make the victim feel any better. They are still a PERSON with FEELINGS.

No matter what you say, no matter what you call them, no matter how much you want to see them as a "slut" or a "slag" or any other word that objectifies them, they are not objects, they are still PEOPLE. They still have FEELINGS. And rape still TRAUMATISES THEM.
Multiland, I just spent the entire week arguing the exact same points you just made. You and I are in total agreement. You just misunderstood that one statement of mine. What I said applied to ONLY ONE SPECIFIC SITUATION, which is a common situation, and I only mentioned it for ONE SPECIFIC PURPOSE, which was to talk about why non-violent rapes are often difficult to prosecute in the law. This is the situation:

Woman and man in room. Door is not locked. Man is pressuring woman to have sex. He says "Have sex with me now or else [insert threat]."

Woman A has a personal history that fosters confidence, maybe even anger when someone tries to pressure her into anything. She tells the guy to go to hell, dares him to do his worst, and walks out the door. That woman was not raped.

Woman B has a personal history that fosters fear of bullies, fear of abandonment, fear of being hurt by what this man is threatening her with, AND fear of not being believed by others. She doesn't stop him from using her for sex. That woman WAS raped.

There are too many people in the world who would try to blame woman B for what happened to her because the door wasn't locked and someone else might have reacted differently. But she isn't someone else. She can only react the way she reacts. If she thinks she has no choice but to give in, then she is a victim of rape, no matter what anyone else might have done.

The law in almost every country on the planet accepts this, but too many people try to blame the victim, and too many victims know it, so it's very hard to get women to press charges in such situations because they fear people won't believe them. This is wrong. This is an injustice against women.

I agree its normally the dudes fault but here are some special cases.

Woman pulls guy on top of her, bites his lip and forces her tongue down his throat before taking off her clothes then deciding to make a sandwich.
...
thats pretty much the only scenario
Well, from the woman's point of view, there are a hell of a lot of guys who don't do anything between the tongue-shoving and the demand for a sandwich either, so what is there for you to complain about in that scenario?

Maybe the women should just resist to the death then there would be no question if it was violent

Well, from the woman's point of view, there are a hell of a lot of guys who don't do anything between the tongue-shoving and the demand for a sandwich either, so what is there for you to complain about in that scenario?

I think he means that it putsyou in the wrong frame of mind. >.>

Rape can be called by anyone, but the USA is a victim-society. We ALWAYS believe the victim. Rape is violent and should be easier to see then consentual.

That means no drug or drinking BS. You agree its consent.

Maybe the women should just resist to the death then there would be no question if it was violent
Maybe we women should just shoot you on sight and save ourselves the bother.

EDIT: And before you call me a "bull dyke" again, I'm not talking about shooting men (you know, like AnarchyeL).

I think he means that it putsyou in the wrong frame of mind. >.>

Rape can be called by anyone, but the USA is a victim-society. We ALWAYS believe the victim. Rape is violent and should be easier to see then consentual.

That means no drug or drinking BS. You agree its consent.
Uh, no. If you get sex because you pressured someone into giving it to you, you committed rape -- whether there was violence or not.

If you get sex because you took it from someone who was too drunk to stop you, you committed sexual assault -- which is rape, whether you beat her up or not.

If you're having sex with someone and they change their mind and tell you to stop and you don't, you've forced yourself on them, and that's rape. You tell me whether you think it's okay to force yourself on someone.

As for the post I made, I was kidding Europa Alpha.

Some National Guardsmen in Iraq wish ...

that OceanDrive would stop posting?

"They still put the woman on trial, including her sexual history with other men, which is supposed to be banned and blame the woman for what happened to her and hold her accountable," she said.


Please, the idea of the past history is this; if the person who is being accused, claimed it was conscentual, the question is raised; 'is this just a one off or does she have a habbit of one night stands'.

It isn't the question of whether sexual inter course occured, but whether she had sex, felt disgusted afterwards or someone found out about the one night stand, then turned around trying to play the victim to get sympathy.

Don't think it happens? I had a girl claim that she was around at my house; parents came around, I invited them in, explained she wasn't here, explained that if I were to have a partner, he would be a well hung stud, not some dipsey highschool girl - 5 days later I hear that she is in trouble with police along with the parents, I get a letter appologising for the accusation.

So yes, this does actually occur in real life.

I have seen this story before, and it pisses me off. It reminds me how much feminism dominates the fields of sociology and psychology at the expense of objective thinking.

The survey question had "partially responsible" as an option. Many answered, "partially responsible," and only very few (around 5%) answered, "completely responsible." But the news media (such as in the OP) treated both answers as the same, as if there is no difference. A rape victim could be 1% responsible for her rape, and that would count as "partially responsible." It is a survey that forces a political ideology, that we live in a "rape culture." Complete BS.

I have seen this story before, and it pisses me off. It reminds me how much feminism dominates the fields of sociology and psychology at the expense of objective thinking.

The survey question had "partially responsible" as an option. Many answered, "partially responsible," and only very few (around 5%) answered, "completely responsible." But the news media (such as in the OP) treated both answers as the same, as if there is no difference. A rape victim could be 1% responsible for her rape, and that would count as "partially responsible." It is a survey that forces a political ideology, that we live in a "rape culture." Complete BS.
You're complaining that posters here are treating all the answers as if they are the same, but you are treating all the situations as if they are the same.

First of all, I say it doesn't matter if you say the woman is only partially responsible or completely responsible. If you say a woman is responsible for a rape situation at all, you're blaming victims for the crime committed against them. You say there are times a woman is responsible for being raped. I say that, if you say that, then you are also saying that there a times a man has a right to force sex on a woman against her will; you're saying that in some situations, forcing sex isn't rape. And there's the core of this thread's argument right there. But let's set it aside for a moment and look at this issue of responsibility.

Are you saying a woman who goes out partying and flirting is creating a rape-inducing situation? I disagree.

What about a woman who isn't in the mood to have sex with her boyfriend on a given night? Is she provoking him?

What about a woman who is afraid of a man who has just threatened her job if she doesn't have sex with him? Is she responsible for that situation?

How about a woman who is just walking down the street but is pretty and dressed nice? Is she creating a rape-inducing situation just by being visible where a pervert might see her?

You want to parse responsibility as fine as 1%? How much responsibility does a man have to bear before he actually has to account for the things he chooses to do?

Recently, in New York City, a young woman -- a grad student at John Jay College -- went out drinking with friends. The night went on and on. Her group melded together with other groups of partiers. Some of her friends went home. She decided to stay out with other people and go to another bar. At some point during the partying, she vanished. Her body was found in another part of the city the next day. She had been so brutally raped, tortured and murdered that according to the NYC papers, the NYC cops were "stunned." Do you have any idea how bad a crime has to be to stun a NYC cop?

Was this woman engaging in risky behavior by going bar hopping with people she didn't know well? Did she put herself in danger? Possibly. You know what, let's grant it for the sake of this point and say she was.

Does this in any way lessen the responsibility of the man who did this to her? Does it in any way make it less of a crime?

Rape is not something that just happens. It's not an accidental or inevitable or natural result of a woman doing the wrong thing. It is a crime of choice, and the choice is made by the rapist, not the rape victim. He chooses to do it, he chooses who to do it to, and he chooses how to do it, whether by violence or by coercion or by taking advantage of a target letting her guard down.

...you committed sexual assault -- which is rape...I always wondered what "sexual assault" means.. I tough it meant "Rape".. but I was not sure..

Thank You for finally setting the record straight (Clear laws make for better justice).

Blame the women. If they didn't dress all sexified they wouldn't get raped, lock them up in one of those cinimax prisons with all the other sexy ladies.

In all seriousness, rape is an interesting issue that seems to have a clear and obvious source of guilt (the person doing the raping). In most cases the "rapist" in a case is of clear and unquestionable guilt, but more often than anything else you have cases which sort of walk on the thin line of justification.

Cases which involve alcohol often make it far more difficult for a judge and jury to come to a justified outcome. Many cases are not clear on the guilt because at the time of the incident the male/female being raped was okay with the events taking place, as a result of the willingness and obvious lack of a struggle based on police evidence, more often than not the rape cases are thrown out. There are also cases (these make it harder for honest people to win their cases) where people will fake a rape. They will seduce a man/woman (usually a man, not always) and have sex with them, but then plead rape and demand financial restitution.

There are so many issues which effect a rape trail, and its not ALWAYS clear, black and white outcomes...something to think about.

However, if i caught someone in the act of rape, i'd beat them senseless.

In all seriousness, rape is an interesting issue that seems to have a clear and obvious source of guilt (the person doing the raping). In most cases the "rapist" in a case is of clear and unquestionable guilt, but more often than anything else you have cases which sort of walk on the thin line of justification.

Cases which involve alcohol often make it far more difficult for a judge and jury to come to a justified outcome. Many cases are not clear on the guilt because at the time of the incident the male/female being raped was okay with the events taking place, as a result of the willingness and obvious lack of a struggle based on police evidence, more often than not the rape cases are thrown out. There are also cases (these make it harder for honest people to win their cases) where people will fake a rape. They will seduce a man/woman (usually a man, not always) and have sex with them, but then plead rape and demand financial restitution.

There are so many issues which effect a rape trail, and its not ALWAYS clear, black and white outcomes...something to think about.

However, if i caught someone in the act of rape, i'd beat them senseless.
How would you know it was an act of rape, if they claimed a situation that "justified" the sex you caught them having? (Something along the lines of, "hey, but she asked for it", I suppose?)

Now I needa add a copuple of things. Why won't people just use logic?

1. Past history, in the case of the accuser, is irrelevant. Just because a person may go around having sex with people, that doesn't make it O.K. to force her into sex, or mean that she's going to lie about being raped. So it's completely stupid that anyone could even think of allowing it, especially as it could prejudice the trial. As for the defendant, in most cases the same applies - past history could prejudice the trial... BUT if the person has been convicted of other rapes, people need to know, so that there is a better chance that the rapist will be convicted and locked up for a long time. I've read of too many times where a jury has failed to convict a serial rapist, which of course means that, because they are a serial rapist, it is very likely they will atttack again, so the jury need to know about the other rapes.

3. Where drink's concerned, there's no confusion. In law, if a person is under the influence of something, they can't give their free and willing consent. In practice, a lot of people get drunk, have sex, and don't feel raped. BUT if the other person is totally sober, they've taken advantage of a person's drugged-up state (alcohol is a drug remember), therefore they have raped them.

And if a person is totally smashed out their face, then anyone who has a brain should be able to tell that obviously any "consent" was NOT free and willing, as it was a result of alcohol, just as it would not be free and willing consent if any other type of drug had been used.

As for false accusations, they are extremely rare (and remember, just because a person wasn't found guilty, it doesn't mean they didn't do it, especially as the system is weighted in favour of the defendants). In Britain, a case has to be passed to prosecutors by the police. The prosecutors (the CPS) then decide what to do. The CPS virtually NEVER prosecute unless there's loads of evidence. So if there wasn't enough evidence, it's highly unlikely a case would even be passed to the CPS. If it was, it's highly unlikely the CPS would decide to prosecute. So false accusations usually never get further than the police stage, especially as the police ask for very specific details and are quite harsh with their questioning.

Now I needa add a copuple of things. Why won't people just use logic?
*snip*

3. Where drink's concerned, there's no confusion. In law, if a person is under the influence of something, they can't give their free and willing consent. In practice, a lot of people get drunk, have sex, and don't feel raped. BUT if the other person is totally sober, they've taken advantage of a person's drugged-up state (alcohol is a drug remember), therefore they have raped them.:confused: if there is no confusion.. then I don't see why this is the 20th-some "rape definition" thread that went for 60+ pages..

In another words what you are saying is that "NS posters are very stupid to continuously debate Laws that are so crystal clear."

O.K. then, I mean there should be no confusion. If you actually use logic, based on what I wrote, you should not feel confused. Have a nice day :)

Have a nice day :)Me bad (my last line was uncalled for)
edited my bad manners...

You're complaining that posters here are treating all the answers as if they are the same, but you are treating all the situations as if they are the same.

First of all, I say it doesn't matter if you say the woman is only partially responsible or completely responsible. If you say a woman is responsible for a rape situation at all, you're blaming victims for the crime committed against them. You say there are times a woman is responsible for being raped. I say that, if you say that, then you are also saying that there a times a man has a right to force sex on a woman against her will; you're saying that in some situations, forcing sex isn't rape. And there's the core of this thread's argument right there. But let's set it aside for a moment and look at this issue of responsibility.

Are you saying a woman who goes out partying and flirting is creating a rape-inducing situation? I disagree.

What about a woman who isn't in the mood to have sex with her boyfriend on a given night? Is she provoking him?

What about a woman who is afraid of a man who has just threatened her job if she doesn't have sex with him? Is she responsible for that situation?

How about a woman who is just walking down the street but is pretty and dressed nice? Is she creating a rape-inducing situation just by being visible where a pervert might see her?

You want to parse responsibility as fine as 1%? How much responsibility does a man have to bear before he actually has to account for the things he chooses to do?

Recently, in New York City, a young woman -- a grad student at John Jay College -- went out drinking with friends. The night went on and on. Her group melded together with other groups of partiers. Some of her friends went home. She decided to stay out with other people and go to another bar. At some point during the partying, she vanished. Her body was found in another part of the city the next day. She had been so brutally raped, tortured and murdered that according to the NYC papers, the NYC cops were "stunned." Do you have any idea how bad a crime has to be to stun a NYC cop?

Was this woman engaging in risky behavior by going bar hopping with people she didn't know well? Did she put herself in danger? Possibly. You know what, let's grant it for the sake of this point and say she was.

Does this in any way lessen the responsibility of the man who did this to her? Does it in any way make it less of a crime?

Rape is not something that just happens. It's not an accidental or inevitable or natural result of a woman doing the wrong thing. It is a crime of choice, and the choice is made by the rapist, not the rape victim. He chooses to do it, he chooses who to do it to, and he chooses how to do it, whether by violence or by coercion or by taking advantage of a target letting her guard down.You must have completely missed the point of what I was saying.

I am not complaining about posters here. I didn't read anything but the OP.

I am not defending the idea that a woman can be partially responsible for being raped.

I am not saying that there are times a woman is responsible for being raped.

I am complaing about the survey and how the news media treats it. There is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between an opinion that a rape victim is 1% responsible and an opinion that a rape victim is 100% responsible. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME OPINIONS.

Hey hey hey! It's not rape! It's....surprize sex.


I had a troubling childhood.

You must have completely missed the point of what I was saying.

I am not complaining about posters here. I didn't read anything but the OP.

I am not defending the idea that a woman can be partially responsible for being raped.

I am not saying that there are times a woman is responsible for being raped.

I am complaing about the survey and how the news media treats it. There is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between an opinion that a rape victim is 1% responsible and an opinion that a rape victim is 100% responsible. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME OPINIONS.
Well, I'd have to really dislike someone to insist that they read through this whole thread, but you should try to skim over some of it. But I'll tone down the battle mode.

However, I will say that I don't see the difference in these opinions that you see. The bottom line for me is this: If people would blame a woman 1% of the time, then they can't say they would never blame her. And when you apply that to reality, then that 1% makes all the difference.

Let's say you want to know what people really think about who is responsible for rape. You know perfectly well that if you ask anyone if they think the victim is responsible for being raped, they're going to say no. Nobody is going to say rape is okay or justified. But the reality is that cops often refuse to investigate rape complaints; prosecutors sometimes refuse to prosecute; juries sometimes acquit despite clear evidence; and judges sometimes overturn convictions or give ridiculously light sentences despite convictions on serious charges. In many such cases, the reason cited is that they think the woman somehow or to some degree was responsible for it. But how is that possible, if everyone says they don't think rape is ever justified? I think this survey was testing a theory that, even if people claim that they would never blame the woman, in reality, they really do think she is responsible and would blame her if asked to decide a case.

And if you are wondering why a country can have firm, clear laws about rape and other sex crimes yet still have a spotty or poor record of convictions, then this could be where your problem lies.

As for the media, it's one thing for them to tell us something. It's quite another for us to blindly accept their word for it. If you really doubt their interpretation of the survey, then go read it yourself and decide for yourself whether they were reporting accurately or just exploiting it for ratings. That's what I do if I think I'm being snowed.

Uh, no. If you get sex because you pressured someone into giving it to you, you committed rape -- whether there was violence or not.

Society pressured me into sex. Society raped me.

Society pressured me into sex. Society raped me.
I smell a class-action lawsuit that would end up raising around $1.19 cents each as the award, but an unmodly amount of $ to clear up the legal costs.
Nonetheless, a fulfilling moral exercise.

Society pressured me into sex. Society raped me.
What are you talking about? What does "society" have to do with the example you quoted?

You wrote that if you're pressured into sex, you've been raped. Ergo, I've been raped by society.

You wrote that if you're pressured into sex, you've been raped. Ergo, I've been raped by society.
Society pressures you to have sex against your will? How?

I'd become extremely depressed and take my own life due to all the sex being portrayed in the media and due to being insulted and ridiculed by my peers.

I'd become extremely depressed and take my own life due to all the sex being portrayed in the media ....
So long as you aren't so selfish after you're dead .... ;)

Society pressures you to have sex?peer pressure...

http://www.3bgames.co.uk/comics/alienpeerpressure.jpg
LOL..you still a virgin?.. You loser!! :D

I was reading about some small, supposedly backwards country the other day and their conviction for rapes was 7%. I guess that makes us backwards too.

Sadly, I can think of no other suggestion other than that, perhaps, women ought not to dress like harlots (which I think is not unfair when one sees how they dress around Manchester a fair bit of the time) if they don't want to get treated like them.

In defense of my gender a lot of women don't know what a man considers slutty dressing. Is the difference of a couple of inches what changes a business skirt into a skirt that only a harlot would wear?

In defense of my gender a lot of women don't know what a man considers slutty dressing. Is the difference of a couple of inches what changes a business skirt into a skirt that only a harlot would wear?
It's rather easy to find out. ask the men in your family or male friends.

heck, even your mothers and older sisters would have an idea.

while I am not placing the blame on women, men are not also the sole perpetrators. I do believe in a case by case situation.

In defense of my gender a lot of women don't know what a man considers slutty dressing. Is the difference of a couple of inches what changes a business skirt into a skirt that only a harlot would wear?

"slutty dressing" (and similar words/phrases) is just a stupid phrase used to try to justify violence against women (there have been plenty of surveys - rape is more about power and violence than anything else) that leaves them traumatised.

A man can go around in his boxer shorts and not get called a "slut", why the f*ck should be it any different for women?! The answer: Because men who use the word "slut" to describe women are most likely sick perverts who like to treat women as objects so they can try to feel less guilty about traumatising them. :mad:

"slutty dressing" (and similar words/phrases) is just a stupid phrase used to try to justify violence against women (there have been plenty of surveys - rape is more about power and violence than anything else) that leaves them traumatised.

A man can go around in his boxer shorts and not get called a "slut", why the f*ck should be it any different for women?! The answer: Because men who use the word "slut" to describe women are most likely sick perverts who like to treat women as objects so they can try to feel less guilty about traumatising them. :mad:if a woman wants to wander around her home wearing nothing but boxer shorts, more power to her then. but to have a woman go out on the town wearing nothing but boxershorts...

and notice that in your post, only "MEN" who call women sluts are sick perverts. I've heard more women calling each other sluts than men.

peer pressure...

http://www.3bgames.co.uk/comics/alienpeerpressure.jpg
LOL..you still a virgin?.. You loser!! :D
So, you're saying that society pressures men to rape women in order to avoid being made fun of by other guys? I believe you. It's not fair to guys. We should do something to stop that, don't you think? Maybe we should strive for a culture that makes fun of guys who think it's cool to force sex, coerce sex, or steal sex from drunk or drugged up women. "You're too insecure to take no for an answer? LOSER!" How's that for a peer pressure message?

I was reading about some small, supposedly backwards country the other day and their conviction for rapes was 7%. I guess that makes us backwards too.
Yep.

It's rather easy to find out. ask the men in your family or male friends.

heck, even your mothers and older sisters would have an idea.

while I am not placing the blame on women, men are not also the sole perpetrators. I do believe in a case by case situation.
I see -- men get to dictate what women should wear in order to avoid being denounced as sluts and inciting rape. Uh-huh.

But I notice you didn't answer the question. How short is too short when it comes to skirts? What if my dad, brother, male friends, mom and grandma are more permissive than the guy who lives down the street? What if they tell me it's safe to go out in a certain skirt, but the guy down the street thinks that's a slut outfit and that I'm asking to be raped, so he takes it on himself to teach me a lesson? If he says I'm dressed like a slut, am I responsible for his decision to attack me?

if a woman wants to wander around her home wearing nothing but boxer shorts, more power to her then. but to have a woman go out on the town wearing nothing but boxershorts...

and notice that in your post, only "MEN" who call women sluts are sick perverts. I've heard more women calling each other sluts than men.
Again, you are allowing men more freedom than women. The man is allowed to go out in his underwear, but if the woman does, she's a slut who is a "perpetrator" in the sex crime someone commits against her, according to you.

Why is it not a sexual incitement for men to show their bodies in public but it is if a woman does it? Because men say so? Well, I'm sorry, but I say the hell with that. Women have the same right to engage in lawful activities (like partying, drinking, and choosing their own clothes) that men do. I will not be dictated to by a few sex-obsessed assholes. I am certainly not going to have my lifestyle controlled by vague threats of what someone might do to me if I do the (never defined) wrong thing.

I see -- men get to dictate what women should wear in order to avoid being denounced as sluts and inciting rape. Uh-huh.

you can see it that way, or you can see it as "You wanna know if you're dressing like you're hunting for sex? ask the person who will most likey see you as hunting for sex." as Blue Potatoes posted.
In defense of my gender a lot of women don't know what a man considers slutty dressing. Is the difference of a couple of inches what changes a business skirt into a skirt that only a harlot would wear?so I was saying the best way then is to ask the men in your family if the line has been crossed. they would be the ones with your best interest in heart. and as I also said. the older women in your family would also know.

now if you wanna see that as a woman being totally submissive then that is your problem. not mine, nor not society's

But I notice you didn't answer the question. How short is too short when it comes to skirts? What if my dad, brother, male friends, mom and grandma are more permissive than the guy who lives down the street? What if they tell me it's safe to go out in a certain skirt, but the guy down the street thinks that's a slut outfit and that I'm asking to be raped, so he takes it on himself to teach me a lesson? If he says I'm dressed like a slut, am I responsible for his decision to attack me?at least you made the attempt not to dress slutty. and at the trial, it would help your defense that "yes it was not your intent to dress for sex"

preventing rape is not sole responsibility on the men, but women also have to take some of the responsiblity. I've known dick teasers. women who will dangle the goods out just to tease men. I've also known women who try to dress trendy to be popular, not knowing when the line would be crossed. wanna have a good time with your clothes on? then there is no need to flash the goods.

how short is short? that's up to you. but remember, it's also your responsiblity.

Again, you are allowing men more freedom than women. The man is allowed to go out in his underwear, but if the woman does, she's a slut who is a "perpetrator" in the sex crime someone commits against her, according to you.where did I say that. If a man goes out wearing underwear, Guess what... he gets arrested! notice I said in the home! male streakers are arrested... just the same as female ones. so cut that bullshit out.Why is it not a sexual incitement for men to show their bodies in public but it is if a woman does it? who said it isn't.Because men say so? what planet are you from. indecent exposure does not differenciate between men and women. Well, I'm sorry, but I say the hell with that. Women have the same right to engage in lawful activities (like partying, drinking, and choosing their own clothes) that men do. I will not be dictated to by a few sex-obsessed assholes. I am certainly not going to have my lifestyle controlled by vague threats of what someone might do to me if I do the (never defined) wrong thing.fine, then don't complain when the woman is found guilty for exictment to rape, even tho in your mind, the only guilty person of Rape is the one with the penis.

where did I say that. If a man goes out wearing underwear, Guess what... he gets arrested! notice I said in the home! male streakers are arrested... just the same as female ones. so cut that bullshit out.
Excuse me, but men *can* go out wearing only shorts -- not underwear specifically, but shorts, swimtrunks, etc -- and nobody says they're over-exposing themselves even though everything but their butts and crotches is visible. But if a woman goes out wearing nothing but shorts and a small top -- like, say, a running outfit -- according to the standard you describe, she's dressed like a slut and is responsible for provoking a sexual attack.

who said it isn't.
Society says so. There is no general debate over whether it is indecent for a man to go out in public in revealing clothes, but there is constant debate when a woman does it.

what planet are you from. indecent exposure does not differenciate between men and women.
Obviously, but now I'd like you to define "indecent." Because there is a world of difference between the law saying that neither men nor women are allowed to go out naked or showing their genitals in public, and YOU saying that women dress "slutty."

fine, then don't complain when the woman is found guilty for exictment to rape, even tho in your mind, the only guilty person of Rape is the one with the penis.
So much for not blaming the victim. There is no crime of "excitement to rape." Victims of a crime are never "guilty" of that crime. The only person guilty of a rape is the one who does the raping. If a man rapes a woman then the man is guilty of rape. If a woman rapes a man -- yes, it happens -- then the woman is guilty of rape. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that if you decide I look "slutty," that's my fault and I deserve not only to be raped but also to be blamed for it. Guess what argument is not going to help anyone facing a rape charge in a court of law?

you can see it that way, or you can see it as "You wanna know if you're dressing like you're hunting for sex? ask the person who will most likey see you as hunting for sex." as Blue Potatoes posted.
so I was saying the best way then is to ask the men in your family if the line has been crossed. they would be the ones with your best interest in heart. and as I also said. the older women in your family would also know.

now if you wanna see that as a woman being totally submissive then that is your problem. not mine, nor not society's

at least you made the attempt not to dress slutty. and at the trial, it would help your defense that "yes it was not your intent to dress for sex"

preventing rape is not sole responsibility on the men, but women also have to take some of the responsiblity. I've known dick teasers. women who will dangle the goods out just to tease men. I've also known women who try to dress trendy to be popular, not knowing when the line would be crossed. wanna have a good time with your clothes on? then there is no need to flash the goods.

how short is short? that's up to you. but remember, it's also your responsiblity.
You're still saying that a woman should not be allowed to choose her own clothes.

And you are ignoring my question: What if the people I ask for guidance tell me what to wear but I still get raped? If I'm responsible for provoking rape by the way I dress, then their advice wasn't very good, was it? In that case, would you say I come from a whole family of sluts who go about provoking rape?

You complain about "dick teasers" and so on. Do you really think that if a woman behaves in a way that frustrates you sexually that gives you a right to rape her?

Excuse me, but men *can* go out wearing only shorts -- not underwear specifically, but shorts, swimtrunks, etc -- and nobody says they're over-exposing themselves even though everything but their butts and crotches is visible. But if a woman goes out wearing nothing but shorts and a small top -- like, say, a running outfit -- according to the standard you describe, she's dressed like a slut and is responsible for provoking a sexual attack.then that is not MEN talking but Society. Hawaiians went around topless until the missionaries came around. what that to change, then start a movement. I'll support it. (and not for obvious reasons also.)Society says so. There is no general debate over whether it is indecent for a man to go out in public in revealing clothes, but there is constant debate when a woman does it. has anyone complained about a shirtless man walking around? Again that is society and not just men, so far your main conflict is societies definitions... not Males.

Obviously, but now I'd like you to define "indecent." Because there is a world of difference between the law saying that neither men nor women are allowed to go out naked or showing their genitals in public, and YOU saying that women dress "slutty." indecent for me is something that make one feel uncomfortable. some people find nursing babies in public to be indecent. I say it's their right and give them as much privacy as possible. some find a low V- cut dress to be slutty. I say wearing nothing but a thong and a couple of Pasties is a little too revealing.So much for not blaming the victim. There is no crime of "excitement to rape." Victims of a crime are never "guilty" of that crime. The only person guilty of a rape is the one who does the raping. If a man rapes a woman then the man is guilty of rape. If a woman rapes a man -- yes, it happens -- then the woman is guilty of rape. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that if you decide I look "slutty," that's my fault and I deserve not only to be raped but also to be blamed for it. Guess what argument is not going to help anyone facing a rape charge in a court of law?no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying you cannot assume that the aggressor is always guilty. that is why there are trials.

the sad fact that most women wait until reporting rape makes conviction difficult since most physical evidence is gone also contributes to the low procecution rate.

however, there have been the rare cases where the woman does lead the man on to the point where both are consentually naked in bed and after some time of heavy fondling, she says 'no'. In those cases, who is at fault? according to you... it's not the woman's fault.

You're still saying that a woman should not be allowed to choose her own clothes.no I'm not. I said she can, note CAN, not MUST, not HAS TO. but can as in "it is an option" to ask for an OPINION. not order, not command, OPINION.

And you are ignoring my question: What if the people I ask for guidance tell me what to wear but I still get raped? If I'm responsible for provoking rape by the way I dress, then their advice wasn't very good, was it? In that case, would you say I come from a whole family of sluts who go about provoking rape?no. but in the trial, when the defense says "Muravyets wore this intentionally looking for sex" you have witnesses saying "no she didn't" and if your whole family are sluts (by your definition.) then it won't make any difference. but if you know this and take their opinion without adjusting for that knowledge...

You complain about "dick teasers" and so on. Do you really think that if a woman behaves in a way that frustrates you sexually that gives you a right to rape her?do you think that "Dick Teasers" should not have any responsibility for their actions?

then that is not MEN talking but Society. Hawaiians went around topless until the missionaries came around. what that to change, then start a movement. I'll support it. (and not for obvious reasons also.)

has anyone complained about a shirtless man walking around? Again that is society and not just men, so far your main conflict is societies definitions... not Males.
Don't act dense. It's obvious that I am objecting to your acceptance of a double standard that gives men greater freedom than women. I say that men are the main supporters of that double standard, but you say it's society, not men. There's just one problem with your attitude -- if "society" supports the double standard, then why does "society" pass laws that refuse to blame the victim and that say what a woman was wearing has nothing to do with whether she was raped or not? I say the double standard is nothing more than the attempt of some people to promote a taboo that is specifically directed against women.

indecent for me is something that make one feel uncomfortable. some people find nursing babies in public to be indecent. I say it's their right and give them as much privacy as possible. some find a low V- cut dress to be slutty. I say wearing nothing but a thong and a couple of Pasties is a little too revealing.no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying you cannot assume that the aggressor is always guilty. that is why there are trials.

And you are wrong when you say that (bolded phrase). Rape is a crime. If a man is the aggressor in a rape, then he is guilty of that crime. Trials determine only whether he actually did the deed or not. They do not ask if he was justified because there is no legal justification for rape.

Also, thank you for defining what you think "indecent" is -- it's more than some others have done. Unfortunately, your definition is completely subjective. By such a standard, I could ask the Pope himself what I should wear and it wouldn't guarantee my safety. I guess that's why nuns sometimes get raped, huh? Unhappy as it is, there are people in the world who think all you have to do to be a rape-deserving slut is be female.

the sad fact that most women wait until reporting rape makes conviction difficult since most physical evidence is gone also contributes to the low procecution rate.
There's certainly no disputing this, but what does it have to do with your assertion that women provoke rape?

however, there have been the rare cases where the woman does lead the man on to the point where both are consentually naked in bed and after some time of heavy fondling, she says 'no'. In those cases, who is at fault? according to you... it's not the woman's fault.
That's right, it's not the woman's fault. She said "no." Any sex that you have with her after that point is forced on her against her will, i.e. not consensual.

Let's turn the tables and say the woman wants the sex, but the guy changes his mind. Maybe he's tired and can't get it up, or something happens that turns him off or makes him need to interrupt what they are doing. Would you say the woman has a right to try to force him to pleasure her against his will? In my opinion, she would be just as wrong as the man, but this scenario hardly ever comes up in debate for two reasons:

1) It seldom happens in reality (not never but seldom). Women are usually not strong enough to force themselves physically on a man, but men usually are stronger than women and can force themselves on them. That's why there's a crime called date rape, because this does happen. If women were stronger, you might see women accused of date rape just as much as men. (Maybe. I'm not going to argue over whether either sex is inherently more aggressive. I think both are mentally capable of being violent assholes.)

2) The "she can't change her mind" scenario you outlined is always connected to the assumption that a woman is wrong to deny sex to a man if he asks for it, and that if she does deny it, then he may be excused if he takes it anyway. It is based solely on the belief that "non-slutty" woman don't say "no" to men (implication: about anything). But if one thinks a good woman is a compliant woman, then in the woman-as-aggressor scenario, one would have to say that such behavior is rape -- and if it's rape when a woman does it, why wouldn't it be rape when a man does it?

no I'm not. I said she can, note CAN, not MUST, not HAS TO. but can as in "it is an option" to ask for an OPINION.

not order, not command, OPINION. no. but in the trial, when the defense says "Muravyets wore this intentionally looking for sex" you have witnesses saying "no she didn't" and if your whole family are sluts (by your definition.) then it won't make any difference. but if you know this and take their opinion without adjusting for that knowledge...

do you think that "Dick Teasers" should not have any responsibility for their actions?
So you are saying that women are to blame for rape, despite your earlier claim otherwise.

Let's parse this out. You are saying in this post:

A) If I dress in a way that you find sexy, then I am provoking you to rape me. In other words, I am responsible for what you think?

B) If I don't seek outside authority to approve my clothing, then I will defintely be provoking rape because there is no way I can decide for myself what is decent or not. This is why you insist that I must seek outside advice from authoritative sources. So in other words, you are suggesting that women will always be slutty and provoking rape unless someone else stops them? Sounds suspiciously like the old "women are to blame for leading men astray/original sin" argument.

C) If I do seek outside authority and I still get raped, it's still my fault because I took advice from fellow rape-provoking sluts. By the scenario you outline here, there obviously must be some objective standard of decency that my slutty family doesn't conform to. But you don't tell me to follow an objective standard. You tell me specifically to seek my family's advice and then you would blame me for getting raped. But how am I supposed to know that my family are sluts if you refuse to give me an objective standard to compare them to? So even if I do as you command and seek advice, I'm still to blame. Sounds like a set-up to me.

D) "Dick teasers" deserve to be raped? Why? Because they got you all het up but wouldn't let you get yourself off on their bodies? Who else deserves to be treated that way? If you know a person has money and you're broke, but they refuse to give you any of their money, do you have a right to steal it from them?

Oh, BTW, in real life, your little "trial" scenario would land you in jail. A) You can't know why Muravyets wore what she wore because you can't read her mind. B) If my witnesses say I was just dressed the way I always dress for, say, my office job or to go to dinner with friends, how are you going to prove them wrong? C) You can try to assassinate the victim's character if you like, but my character in no way changes the nature of the crime (people go to prison for raping prostitutes and murdering killers, you know). What you think of my family's character affects it even less.

As I said before, rape is a crime of choice. A man chooses to do it. All the excuses you are coming up with are nothing but that -- excuses for why he chose to do it. None of these situations -- my clothes, my family's character, none of it -- would in any way force him to force sex on me. Therefore, I am in no way responsible for what he chooses to do.

If you live in a shitty neighbourhood and you go out for a two week holiday and you leave your door unlocked and wide open, don't be surprised to come back and find everything gone. I'm not saying that women are responsible for being raped, but they can be fucking stupid about it. I doubt an insurance company would cover it.

So, you're saying that society pressures men to rape women in order to avoid being made fun of by other guys? I believe you. It's not fair to guys. We should do something to stop that, don't you think? Maybe we should strive for a culture that makes fun of guys who think it's cool to force sex, coerce sex, or steal sex from drunk or drugged up women. "You're too insecure to take no for an answer? LOSER!" How's that for a peer pressure message?

I never said anything about society pressuring men to rape women. I said society pressures men to have sex.