Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: Gabriel on Jun 18, 2004, 11:00 AM

Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Gabriel on Jun 18, 2004, 11:00 AM
Rape is seen as the worst of all crimes. "Sex crimes" news stories flash, oh the humanity. But I have been wondering if they are as big a deal as they have been made out to be.

For example, if a women were tied up and her arms were slowly pounded into mush with a hammer, piece by piece, the ends of fingers first then the rest of the finger... all the way up the arm to the shoulder, slowly for 8 hours. She would be awarded no special shields at trial, no special services. No assault crimes organizations for victims of assault.

But if a man sticks his penis into a women's vagina against her will and it lasts for only 5 minutes, she is protected by rape shield laws and is awarded all kinds of protections. It seems as though protection the vagina is more important than protecting the rest of a person.
Also, I have seen plenty of women doing crazy things with their vaginas on video. The only difference between those women and rape victims is one word "consent". So why does consent turn an act some woman would normally perform into this horrible, terrible, life scarring event?

If I got punched in the face and the attacker ran off, yeah it would hurt for a few days , yeah I'd be upset, but then I would get over it. I wouldn't need shield laws to protect my identity from the attacker. I wouldn't need counseling.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 18, 2004, 11:10 AM
I think being sexually assaulted is a pretty big deal for many people, but having been sexually assaulted I also think there is a large element of hysteria in the media and elsewhere when compared to other brutal assaults, and when comparing how sexual assaults against women are portrayed vs. those against men -- especially when women are those doing the assaulting.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 18, 2004, 11:14 AM
It is an interesting question. Dan Lynch once called it "assault with a friendly weapon."

So.....why should it be a crime at all? Should it be a crime if it happens to men? If men rape men, should that be overlooked as no real problem? After all, it's less of a problem for men: you can't get pregnant from it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 18, 2004, 11:21 AM
I've been wondering the same thing myself.

The only conclusion I've come up with is that rape has to be made the most henious crime possible (when committed against a girl or woman) because it threatens women's source of power.

If it was really about the pain and suffering of the victim, the rape of men and boys would carry an equivalent penalty, rather than not even being recognized as rape in some jurisdictions as is the case now.

Perhaps a harsher sentence might be justfied, considering the additional trauma a man experiences.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 18, 2004, 11:23 AM
I don't think you'll get many takers on that one Phebe.  I bet a lot of people would agree with destroying the double standards, and unequal protections that don't exist in any other types of cases in criminal law though.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jun 18, 2004, 11:24 AM
Its not that rape isnt a big deal, its that feminists demand special rights for women under almost all circumstances. Their special rights campaign infringes on the rights of heterosexual men and women and ignores the cause by treating a symptom as most big government advocates usually do. This campaign has deliberately clouded the issues with hysteria and subterfuge and rendered the solution to be worse than the problems theyre trying to solve in the first place.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 18, 2004, 12:15 PM
because it threatens women's source of power.

Um-hum....threatens her value to the patriarchal society: her possession of her own sexuality, which she can transfer to husband or boyfriend, for instance, is another perspective, but in general, I like your thinking, typhonblue.

I was talking this over with my husband one night when you all wouldn't discuss it -- I think you thought I was setting you up, which I'm not. Thinking of Kobe Bryant, trying to parse this issue out ---

1) if there is injury, then assault laws can properly be applied and are anyway for children and presumably attacks on men, sexual assault, grievous assault, etc. So that is not the problem issue.

2) suppose there is NOT injury? And no witnesses, of course, as is usual with all crime.  Well, you could say there could be disease or unwanted pregnancy, a severe indirect injury in both cases to the woman. Okay ---

3) suppose there is no injury, no witnesses, no disease, no pregnancy?

Did a crime occur?

The man invariably without exception (Kobe) says, "It was consensual." She says no, it was not. But there is no injury. And no proof. And often I think the man really thinks it was consensual in some sense! He persuades himself that "she really wanted it." So ---------------------

Was a crime committed, or not?

Does a woman who allows herself to get caught by a man like this simply have to get over it as best she can? That is true with other types of assault, notably verbal: if somebody honks at me as soon as a light turns red I am very likely to get right out and give him or her hell for it, and nobody is going to charge me with verbal abuse ----- that person will have to get over it and probably won't be honking so much anymore, either. Verbal abuse is an example of aggression that is not legally forbidden; should rape be the same? If people can catch me, should they get to use my body as they want as long as they don't do me an injury?

My husband cut through all this by saying that it's an issue of control of one's own body. That, he said modestly, somebody could come up and pinch his cheek at work, but he wouldn't like that. The law says we get to control access to our own bodies and they aren't for other people's use.

I suppose the solution is to apply it to men: would it be okay for men to use other men's bodies for their own gratification, as long as there isn't injury? If the answer is no for men, then it should be no for women, too.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 18, 2004, 12:29 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
The law says we get to control access to our own bodies and they aren't for other people's use.


I agree 100%.  But given that I would say that keeping an innocent man in prison is ultimate violation of his human rights uncomparable to anything else.  Ultimate violation in every day he stays there and every time he is strip-searched.  If he is innocent it is his right not to be in there.

That is why I would say that if there is no proof beyound a reasonable doubt -- the matter should be settled in civil court.

Unfortunatly it will be long until men realise how much their rights are violated and will campaign for laws which protect their rights.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jun 18, 2004, 12:31 PM
Phebe- Knock off the stereotyping when you make a reference to "men". Qualify your point by defining which men youre refering to and dont use the term "patriarchy" so loosely around here. There are feminazi's in office in this country too and theyve been in power for years. The so-called "patriarchy" is a faulty stereotype that doesnt accurately define anything.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jun 18, 2004, 12:32 PM
I think this answer is more complex considering how broadly we have defined "rape".

First off, rape is wrong.  Nope, this aint some quickie disclaimer, this is the truth.  

But, why is it wrong?  Well, let's start with Phebe's answer: It's a woman's value based on a patriarchial value of the woman's chastity.  

WRONG Phebe.  I don't know hardly a guy, and I only say hardly because it's POSSIBLE, who will NOT marry a woman because she's not a virgin.

This aint the 1300's (or whatever time frame you are referencing).  

So, Phebe failed to have answer.  Why because she can't seem to get beyond the timeframe of her formative years.  So, let's the rest of use try to find the answer.

Why is rape wrong?  

It's wrong on a lot of levels:
1) It's HER body.  But it's also HIS body if HE is raped.  So for either person to have their sexuality, their body, and their mind assaulted is wrong.
2) It's wrong Biblically.
3) It's wrong LEGALLY.
4) Golden rule says: it's wrong.

But, feminiazis have had the term rape so broadened that it's almost meaningless.  We've read the stories (from newspapers, not second hand) about how a yes "meant no", or "I should be studying" meant "no", or how yes was no because she had the same amount of alcohol in her as he did.  That's why the question can even arise.

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Wolf on Jun 18, 2004, 01:09 PM
The Human Rights Council released a report on male rape in prison titled Hard Time: Male Rape in Prison. Check it out if you get the chance. Men are twice as likely to be raped than women. Men are totured in prison and nobody cares.

:2up: This is what feminist think of abused men.  

:bareit: This is what feminist wish to do to Kobe Bryant. They want him to go to a sex offender program.  

:jaws: The feminist agenda!  

:behead: A feminist alternative to Kobe exposing self in sex offender program.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 18, 2004, 01:14 PM
Quote from: "Wolf"
:bareit: This is what feminist wish to do to Kobe Bryant. They want him to go to a sex offender program.


What does the :bareit: stand for?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 18, 2004, 01:45 PM
Great collection, Wolf. I love emoticons too.
(http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/fam/fam28.gif)

A lot of men have pointed out this prison problem. I think it would be good for the whole society if that were stopped. It could be done, too. We are a rich enough country for the security and phyical plant to support that kind of imprisonment. Not my business, I guess, but it seems to me it would be a good male rights activist cause.

why is [rape] wrong? Well, let's start with Phebe's answer: It's a woman's value based on a patriarchial value of the woman's chastity.

Actually, that states that point better than I did, a good expression of the technical feminist answer. It's not actually why I think rape is WRONG, though, it's why there are so many high-voltage special provisions around the crime. That was the point made by the thread-parent, and it is true. A bar fight may do more actual damage, but rape trial provisions, penalties, etc. may be special and higher.

That isn't why rape is wrong; it's wrong because people should be able to control what others do to their bodies, that's all. People should be able to consent or say no. Men and women both.

The question is, are the special provisions around the crime of rape outmoded now that, indeed, the value of the life of a non-virgin woman does not any longer drop to zero in modern America, at least. (It does in Iran, but that is their problem, not ours.)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 18, 2004, 02:04 PM
So what does control and consent about our own bodies mean? Men are complaining that we aren't clear sometimes, I think. Or that something about the interaction isn't fair.

"I should be studying" meant "no", or how yes was no because she had the same amount of alcohol in her as he did.

Well, a woman who has the same amount of alcohol as the man is more drunk, of course ---- "candy is dandy but likker is quicker." I don't suppose anyone here will care to defend the use of Rohypnol to drug a woman. Buying her drinks, though? What about when a woman is unconscious? Is that rape? I guess so, since the whole issue is about consent: if she is unconscious, she can't say no. So she didn't have a choice. Does that seem obvious to everyone?

I guess men here one and all will say, drunk is fair: if she didn't want to get drunk and passionate, she shouldn't put the drinks in her mouth. Okay, okay, I suppose I agree. Reluctantly. That Likker is Quicker Ogden Nash line resonates through the years, somehow. It IS manipulation, but I suppose it isn't quite rape. Not very nice, though.

I really should be studying; I need to go; no, don't; we shouldn't......

I guess I'd support a woman making a charge on this basis of being overpowered, overpersuaded, but I wouldn't be happy about it. I myself think there is a lot to be said for a fierce NO!, a siren-like shriek that really gets his attention, and grabbing the purse and leaving the apartment at speed. But then, I have a strong personality and was never very likely to be raped.

What about these girls who are very passive, they don't want to hurt feelings, cause a scene, be loud, they want to be liked? Like Kobe Bryant's accuser, inching herself toward the door, but too late? I'm asking. Women like me or typhonblue, strong personalities, we're never going to be raped --- such men would steer clear. They're looking for little Miss Pleaser. What about them? What do women have to do before any man would agree it was clear, they definitely didn't consent?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Wolf on Jun 18, 2004, 02:12 PM
Just put your mouse pointer over the icon and a message will tell you what it means. The icon you inquired of is called "bare it." Which is what Kobe might have to do if he is put through a sex offender program.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 18, 2004, 02:27 PM
<<They're looking for little Miss Pleaser. What about them? What do women have to do before any man would agree it was clear, they definitely didn't consent?>>

The problem here is that there are a lot of little Miss Pleasers who want sex but they put the onus on men to initiate it.  That's true to a high extent with the initial phases of a relationship.  I realize that between Mr. and Mrs. Goldblatt, who have been married for 35 years, Mrs. Goldblatt may initiate and Mr. Goldblatt may say, "Edith, I have to finish pasting my stamps in the book".  Or he has to wash the car first, and then he's tired.

Aside from that ...

I have come across a lot of women who simply take the passive role and assume that the man will initiate everything.  There must be a whole lot of aggressive men out there, because I have had the experience of simply getting up to go - OK, she doesn't want to - and then all of a sudden she does the absolute minimum to show that she DOES want to, with a bit of surprise that I actually took "No" to mean "No".  All of it ultimately deniable, of course.  One foot in and one foot out.

The problem is that men are the ones who initiate sex - if nature turned it around, feminists would be complaining about THAT.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 18, 2004, 02:31 PM
There are a whole lot of women out there who do something for society, work, think, contribute etc.  And there are also a lot of women who get by on the mere fact that men have a sexual urge for women.  I'll tell ya ... feminists complain and complain about the fact that men have a sexual urge for women, but there would be a whole lot of women in a really sorry state if men didn't have this.  Anne Nicole Smith and Ivanna Trump come to mind.  If they had to find a cure for Polio or start a software company to earn their money, or even do the smallest whit of anything useful for society beyond ... taking ... for their material pleasure, they'd be SOL.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 18, 2004, 02:43 PM
and then all of a sudden she does the absolute minimum to show that she DOES want to, with a bit of surprise that I actually took "No" to mean "No". All of it ultimately deniable, of course. One foot in and one foot out.

Well, of course. Well described. Hey, this is how the world spins, Galt.  :)

But it doesn't answer my question --- given that men think they need to keep pushing or they'll miss out on a "yes," what does a clear "no" actually look like? Because when she says to the judge, "I TOLD HIM I needed to wash my hair!!!! Can't he take a hint??" the guys get all mad.

Though I must say, that sounds plenty clear to me. But I'm a woman. So what would be clear to a man?

Or are you saying nothing would be enough because it's the man's job to keep pushing until success is achieved? I'm not saying you are saying that; I'm asking.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 18, 2004, 02:46 PM
<<There must be a whole lot of aggressive men out there, because I have had the experience of simply getting up to go - OK, she doesn't want to - and then all of a sudden she does the absolute minimum to show that she DOES want to, with a bit of surprise that I actually took "No" to mean "No".>>

And what's really silly is this notion that ALL women have grown up in a nunnery and they have NO IDEA how men behave or think.  NO IDEA.

------------ [From "Casablanca"]:
"Rick, I'm shocked to find out that there is gambling going on here".  

(Up runs a man in the casino to the police chief): "Your winnings, Prefect".
--------------------------------------

A whole lot of women get it.  A whole lot of women orchestrate things based on the man's initiation of sex.  It exists, and it should be part of a discussion of reality.  Feminists will just ignore all of that - because it serves their purpose.  But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 18, 2004, 02:51 PM
<<Or are you saying nothing would be enough because it's the man's job to keep pushing until success is achieved?>>

I'm saying that especially among young people (my foggy memory of the process), men initiate sex.  That's how it works.  I don't know if God or nature or whatever is responsible for that.  I'm not responsible for that.  Maybe it's the omniscient Patriarchy.  I haven't paid my dues, so I haven't been to the meetings - I don't know.

But women - on their side - have an idea of how things work.  This is always ... completely ... ignored.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 18, 2004, 02:57 PM
A whole lot of women orchestrate things based on the man's initiation of sex. It exists, and it should be part of a discussion of reality. Feminists will just ignore all of that - because it serves their purpose. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Okaaaay......I agree totally. Except for the feminist bit. Of COURSE men usually initiate sex in our society! And what's more, you'd probably be very startled and start to call it "rape" if the women suddenly took out after you.

I'm not ignoring any of that at all. I am saying, given that everybody here knows men keep pushing, and what is more, we LIKE that men keep pushing because we expect that is how sex is supposed to be initiated ----------

Given all that, still, sometimes we don't want sex with man X or Y who somehow has ended up on our couch with apparently eight active hands at his disposal. How can we communicate this clearly, and yet keep social options open for a later date, in the context of the very reality you have so well described?


Whoops! We have reservations.   :shock:  I do NOT think that hanging out with you all is going to fly as an acceptable excuse for why I am late ------- anon.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 18, 2004, 06:06 PM
Quote
Okaaaay......I agree totally. Except for the feminist bit. Of COURSE men usually initiate sex in our society! And what's more, you'd probably be very startled and start to call it "rape" if the women suddenly took out after you.


Cry rape?  Unlikely.  More like I'd go into shock, pure and simple.  Phebe, you have to understand; sex is a commodity.  I see this everyday.  I organise the phone bill at my student accomadation.  The day before yesterday, the bf of one of the students paid me some £62, for her phone bill.  Why?  Because of sex.  

She does not push for sex, because she knows she can sell it.  There is no profit in a women pushing for casual sex with a male.  
-------

Quote
How can we communicate this clearly, and yet keep social options open for a later date, in the context of the very reality you have so well described?


This is simple.   You say no.  You get up, and walk away.  Tell them that today is a very bad day.  But as he leaves, give him a half smile; say that if he should ask you for a date in <insert time>....

The problem Phebe, is mixed messages.  If your in that situation, you must have done something to say/indicate "This is ok".  At the least, at some point you let him into your room(s), onto your couch.  Communication is the first part of the problem.

Quote
Or are you saying nothing would be enough because it's the man's job to keep pushing until success is achieved?


Well, in the uk, YES.  Either that or untill the female in question gives a sufficiently convincing rejection.  If the male says nothing, nothing will happen.

Quote
what does a clear "no" actually look like?


Lets see.  It's presented as a "No."  No prevarication, excuses or lies.  The body language should also underline this.  It rarely does - but it should.

It should also be given at a reasonable point.  The earlier, the better.  

As to the second part - rape.

Rape will usualy boil down to a he said - she said scenario.  There is nothing you can do to prevent this.  It's the nature of the aqusation.  This does not make it any less a crime, just harder to prove.  

Just because it's hard to prove does not mean you should change the burden of proof.  It is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.  

Quote
I don't suppose anyone here will care to defend the use of Rohypnol to drug a woman.


Strawman - no one here would support this practice.


Quote
I guess I'd support a woman making a charge on this basis of being overpowered, overpersuaded


No...really?  So if a girl is persuaded to have sex, then it's fair to acuse the persuader of rape???  Either consent is or is not given.  You can't have it both ways.

<Edit>  As usual, all errors are to be blamed on either drunkenness or fatigue </edit>
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jun 18, 2004, 09:53 PM
Wow Phebester,

That was a well thought out, fair, analytical, and reasoned response.  

No, no sarcasm, I'm just going to humbly admit that I was wrong about you on this one.  PERIOD.

I think you took my alcohol example 3 steps further along than I meant, but that's a fair and rational  extrapolation of the situation.

Ok, so let's deal with that: Using "roofies" is date rape.  It's an intentional means of drugging another person to deprive a person of their ability to consent.  If some guy uses "roofies" to have sex he's raping a woman.  That's obvious and fair.

I disagree as far as the whole "maybe she's passive and he missed the signals" idea though.

If a guy is getting mixed signals and sex happens I don't think he should be charged.  I mean, guys and gals both send mixed signals, and if sex occurs that's not "forcing" someone, it's mixed signals.

But besides that I have to say, again, that your post was very fair.

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 19, 2004, 08:04 AM
The Pheb-ster isn't all that bad, she's just misguided and has to learn the truth from us.

LOL
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 19, 2004, 09:22 AM
Thanks, Steven, I appreciate that.

Gaa-alt..... :P

Q, wonderful post. I give up; you are right, of course. Notably on this problem point:   "So if a girl is persuaded to have sex, then it's fair to acuse the persuader of rape??? Either consent is or is not given. You can't have it both ways."

I'd say it's not precisely a question of consent -- it's a question of not-consent. I understood that issue a few years ago when thinking about physician "consent" forms: they are actually about a right of refusal. So the problem is not that the girl consents, she never consents ---- she just somehow omits to say no. Which is the whole stragegy and tactics of the guy's seduction, I realize. But if that's all it is, it isn't rape: it's him scoring and her losing, that's all.

The only time that happened to me I called it rape while yelling at him on the phone a couple days later. He said, "Should I be talking to my lawyer instead of you?" I said, resignedly, "No." Because morally, you know, it just wasn't rape. It was him overpersuading and me getting very confused and losing out. Hey, sometimes in life, we lose. It's not a problem -- It was very educational and I learned a lot. The relationship, obviously, did not prosper.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jun 19, 2004, 10:07 AM
Phebe,

What happened to you was regretable.  I would also ask you to consider something. I am going to drop the usual banter and use an example out of my own life.

I have a bad physiological reaction to alcohol: my "friend" doesn't want to cooperate when I am beyond being tipsy.  But, of course, my desire is still there.  There were a few times when I got a woman alone and realized I was too wasted to "do the deed".  Now I am not one to be selfish and would offer to use my hands or mouth to plz my partner.  I didn't usually bring up WHY, but I equate this to how some women have a problem with lubrication.

Well, most women, and I have dated quite a few, don't take "no" for an answer.  First it's cajoling, then it's "she's offended/hurt", then it's "what's wrong with you aren't you a man?", and then sometimes came a slap or a kick to enunciate the point.

Now, I don't consider myself to have been raped or sexually assaulted, but I was more than just "pressured", and from what I have seen we (society) do very little to teach women that "no means no" at all.

So, what happened to you Phebe was part of seduction.  It sounds like it went further than that into manipulation.  But neither of these is sexual assault.

And men are in jail for less.

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: BikerDad on Jun 19, 2004, 10:30 AM
Quote
Rape will usualy boil down to a he said - she said scenario. There is nothing you can do to prevent this. It's the nature of the aqusation. This does not make it any less a crime, just harder to prove.


Point of order:  The "he said, she said" scenario is an ACCUSATION, not a crime.  A crime MAY have occurred, a misunderstanding MAY have occurred, or a false accusation MAY be occuring (i.e., another crime).  Healthy skepticism is the order of the day, and granting that the "he said, she said" scenario isn't "any less of a crime, just harder to prove", violates that skepticism.

Now, to the subject of rape shield laws and all that:  they are wrong.  Period.  If society and the criminal justice  are going to take the tack that rape is an especially heinous crime, then the correct place to account for the gravity of offense is in the SENTENCING, not prosecution.  Rape shield laws are predicated on the notion that a crime DID TAKE PLACE, which, legally speaking, is not established until "Guilty."  

Impaired Consent: if a woman gets drunk, and she doesn't remember what happened, tough.  She got drunk on her own.  She voluntarily vacated her faculties.  Ditto if SHE takes drugs.  On the other hand, if a man slips her a roofie then rapes her, AND it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, execute him.  Plain and simple.

The essential point is that the "rape as heinous crime" crowd consider it so heinous because it is an assault on the very personhood of the victim.  Operating under that logic, then we must also RESPECT the personhood of the victim, and accord them full responsibility for their own actions.  If a person is "overpersuaded", too bad, they're responsible for getting up and leaving.  If they have too many drinks, they're responsible for having too many.  Many of the same folks who find a sober man guilty of "raping" a drunk woman based on "he said, she said" will send a DUI to the bighouse in a New York minute, i.e., double standard.  The only reason for the double standard is the unspoken contention that women are not fully responsible for their sexual behavior, i.e., they aren't full people.  stoopid, stoopid, stoopid, especially when you consider that in these cases, ESPECIALLY if both parties were drinking, the man is required to be responsible for BOTH.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jun 19, 2004, 10:39 AM
Oh plz Phebe don't decend into "never never land" where all women are virtuous virgins who don't want sex and men are the predatory beasts held in check only by the laws of the land and the threat of prison.

As I said before I lived next to Wellesley College for quite a while.  I even went over there while in High School and said I was in college.

That school was FULL of women DYING to "get some".  I can prove this in 2 ways.
1) there is a bus that takes the women into Boston on the weekends so that the girls can party at other colleges.  Wanna know what the WELLESLEY WOMEN call it: the "fuck truck"

2) It's said that you only need 1 of 3 things to get laid at a Wellesley party:
a) a personable personality (being able to utter a coherent sentence is optional)
b) to show up AT a Wellesley party (optional also, because they'll come to you)
c) a penis (also optional as many women are bi)

Where did I get that "saying" off of a WELLESLEY T-SHIRT that was sold on campus (I paraphrased).

So let's drop the whole "she was some innocent wide eyed virgin caught in his headlights" crap.  I've seen otherwise.  

And Phebe, and this part is critical, women LIE LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER to each other.

What do I mean by that?  Most women who hook up don't go back and tell their friends: "yeah, I got his ass drunk, sucked him hard and fucked him until he was sore."  

Nope, because women love to judge each other.  Drop your feminist guard for a moment and give that some thought.  The thing a woman fears the MOST after sex is other people finding out.  I've saved myself countless grief by telling the woman afterwards: "hey, let's both lie and say that some 'petting' went on and that I was respectful and you weren't a tease"  And the women love it.  Then they prompty go off and "share" about how they hooked up.

While when a guy does it it's called "bragging".

And Phebe, since I have dated a lot more women than you, I can qualify my answers as to how women are different when other women aren't around.

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 19, 2004, 04:34 PM
<<And Phebe, since I have dated a lot more women than you, I can qualify my answers as to how women are different when other women aren't around. >>

That's actually an interesting topic - how men and women behave in private with the opposite sex vis-a-vis in public.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 20, 2004, 06:41 AM
Quote
Point of order: The "he said, she said" scenario is an ACCUSATION, not a crime. A crime MAY have occurred, a misunderstanding MAY have occurred, or a false accusation MAY be occuring (i.e., another crime). Healthy skepticism is the order of the day, and granting that the "he said, she said" scenario isn't "any less of a crime, just harder to prove", violates that skepticism.


Mea culpa - your correct.  

Quote
Q, wonderful post. I give up; you are right, of course.


Phebe, no.  Either debate the post or go away.  Sarcasm won't get you anywhere, and simply annoys.

Quote
she never consents
- Right.  Really?  As I recall from my student days (ie last week...), it goes something more like this.  "Would you care to come over to my house?"  "Want a drink or something?"  "<something suggestive>"  "<Something even more suggestive>".

Consent is usualy given about every five minutes.  Not consent to sex every time, but a "Go on, I'm alright with this".  The final consent is usualy silent.  

Quote
But if that's all it is, it isn't rape: it's him scoring and her losing, that's all.


So a women looses if she has sex.  What is it she looses, exactly?  Limbs?  Power?  Please, do tell.

Quote
It was him overpersuading
- which is what?  At what point does persuading become overpersuading?  Is it actualy a word, or would you care to replace it with another, for clarity?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jun 20, 2004, 02:37 PM
Phebe-
Quote
Which is the whole stragegy and tactics of the guy's seduction, I realize. But if that's all it is, it isn't rape: it's him scoring and her losing, that's all.


That statement reflects either confusion over sexual orientation on your part or some kind of borderline depression. If you hate sex with a man so much then why would you want to consider having it at all? I really wish lesbians would simply quit meddling into heterosexual affairs by imposing their bullshit statutes onto our culture.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 21, 2004, 10:29 AM
Phebe, no. Either debate the post or go away. Sarcasm won't get you anywhere, and simply annoys.

Hmmm....miscommunication. I meant what I said, Q, I thought that was a wonderful post and you see that I took it seriously: I gave up supporting women who make a rape charge though they weren't clear about saying no.


it's him scoring and her losing, that's all.

So a women looses if she has sex. What is it she looses, exactly? Limbs? Power? Please, do tell.


Control over her own body. That's what we're discussing, right? Whether men have a right to use women's bodies for their own pleasure whether we like it or not. If she hints, looks worried, tries to get up, says no but is ignored, etc., etc. it may be "overpersuasion" rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens: THAT is why she's mad, of course!

Is overpersuade a word? From dictionary.com: o·ver·per·suade tr.v. o·ver·per·suad·ed, o·ver·per·suad·ing, o·ver·per·suades

To persuade (someone) to act contrary to inclination or choice.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 21, 2004, 10:35 AM
That's actually an interesting topic - how men and women behave in private with the opposite sex vis-a-vis in public.

I don't believe Wellesley women or any other college-educated women talk quite like that, frankly.

Or any other women I've ever met, on reflection -----------

Migod. In fact, I suspect the only place ANYONE, male or female, talks like that is on these types of forums.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 21, 2004, 06:02 PM
Quote
Hmmm....miscommunication. I meant what I said, Q


Quite possible; again mea culpa.  Probably different standards of sarcasm.

Quote
[She looses] Control over her own body.


How so?  This would be rape, not sex.  Your position is equivilent to saying that if a wife persuades a husband to buy her something, he's lost control of his financies.  

This is not the case.  He might have been persuaded, but in the final analysis, he had a veto.  If this was used or not matters little; he has the final choice.  In the same way, the women in our scenario has a final choice.  She could say no, and mean/implement it.

Quote
Whether men have a right to use women's bodies for their own pleasure whether we like it or not.


Hmmm.  No, this is not what we were talking about, as I understood it.  The scenario we were discussing was the more or less consensual sex currently in vogue (as we seemed to have moved off strict rape some posts ago).  This is the case where women agree to have sex, or are persuaded to have sex.  

Your statement would allow me, if true, to knock on the next door along, and force myself on the girl living there.  This would be rape, no question.    

Quote
If she hints, looks worried, tries to get up, says no but is ignored


Phebe, please.   Believe it or now, pretty much every female past the age of 16 I've met since since I became remotely interested in the sex has had the capability of make her desires perfectly clear in a very cutting manner, with words alone.

I've seen it (and suffered it) enough times to know this.  To say that "she hints, looks worried..." is equivilent to a single "No" is like saying that bondage is tying someone up with spiderwebs.  It's just not strong enough.

Rape is not rape, very simply, if the female in question is in the postion to say "No" (within some limits, see below) and does not do so.

Seems harsh, hmm?  Well, untill until society (and women) in general accept equal responsiblity for sex and women drop the act of "All women are virgins and don't want sex" men will have to use some form of verbal persuasion.

They will have to ignore minor "no" signals in some situations.  It's impossible to tell if she means them, or if she enjoys the attention and just wants you to try harder!

Anything short of a firn "No" or something as clear, anything that would require serious interpretation is not enough.  

"But we've an exam tomorrow" could mean "I don't want to have sex" or "Make me forget about it...please!"  or "And after this, we can revise together" or......

Quote
Is overpersuade a word? From........


So it would appear that it's an American word, not and English one.  Fair enough.  However, it would appear to be a synonym of persuade; indeed, from the dictionary entries on dictionary.com, the two mean the same thing.

Would you be willing to use persuade, not overpersuade?

In which case....
Quote
it may be "overpersuasion" rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens
becomes "it may be 'persuasion' rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens".

Which makes no sense.  If your persuaded, you (eventualy) choose to say yes.  Which would make her mad.....why?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jun 21, 2004, 08:17 PM
The true meaning of rape is to use physical force or threat to have sex. If a woman is persuaded to have sex by a man who's playing mind games with her (which she herself should be good at), then it's not rape. It's time women start taking responsibility over their own brains.

If someone with a fast tongue convinces you to give him all your money, it's not robbery. If he didn't lie about anything, it's not even considered cheating.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 21, 2004, 11:16 PM
I'm going to have to say "No" - rape is not such a big deal.  I was never actually raped, but someone made an attempt once ...many years ago...

I did not own a TV and I was visiting a neighbor to watch a show.  There was a guest also visiting the neighbor, someone whom I had not previously met.  The guest was thouroughly inebriated and suddenly, without warning lept across the couch upon which we were both seated, tackled me, pinned me to the couch and attempted to force me to have sex.  

I did not in any way feel personally violated.  I found the incident rather amusing.  If circumstances had been different I might have even cooperated with the assailant.  This was not the most attractive person I had ever met, but, what the heck, I wasn't having sex with anyone at the time anyway.  Had it been a more attractive person I might have found it interesting.  I had actually forgotton this incident and was reminded of it while reading this discussion.

One of the circumstances that precluded completion of the act was that my wife was present.  No - we are not Massachussettes lesbians; I am a man (the attempted rapist was a woman) - and this is how a man (at least this man) reacts to an instance of attempted rape - and how he imagines he would react to accomplished rape.

Feminists would say that the difference between how I, as a man, would react to being raped and their view of how a woman typically reacts is, as are all gender characteristics, a product of how we are socially constructed; they would not see the different reactions as an essential difference between men and women.  If Feminists are correct, there are implications.   I, as a man, can be constructed by society in such a way as to be immune to the experience of personal violation resulting in severe emotional damage that a woman is said to suffer as a result of attempted or accomplished rape.  Can't women be socially constructed (or re-constructed) in the same way?  Why would a woman want to continue being vulnerable in this way when she dosen't have to be?


You may have noticed that the women participants in this discussion (and in almost every discussion of sexual issues)  tend to be concerned with avoiding unwanted sexual advances from men and seem to be intimidated by them,  while the men tend to be concerned with gaining opportunity to make sexual advances.

Again, why would a woman want to remain vulnerable to emotional damage and intimidated by man's sexual advances when she dosen't have to be?



A man is someone who has the capability to rape; everyone else is a woman.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 10:08 AM
They will have to ignore minor "no" signals in some situations. It's impossible to tell if she means them, or if she enjoys the attention and just wants you to try harder!

Anything short of a firn "No" or something as clear, anything that would require serious interpretation is not enough.



I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice. If you are pushing forward even though you know very well she is objecting, I'd say that is obnoxious at best.

I didn't mean women should be clear to deal with this sort of thing! I meant that men claim in court that they were utterly unable to translate her communication: that they didn't know that she meant No. If you understand very well that she doesn't want to but are game playing, that's pretty awful.

The reason for a clear no is to communicate with men who can't understand verbal signals that ANY woman understands effortlessly. Men have long made a case that you somehow can't understand, "I have to leave; I need to wash my hair,"  means "no, I don't want sex with you!" Fine, but if you do understand and are ignoring her, I suggest any relationship will never prosper because you aren't being honest.

Would you be willing to use persuade, not overpersuade?

No; the important connotation of overpersuade is that women don't agree at all: they are persuaded against their will. And are often angry afterward, too. "Persuade" doesn't carry the connotation of overcoming serious objection.


If someone with a fast tongue convinces you to give him all your money, it's not robbery. If he didn't lie about anything, it's not even considered cheating.

Bagu, this is a good example, though incorrect: it's called con games and there are whole police divisions that fight it. Con men steal a lot of money from people everywhere. And I think this IS what we are talking about, an attempt to con women who don't want sex. That's no good. I suppose the similarity to money cons is why courts do try cases of rape that didn't involve a clear no. Because they WERE cons and everybody involved can see that. Maybe we are moving away from that legally, but it does NOT make conning women morally right.

You may have noticed that the women participants in this discussion (and in almost every discussion of sexual issues) tend to be concerned with avoiding unwanted sexual advances from men and seem to be intimidated by them, while the men tend to be concerned with gaining opportunity to make sexual advances.

Again, why would a woman want to remain vulnerable to emotional damage and intimidated by man's sexual advances when she dosen't have to be?


You are saying we should just give it up willingly and not bother to call it rape. Seems a somewhat simplistic point of view! Disease, pregnancy, being married, being in love with someone else, being grossed out by the rapist, not wanting to be controlled, those all come quickly to mind as reasons not to accept rape.

The reason we feel intimidated is that we may lose. Nothing good about getting taken advantage of in such significant ways.

I had the same experience you did, and threw him off and left. So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that. As you did! But you were bigger; I was lucky. It was probably easier for you and chancier for me, so of course women feel anxious. (Though talk about a clear no --- there was no way that guy was getting anything but major, major trouble and injury and loud shrieks in the dorm and trips to the police station if he hadn't given up when I threw him off. What a total idiot! He just plain wasn't going to take anything I didn't want to give. I'd have died first.)

A man is someone who has the capability to rape; everyone else is a woman.

A very unpleasant slogan. But at least you aren't one of these men who somehow think women can rape. This always seemed ridiculous to me.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 10:15 AM
BikerDad saying, "The essential point is that the "rape as heinous crime" crowd consider it so heinous because it is an assault on the very personhood of the victim. Operating under that logic, then we must also RESPECT the personhood of the victim, and accord them full responsibility for their own actions. If a person is "overpersuaded", too bad, they're responsible for getting up and leaving. If they have too many drinks, they're responsible for having too many. Many of the same folks who find a sober man guilty of "raping" a drunk woman based on "he said, she said" will send a DUI to the bighouse in a New York minute, i.e., double standard."

I think the issue is, is the woman conscious. ABLE to leave, to say no. I agree with you that "overpersuaded" doesn't count. Also lowered inhibitions from drinking. This same guy I told you about who once overpersuaded me? He told me (indignantly) that another woman wouldn't go out with him any more after they once had sex because, she said to him on the phone, "You got me drunk."

This guy was not, somehow, able to get any woman to be really enthusiastic about sex with him. He was always up to some sort of control game and nobody liked it. But this woman, too, did not charge him with rape. She just refused to have anything more to do with him and chalked it up to experience.

Okay, fine. But then we have this issue:

BikerDad said, "Impaired Consent: if a woman gets drunk, and she doesn't remember what happened, tough. She got drunk on her own. She voluntarily vacated her faculties. Ditto if SHE takes drugs.

No, I don't agree with this. The issue is right of refusal, the ability to own control of one's body. If as soon as a woman is unconscious that makes her fair game, drinking wouldn't be the only situation. I fainted at work in March, bad acute food poisoning. Are you saying that a woman who faints, everybody can immediately leap on top of her? The fact that a woman loses consciousness doesn't make her everybody's sex doll!

Let's turn this around to men: suppose you drink a lot and pass out. Does that mean it's okay for homosexuals to come up behind you and have sex with you? Does that mean it's okay for women at the party to take off your clothes and look at you? How about cutting your hair? Why not? If you think any woman who gets drunk and passes out means you get a freebie without asking her, I don't see why she shouldn't get to cut your hair short and shave off your beard. Same thing exactly, after all --- you are unconscious, so you don't have a right to control your own body anymore, okay?

Nope, unconsciousness means the date is over, that's all. If the woman is unable to say no and it happens anyway, that makes it rape. I believe the law is pretty plain about that, am I right?

That was a well-stated post from BikerDad, I thought: very clear presenting of the issues.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 10:18 AM
<<I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice.>>

So I remember (vaguely) in college that I went back to the dorm room of a woman.  After kissing her for a while, my hands started moving further.

She squealed "Nooooo, doooon't" in a high-pitched, sing-songy voice.  So I sat up and quit, and she asked me if I wanted another beer.  I drank one, talked to her, and then said I was going to get going.  She started taking off some of her clothes, pulled me back into the room and put my hand on her breast.

So if things move on from there is that rape?  Is it rape if I don't call her the next day?  

Did she sexually assault me by going after me? (*Yawn*)  Was she guilty of rape by plying me with a drug - alcohol? (*Further yawn*)  Is she an innocent Mother-Theresa victim who doesn't know anything about what's going on?  Am I the evil user? (*Yawn*)

The sad fact is that many men HAVE been nailed under those circumstances (like Adam Lack vs. Sarah Klein - a Google search may suffice).

This "calling back" thing after a one-night stand - as a criterion for rape - is beyond ridiculuous.  The guy MAY call back and be blown off.  That's OK.  As long as he gets rejected afterwards.  That's not rape (at least - not on his part by the very same definition, LOL).  But she wants the choice, or she may LATER claim rape if she feels she wan't treated as a lady of respect later.  Unreal.  Unreal that any thinking person even considers that to be rape.
Title: Overpersuasion.
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 10:22 AM
I agree that overpersuasion is a crime, but I think that equating it to rape is too harsh.  It is not rape.  In Canada, it would usually carry about a year in prison, while rape carries ~6 years.

In US any sex crime carries life sentence.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 10:26 AM
So if things move on from there is that rape?

No................sounds like a fair degree of enthusiasm to me.  


Is it rape if I don't call her the next day?

No. But if you tell her to hurry up and get out because your girlfriend is coming back from work soon, the article on another thread suggests that she might at least play with the idea for awhile. Deliberate humiliation ----- I question the practicality of that. "Not calling" isn't humiliation.

Look, if it's a first night thing, if the guy doesn't want to call again, she probably doesn't want him to call, either! (I won't say how I happen to know stuff like that.)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 10:28 AM
In Canada, [overpersuading] would usually carry about a year in prison, while rape carries ~6 years.

Whoa!! Are you serious, InternetDevil? You all had me convinced that it wasn't an actionable crime at all!
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 10:29 AM
Conflict:

This statement:
"I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice."

versus this statement:

"No................sounds like a fair degree of enthusiasm to me."

------------------

There was a clear "No" in the situation I described.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 10:32 AM
<<But if you tell her to hurry up and get out because your girlfriend is coming back from work soon, the article on another thread suggests that she might at least play with the idea for awhile. Deliberate humiliation ----- I question the practicality of that. "Not calling" isn't humiliation.>>

That has nothing to do with rape.  If he's a cad, that's a whole different point.  It has nothing to do with rape.

As far as the "calling back" thing goes ... that HAS been the criterion for some women to decide that they were "raped".  I suggested "Adam Lack vs. Sarah Klein" as a starter.  That's a famous case.  If he had called her, she would have rejected him, but nothing else.  I really think that.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 10:34 AM
There's no conflict.

She said no, and you did the correct thing, which warms my heart.  (http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Heart-Beat.gif)

And indeed you had another beer and some conversation, in good faith. It is clear to other women besides me that you are good with conversation, because after that, later, at a time well past the No communication ---------

She changed her mind.

Hey, we get to do that!  We're women: it's in the specs.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 10:35 AM
By the way, there are two tremendously different versions of that story (I mean: Adam Lack vs. Sarah Klein) - but either way it wasn't rape.  Pick up both versions - not just the one where she was drunk.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 10:41 AM
I'll try to find it. Sounds interesting.

That has nothing to do with rape. If he's a cad, that's a whole different point. It has nothing to do with rape.

No, of course it doesn't, and even the girl picked up at the pub decided that eventually. But I would say that story well illustrates my point: it's not really a good idea to humiliate and betray people. Even women.

Consider this guy: he grossly betrayed two women in one night. The girl he chatted up at the pub then threw out; and his girlfriend who lived there.

In the end he got his comeuppance and the girlfriend doubtless threw him out and went on to find a better man (sounds like it would not have been hard!), so I am satisfied. The pub girl spent a year in jail and I am satisfied with that, too, because one shouldn't tell lies however obnoxious someone is.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 10:48 AM
<<But I would say that story well illustrates my point: it's not really a good idea to humiliate and betray people.>>

Right.  But making a false accusation is a crime (although probably underpunished).  There is a proportionality argument here - if I feel humiliated by you, I don't think the correct solution is to commit a crime against you.  And it certainly IS a crime if the person can spend several years in jail due to a false charge.  It is an underestimated crime.

If you can't feel empathy for the men in this situation, reverse the situation: You have a strange, loner neighbor whom you made a nasty comment to in the supermarket.  You regret it later - just because you have a conscience.  But he is plotting to "get you back".  A disproportionate response, and maybe a crime.

But is his potential response any worse then police putting you in jail for years?  For some people in jail, with all that goes on there, probably not.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 10:50 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
In Canada, [overpersuading] would usually carry about a year in prison, while rape carries ~6 years.

Whoa!! Are you serious, InternetDevil? You all had me convinced that it wasn't an actionable crime at all!


Yes.  Overpersuasion, and nonconsensual sexual touching is sexual assault to be tried in a provincial court without a jury but without the possibility of >18 months.

Rape and pedophilia are tried in a federal court with a jury and carry up to 10 years -- usually six.

In US, overpersuasion is treated as rape and usually results in life sentence which I find barbaric.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 10:52 AM
<<In US, overpersuasion is treated as rape and usually results in life sentence ...>>

Let's not get dramatic - a "rape", especially in an "overpersuasion" case, does not result in a life sentence.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 10:53 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
<<In US, overpersuasion is treated as rape and usually results in life sentence ...>>

Let's not get dramatic - a "rape", especially in an "overpersuasion" case, does not result in a life sentence.


Not life in prison.  About 12 years in prison plus the rest of the life on Megan's list and probably probation.  Or increasingly more likely a hospital for criminally insane.

OK.  Let's say a man overpersuades a woman in '04.  He is convicted in '06 and gets 12 years.  His date of release is '18.  Can we have any doubts that by that time almost all sex offenders will be committed after prison?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 22, 2004, 10:59 AM
One of the things that I have contemplated with regards to this matter is the punishment versus the act. The average person in our society is brought up to believe that a woman being raped is THE most heinous horrible, despicable, vulgar, nasty (and so on and so on) thing that could EVER happen to a woman. SO bad, that life in prison or even DEATH is the penalty most people would prescribe.

Then I have to inquire: how bad *is* it? We are told that women are emotionally scarred for life. The event will always haunt her. If a woman is raped, even "brutally", the social reaction to this crime would have me believe that *every* victim of rape ends up talking to herself in an padded cell in some insane asylum because the event was so "tramatic".

However, that seldom seems to be the case. TV shows and movies show how sad and angry the victims are, but then the "evil" man is sent to prison (or killed or whatever) and the victim seems to get eventually get back to their lives and everything returns to normal.

This is not an attempt to make the crime trivial, this is an attempt to understand *what* the big deal is all about, as the original poster questioned.

To illustrate, a friend of mine was heading home late one night and passed two thugs in the parking lot. For NO reason, they attacked and beat him. They broke his glasses for the sheer spite and he had to go to the hospital for injuries sustained and his eye had this "bloodspot" in it for weeks afterward. Yet, he just continued with his life. He did not go on talk shows. No one made a movie of the week about it and he did not end up in a padded cell talking to himself.

We are told that acts of rape that dont even involve violence (such as ones pointed out frequently here, where the women "changed her mind" afterward) are so horrible that the man should spend the rest of his life in prison. Why? Why is sexual assault so much MORE horrible than just beating the crap out of someone?

I've noticed that with superhero movies, there is almost always at least one scene where the hero rescues a woman from sexual assault and the hero does a "no holds barred" revenge tactic.

Now I know that this statement may not be recieved well, but I will try to word it the best I can. I believe that rape is "wrong" and is a crime, just like any another act of violence or assault. I would never do it myself and I would not condone or justify such an act, just like any other act of violence or assault. I just find it difficult to sympathize with female rape victims because (in general) women use sexuality to thier benefit so often, so frequently and in so many forms, that I cannot feel sorry when it is *forced* upon them. Its like a drug dealer that complains when someone breaks into their house and steals their stash of drugs.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 11:10 AM
Quote from: "Renegade"
Then I have to inquire: how bad *is* it?


In comparison to what?  I think it is worse then almost any other assault or robbery.  It is second to murder and assault which leaves permanent injury.

Unfortunatly in US, even robbery -- a property crime has an average 7 year sentence which is very harsh.  Even victimless drug crimes carry an average of 4 years.  In Canada they carry 3 months.

But I doubt anything is comparable to trauma of prison.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 11:12 AM
I just find it difficult to sympathize with female rape victims because (in general) women use sexuality to thier benefit so often, so frequently and in so many forms, that I cannot feel sorry when it is *forced* upon them. Its like a drug dealer that complains when someone breaks into their house and steals their stash of drugs.

I find this quite a worrying statement. A lot of beautiful women certainly do not "use" sex. The fact that you happen to be turned on is what I think you are actually talking about, and that is hardly our fault.

So men get turned on, and some of them decide that's somehow OUR fault, and so they decide to take what they want, since they've decided it's "our" fault.

I suggest a better response would be to avoid women if you think we are flaunting sexuality to bother you. And consider carefully where all this sexual interest is located. It's probably in you, not in any of these women you watch.

That said, rape is about who gets to control our bodies. We don't want some stranger doing that, it's simple. I think every man who has a question about that should consider whether he would like four prison toughs to rape him. Would you view that as "not really a problem"? Worse or better than being mugged and beat up? If men were threatened with rape as often as women are, you could ponder these interesting comparisons.

Since you are almost NEVER threatened with rape, you have no idea how women feel about it. Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or men, powerless. If men constantly used men's bodies this way, you would talk with each other and know what a problem it is. Instead, you decide we deserve it??
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 11:18 AM
<<Even victimless drug crimes carry an average of 4 years.>>

I have no idea where you're getting your statistics from, but here's something to consider:

There is plea-bargaining in the United States.  If you have a joint on you, the "sentence" if the cops even write it up, is a $5 fine in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for instance.

If someone is running a drug house in Detroit, distributing crack cocaine, and has a number of weapons despite his probation status (which doesn't allow weapons), he may be able to plea-bargain down to drug possession in a case that involved much more than drug possession.  Shooting at police officers, maybe.  That's how the system works, and the statistics that present the "offenses" may be skewed because of that - if your statistics are even correct.

Rent a room in a house in inner-city Detroit (maybe south of 6 Mile ...).  Walk around the city for a while.  Converse with your neighbors.  Talk to the young gentlemen on the corner.  Do it for a year, and report back.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Galt on Jun 22, 2004, 11:21 AM
<<A lot of beautiful women certainly do not "use" sex. >>

That's a point of disagreement.  A lot of women - not necessarily "beautiful" - really use sexual attraction as a core element in their lives.

If sexual attraction on the part of men didn't exist, you'd have a lot of women in a sorry state.  Anna Nicole Smith would be working at Burger King.  Ivana Trump would be folding laundry.  Heidi Klum would be on welfare.  Mrs. Joe Average Suburbs would not have everything she brags about.  Not pretty.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 11:26 AM
Looking glamorous is not illegal.

Rape is illegal.

Blaming women for rape is the norm, and I sure don't like it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 22, 2004, 11:37 AM
Phebe said:
Quote
And indeed you had another beer and some conversation, in good faith. It is clear to other women besides me that you are good with conversation, because after that, later, at a time well past the No communication ---------

She changed her mind.


So she clearly said NO, then they talk some more and she changes her mind. Wouldn't that mean he persuaded her? Going by what you said on here Phebe you call this rape.

Woman says 'NO'. Man continues to persuade - which you call overpersuade because she clearly said 'NO'. She changes her mind thereby surrendering her will and free choice and control of her body to the man which is in direct conflict with what she clearly stated her position to be. Now she's a victim...but wait she changed her mind - it's in the specs.

Now do you see how men get the wrong idea about what constitutes a 'No' as in "No I don't want sex" and a 'NO' as in 'No, not yet, I want you to chase me some more'?

Quote
Since you are almost NEVER threatened with rape, you have no idea how women feel about it. Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or men, powerless. If men constantly used men's bodies this way, you would talk with each other and know what a problem it is. Instead, you decide we deserve it??


Visit a prison. We do talk about it here, you just selectively forget.

Since you are almost NEVER threatened with false accusations of rape, you have no idea how men feel about it. Out of control, threatened, faced with prison and the destruction of your reputation, degraded, humiliated, possible injury or death once incarcerated, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or women, powerless. If women constantly had each other brought up on false allegations this way, you would talk with each other and know what a problem it is. Instead, you decide we deserve it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 22, 2004, 11:40 AM
Quote
The fact that you happen to be turned on is what I think you are actually talking about, and that is hardly our fault.


Whoa, okay! You lost me right here.

What does women that use their sexuality to manipulate men to buy them stuff, do stuff for them have to do with *me* being "turned on". I am talking about things like a woman using her "feminine charms" to a police officer to not give her a ticket. Or women getting men to buy them drinks, dinner, gifts, etc. Or a woman using her "charms" to distract a guard. A woman using her "charms" to get a promotion at work. Or even directly, like a woman making a living in the adult industry.

In relation to what you mentioned, if a man (in general) gets "turned on" (i.e. bioilogical stimulated) because of an attractive woman, women seem to have no regrets, no conscious, no qualms about using this to their advantage and exploiting the males biological needs.

It is the fault of women that use this exploit. "With great power comes great responsibility." Women have the power to biologically entrance men and they seem to have no problem with using it to their own advantage.

Quote
Blaming women for rape is the norm, and I sure don't like it.


I wasnt blaming women for "rape", I was blaming women for taking advantage of the sexual situation, resulting in me not feeling sorry for them when the act IS forced upon them.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 11:41 AM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Since you are almost NEVER threatened with false accusations of rape, you have no idea how men feel about it.


That is not a joke.  Prison is worse then being a victim of any crime.  I would say life in prison is worse then death.  Even Soviets did a humane thing and executed them, but had no terms >15 years.

Have you ever been deprived of your freedom?  I was deprived of mine by my family until I was ~22.  But it is not even comparable to being in a cell.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 12:09 PM
So she clearly said NO, then they talk some more and she changes her mind. Wouldn't that mean he persuaded her? Going by what you said on here Phebe you call this rape.

No, I don't. The story was told clearly. Read it again: He was expecting to leave, but the woman gave a real plain signal that she had changed her mind. No problem occurred, in that story.

Woman says 'NO'. Man continues to persuade - which you call overpersuade because she clearly said 'NO'. She changes her mind thereby surrendering her will and free choice and control of her body to the man which is in direct conflict with what she clearly stated her position to be. Now she's a victim...but wait she changed her mind - it's in the specs.

This bears no resemblance to the story as told.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 12:15 PM
if a man (in general) gets "turned on" (i.e. bioilogical stimulated) because of an attractive woman, women seem to have no regrets, no conscious, no qualms about using this to their advantage and exploiting the males biological needs.

It is the fault of women that use this exploit.


No, this is the Taliban's point of view. Women must wear burkas constantly and be kept totally separated from men and escorted by a male relative at all times, because it is the woman's fault if a man becomes excited. Then he is justified in raping her. This actually IS the Taliban's point of view.

The locus for all this sexual preoccupation is in you; it has nothing to do with us.

As for some women making a living with sexual attraction, I thought all of you were in favor of pornography!! Besides, women getting paid to look pretty is one thing. Rape is QUITE another. I think men who think it is women's fault if they get excited ought to stay well, well, well away from all women. It's not our fault. It's your body, your responsibility totally.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 22, 2004, 12:19 PM
Quote
I can't agree with this: if you pick up a No at all, you should have the grace to abide by her choice.


Please, accuse me of being a rapist while your at it.  Read what I said.  Infact, allow me to repeat  it, with some bold...

Quote
They will have to ignore minor "no" signals in some situations.


She's slightly reluctant to go out with you to the <xxx>.  This is a No signal, which you probably should ignore, and attempt a little persuasion.  For all you know, it's because she doesn't like Italian!

If I said to ignore all No signals, then that would be wrong.  You might notice I didn't say that you should ignore such signals and just go for sex.  As ever, it's a judgement call, and is not as black/white as you seem to believe, Phebe.

Quote
The reason for a clear no is to communicate with men who can't understand verbal signals that ANY woman understands effortlessly.


Right.  Here in lies the problem.  Men are not women.  To expect them to recognise such signs requires either education ("When I say/do this I mean <something>") or honesty.  

To penalise a person for being deaf is wrong.  A deaf man can use the defence "I didn't hear her say no".  If a signal is used a normal man won't recognise, surely he is as innocent?

Btw - nice backhanded insult.

Quote
"Persuade" doesn't carry the connotation of overcoming serious objection.


To persuade: 1. To influence or gain over by argument, advice, entreaty, expostulation, etc.; to draw or incline to a determination by presenting sufficient motives.  (Dictionary.com)

To persuade someone is to overcome their objections.  While more persuasion might be needed, it's still the same thing.  The definition you provided " To persuade (someone) to act contrary to inclination or choice."  adds nothing to this.

Think of the meaning of the prefix.  To overload, overdose, overcook - the meaning of overpersuade would surely be more persuasion then needed...perhaps to the detrement of the desired effect.  Not indicating degree of risistance overcome.

So perhaps <adjective> persuade would indicate your meaning better for us English speakers?

Quote
The fact that you happen to be turned on is what I think you are actually talking about, and that is hardly our fault.


Of course.  And the multi-billion $/£ cosmetics industry is a statistical fluke?  Women want to be noticed.  Either that, or I'm going insane - have you looked at "modern fashion"?

Not your fault?  It's often your intention.

Quote
I suggest a better response would be to avoid women if you think we are flaunting sexuality to bother you.


There's a name for this.  And it's legaly actionable.

Quote
Since you are almost NEVER threatened with rape
Well, acording to the BCS  see here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/recordedcrime1.html the ratio is about 10:1, female:male (for rape).  6:1 for sexual assult.

So it's not quite that clear cut.  And I can be fairly sure of more under reporting on the male side then the female.


Quote
Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or men, powerless.


Much like being drafted, but without the impregnation.  And almost all of these are mental, not physical.  In fact, 8 describe a state of mind, 3 physical conditions.

Of which only one is unique to females.  Hardly a "You can never experience this" event.  

Quote
Instead, you decide we deserve it??


Please, point the finger at the person who said that women deserve to be raped.  No one said this.

Debate what we say, not what you want us to say.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 22, 2004, 12:34 PM
Quote
No, this is the Taliban's point of view. Women must wear burkas constantly and be kept totally separated from men and escorted by a male relative at all times, because it is the woman's fault if a man becomes excited. Then he is justified in raping her. This actually IS the Taliban's point of view.


Okaaaaaay, I think this is my last attempt to explain this, because Phebe, you are obviously *not* reading my post or making no attempt to understand what *I* am saying. I am *not* talking about it being the fault of a woman for when men get "turned on" or sexually attracted to women. I am pointing out that when this *does* happen, women have no concerns or qualms about exploiting the situation to their advantage.

If you dont understand that simple sentence and continue your tirade about people "blaming" women for men getting biologically stimluated in the first place, in response to what I am saying, then I consider the discussion between us closed.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 22, 2004, 12:36 PM
No, I don't. The story was told clearly.

Sorry, I was confused by your other interpretation of the events

It is clear to other women besides me that you are good with conversation, because after that, later, at a time well past the No communication ---------

She changed her mind.


That sure sounds like you think he persuaded her to me. You say he must be good at communication. Why? Because she changed her mind? Isn't that persuasion? Did he persuade her or not?

Read it again: He was expecting to leave, but the woman gave a real plain signal that she had changed her mind. No problem occurred, in that story.

Let's turn this around a bit Phebe. Let's say this story was being told from the point of view of the woman and she said he date raped her. You might learn something about signal interpretation and it's dangers.

He told us he got up to leave but then she started taking off some of her clothes. You say this is a plain signal that she changed her mind. That's one interpretation, one that could land a man in jail.

She could have said "We were kissing and then he wanted to go further but I said 'NO.' He got up to leave and I began to undress to get ready for bed and he assumed I changed my mind." In this scenario the only 'clear' signal that was communicated was her first, verbal 'NO'. That's the only thing that will matter in court. He can't defend himself by saying, but your honour she said no but then took some clothes off - that's a plain signal.

Phebe, you would be the first one saying he misread the signals or he kept pushing after she said 'NO.'

You keep saying No means No but then say it's negated by signals. Does No always mean no or not?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 12:43 PM
She's slightly reluctant to go out with you to the <xxx>. This is a No signal, which you probably should ignore, and attempt a little persuasion. For all you know, it's because she doesn't like Italian!

How strange, I didn't think we were talking about restaurant choices!! I was pretty sure we were talking about sex. Let's see, you ignore your date's dislike of Italian AND her not wanting sex? I have to tell you, this date is not looking promising. (And that actually was sarcasm, just so I'm clear.)

Btw - nice backhanded insult.

Let's see, you agree that men can't understand hints AND you call it a backhanded insult? These are incompatible --- I suggest you take one or the other. Men are saying they can't understand our hints that we normally use to avoid seeming abrupt and controlling. If not, and we need to be more direct for a male audience, okay. That is a reasonable reform, I think.

So perhaps <adjective> persuade would indicate your meaning better for us English speakers?

We've been over this. That you don't like the word overpersuade is not my problem. Frankly, I used to eat Oxford dons for lunch, and I'm keeping the word overpersuade.

Not your fault? It's often your intention.

So what? Rape is the issue, not whether we like to dress nice. Women do like to dress nice, this is true. Men still don't get to rape us, even so. If you think all women should dress ugly so you don't get excited, I suggest you avoid looking at women. Keep your eyes on the sidewalk. Women have had to do this for millennia; it'll be a good exercise for you.

There's a name for this. And it's legaly actionable.

I have no idea what you mean, but go ahead, act legally, at will. That's what I WANT. Legal actions.

Much like being drafted, but without the impregnation. And almost all of these are mental, not physical. In fact, 8 describe a state of mind, 3 physical conditions.

Oh, rape must be just fine then, right? That seems to be the case you are making.  (http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Whatever.gif)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 12:52 PM
I am pointing out that when this *does* happen, women have no concerns or qualms about exploiting the situation to their advantage.

Renegade, can you give me an example of women doing illegal or illicit things that unfairly exploit men's sexual excitement provoked by their looking good? I suggest we dress how we want, and you ignore us.


She could have said "We were kissing and then he wanted to go further but I said 'NO.' He got up to leave and I began to undress to get ready for bed and he assumed I changed my mind."

Mr. Nickle, there is no woman on Earth so stupid as to take an argument that weak into a courtroom. Who would do such a nutso thing, undress in front of a man she is TRYING to get rid of??

It's an impossible argument. After she stopped laughing, the judge would say, "So why didn't you tell him you hadn't changed your mind??"

And then she would throw the case out.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 22, 2004, 12:55 PM
Quote
The reason for a clear no is to communicate with men who can't understand verbal signals that ANY woman understands effortlessly.


Um, there should not be any "signals" in the first place. Humans created a form of "communication" in order to COMMUNICATE. One should not have to deipher "codes" and signals when a clear form of communication is already established.

Women use the "signal" and "sign" business in order to alleviate any responsiblity to the situation. If the woman agrees to the situation and everything is going good then everything is fine. If she agrees to the situation and things are not going the way she wants, she can claim that she never "told" the man to proceed and he bears the entire burden,  responsibilityand blame if things go wrong. It is "his" fault for "misinterpreting" what she wanted.

If males forced women to use clear, everyday communication (i.e. Yes means "yes", no means "no". "Yes I want to have sex with you" or "No, I do not want to have sex.") then women would lose this power of control. And (as mentioned on a different thread), men are too "drugged up" on women and dont want to risk alienating them, they continue to let women have their power.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 22, 2004, 12:57 PM
Quote
Renegade, can you give me an example of women doing illegal or illicit things that unfairly exploit men's sexual excitement provoked by their looking good? I suggest we dress how we want, and you ignore us.


My, what nice weather outside today. I certainly hope it doesnt rain this weekend.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 22, 2004, 01:06 PM
I didn't say get naked, I said started to undress. That could be something as small as taking off a hat or sweater (with a shirt still on underneath) or taking off her socks.

Quote
Mr. Nickle, there is no woman on Earth so stupid as to take an argument that weak into a courtroom. Who would do such a nutso thing, undress in front of a man she is TRYING to get rid of??


Are you saying she was fair game because she was undressing? Was she asking for it Phebe?

The woman does not take the argument into a court room. The prosecution does and she is protected from all sorts of nasty things, like questions, by rape shield laws. Is that agument any weaker than all of the cases where consensual sex is later deemed rape because she changed her mind a couple days later? A lot weaker stuff has been taken to court. The only thing that matters in court is that she said NO. She could have then swung naked from the chandelier - it does not matter - she said NO.

Now back on topic. You never answered my question. Do you think he persuaded her or not?

To summarize on this thread:
You said that a man who continues to persuade after a clear 'no' is obnoxious at best. In the story she said 'no' -  they had further conversation and she changed her mind. You compliment him on his skills at communication which got her to change her mind. If she changed her mind because of his powerful communication skills he persuaded her.
Now, do you think persuasion is O.K. or not? Is it rape or not?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pernicious on Jun 22, 2004, 01:06 PM
Quote
My, what nice weather outside today. I certainly hope it doesnt rain this weekend.


I hope so too.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 01:07 PM
Women use the "signal" and "sign" business in order to alleviate any responsiblity to the situation.

No. We take care to speak indirectly to each other so as not to seem controlling and abrupt. Women's mode of speaking is different from men's. We do that with men, too, but it looks like it is often either misinterpreted or ignored in sexual situations. We don't necessarily want to seem rejecting permanently!

If males forced women to use clear, everyday communication (i.e. Yes means "yes", no means "no". "Yes I want to have sex with you" or "No, I do not want to have sex.") then women would lose this power of control.

Again, I am sure it's not about control. It's the opposite: it's about seeming "nice," something that is important to a lot of women. Looks like we have to give that up, though, and just say a plain no and shut the door behind you. It could be a matter of early training, something we learn in health class ---- when men have sex on their minds you have to say no very very clearly! "Now practice, girls, all together: 'NO! Go home! I'm going to bed! But not with you!'"

The question then becomes, can you hear a "No" or will you say that sometimes when women say no we mean yes????

No means no
And yes means yes
Wherever we go
However we dress.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 22, 2004, 01:13 PM
Quote from: "Renegade"
Quote
Renegade, can you give me an example of women doing illegal or illicit things that unfairly exploit men's sexual excitement provoked by their looking good? I suggest we dress how we want, and you ignore us.


My, what nice weather outside today. I certainly hope it doesnt rain this weekend.

R


LOL!  It's funny to watch Phebe play dumb and pretend to misunderstand what you are saying.   What Phebe is really saying in all practicality is that you should totally ignore women, and give them no perks based on their sexuality.  Of course this represents a huge loss of power for women, but oh well!
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 22, 2004, 01:28 PM
I say again....."Ignore minor No signals in some situations".  I was pointing out the logical absurdity of your position.  

You'll notice I don;t mention sex.  I simply use that example to show that the reason behind any "No!" might be trivial and unresolvable, with a small amount of communication and persuasion.

If I was ignoring my date, I would not be watching her signals.  As it is, I'm trying to decipher them.

Quote
AND you call it a backhanded insult?


It's an insult because you imply that no man can ever understand these signals, and that it's pointless even talking about them.  

Quote
Frankly, I used to eat Oxford dons for lunch


You will forgive me, but I disbelieve this.  Why?  Well, it's called murder, and a few other things.  Secondly, you've completely ignored the fact that I can show that this word does not mean what you intend it to.  I've suggested a way to improve this to HELP the debate.  Whats wrong - a little to much pride to admit mistakes?

Quote

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:43 pm    Post subject:
She's slightly reluctant to go out with you to the <xxx>. This is a No signal, which you probably should ignore, and attempt a little persuasion. For all you know, it's because she doesn't like Italian!

How strange, I didn't think we were talking about restaurant choices!! I was pretty sure we were talking about sex. Let's see, you ignore your date's dislike of Italian AND her not wanting sex? I have to tell you, this date is not looking promising. (And that actually was sarcasm, just so I'm clear.)

Btw - nice backhanded insult.

Let's see, you agree that men can't understand hints AND you call it a backhanded insult? These are incompatible --- I suggest you take one or the other. Men are saying they can't understand our hints that we normally use to avoid seeming abrupt and controlling. If not, and we need to be more direct for a male audience, okay. That is a reasonable reform, I think.

So perhaps <adjective> persuade would indicate your meaning better for us English speakers?

We've been over this. That you don't like the word overpersuade is not my problem. Frankly, I used to eat Oxford dons for lunch, and I'm keeping the word overpersuade.

Not your fault? It's often your intention.


Allow me to quote...
Quote
The fact that you happen to be turned on is ......is hardly our fault.


You introduced this topic, not me.  But to continue with it?  Women intend to attract male attention.  You can't deny that.  

Quote
Keep your eyes on the sidewalk. Women have had to do this for millennia;


1) Sidewalks are a recent invention, limited to the USA.
2) The USA has not existed for a millennia.
3) Ardument null and void.

Quote
here's a name for this. And it's legaly actionable.

I have no idea what you mean, but go ahead, act legally, at will


If I was to open a male only club, to avoid these women, I would be sued for sexual discrimination.  So...next suggestion?

Quote
Oh, rape must be just fine then, right? That seems to be the case you are making.


Read the damned post again.  Think; I'm not saying that rape is ok.  Simply that the portion of the experience available to women only is small, and that more men have been drafted into wars and dies in the last 100 years than women raped.

So, Whatever?  Or is being shot less traumatic/painful?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 01:50 PM
It's funny to watch Phebe play dumb and pretend to misunderstand what you are saying. What Phebe is really saying in all practicality is that you should totally ignore women, and give them no perks based on their sexuality.

Some of you keep up that "dumb" claim. Maybe I'm not dumb, and maybe I'm not playing dumb ----

Maybe I have a totally different perspective than you do.

You are so SURE yours is the only way anyone can think that you suppose I am pretending not to understand some very unclear communications.

But I assure you, yours is not the only possible way to think.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 01:54 PM
You asked me if in the story he persuaded her. "If she changed her mind because of his powerful communication skills he persuaded her.
Now, do you think persuasion is O.K. or not? Is it rape or not?"



I've read this story again and nothing like "persuasion" occurred. That, of course, is why I like the story. She changed her mind because she wanted to. He left her free from persuasion and (not coincidentally) that was the result.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 02:00 PM
I think that if something as serious as a rape charge is involved, a woman has to communicate NO very clearly.  Otherwise it is a game with a man's life.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 22, 2004, 02:00 PM
Quote
Maybe I have a totally different perspective than you do.


You seem to have the "deliberately misunderstanding" perspective.  That's the perspective where Renegade uses clear language to say that women sometimes exploit men with their sexuality, and you go on to ignore what he said, instead introducing red herrings like the Taliban and women not being responsible for the way men react to their sexual exploitation.   The logical conclusion of this then, is for men to not give women any leeway on the basis of their sexuality alone.

And BTW - playing dumb is different from actually being dumb.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 02:06 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Maybe I have a totally different perspective than you do.


    Unfortunatly your perspective is shared by fifty million women in US alone, so you may be the majority.  That is against a hundred thousand men who take their rights seriously and thirty thousand women who value men's rights.  In reality you win.

    But online only extraordinary views are mostly expressed -- of those who consider men equal to women on one hand and of extreme misandrists on the other.  In the past I have called you a typical peoson, but now I realise that an ordinary person leaving record of their opinion is outstanding.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 02:15 PM
Well, it's called murder, and a few other things.

1) Sidewalks are a recent invention, limited to the USA.
2) The USA has not existed for a millennia.
3) Ardument null and void.


Okay, metaphor is not your thing, I see.

If I was to open a male only club, to avoid these women, I would be sued for sexual discrimination.

Really? In Britain you can't do that? You can in America, and it's such a great idea: all men who believe women are dressing nice to illicitly excite them should belong to male-only clubs for mutual protection. That would fit great with the marriage strike, too. Totally avoid women, and then angry men wouldn't have to worry about women dressing to get them all excited. And women would have a lower incidence of rape. Sounds like a real win--win to me!

more men have been drafted into wars and dies in the last 100 years than women raped.

Men draft men, men fight men, and men rape women. I'm not sure of the relevance or point of the argument you are making. Seems to me to be a series of man-caused problems all around.

So, Whatever? Or is being shot less traumatic/painful?

Depends on whether rape or being shot is more painful and traumatic in any given case, I guess. Maybe we should ask John Kerry.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 02:24 PM
red herrings like the Taliban and women not being responsible for the way men react....<snip>

We aren't responsible for the way men react. That's key; that's the most important point, perhaps, of feminism. It's not about us. It's your feelings, your actions, your reactions. It's not our problem, or it shouldn't be. We can't help it that men have these biological things. We're just trying to get home from work, do the shopping, get the garden weeded, feed the baby: it's not our fault that men get excited. Men need to take responsibility for that instead of trying to blame it on women. The Taliban is the most explicit expression of this in the modern world, but there is a lot of this thinking implicit and even explicit in these posts.

The logical conclusion of this then, is for men to not give women any leeway on the basis of their sexuality alone.

WhatEVER it takes to stop rape. Whatever. That would be great. Let's do it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 02:29 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
WhatEVER it takes to stop rape. Whatever. That would be great. Let's do it.


Including jailing more innocent men (to make sure the guilty ones are caught).
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 22, 2004, 02:31 PM
No, I don't mean that, ID. I don't want us to do that.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 22, 2004, 02:33 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
No, I don't mean that, ID. I don't want us to do that.


Unfortunatly the judges who lower the burden of proof (rather then investing into making new ways of proof beyound reasonable doubt possible) think differently.  Fortunatly I am happily married, and will have no one-night stands.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 22, 2004, 02:49 PM
Quote
Okay, metaphor is not your thing, I see.


Metaphor I can handle.  Blatent misrepresentation of the subject at hand - now that gets me worked up.

Quote
Really? In Britain you can't do that?


Correct.  So, next suggestion?  And I do believe that in the US, they have problems with this.  Wasn;t there a post about a mens locker room that adjoins a grill here a few weeks ago?

Quote
Depends on whether rape or being shot is more painful and traumatic in any given case, I guess.


Let me help you here.  For one of these conditions you give morphine.  The other you don't.

Quote
Men draft men, men fight men, and men rape women. I'm not sure of the relevance or point of the argument you are making. Seems to me to be a series of man-caused problems all around.  


You know, I could have sworn that women could vote....and as I recall, there are more women of voting age inthe US/UK then men.

My point is this. Given that of the 11 adjectives you listed for rape, 10 can be directly applied to soldiers injured in battle (hell, most men in battle, let alone the injured).

Therefore, given that far less is said about soldiers then rape, rape is blown vastly out of preportion.  

Quote
We aren't responsible for the way men react.


If I walk into a police station, pull out a gun and point it at someone, I will be responsible for being shot.

Women dress, and wear make up to influence the reaction of men.  Therefore you are directly accountable for the effect of that reaction.  

You manipulate for an effect, you live with the consequences of that effect.  You lie about your age to join the army?  You get sent to war.

You attract the attention of men?  You have to put up with their unwanted advances.

Give out misleading "signals", and never state your mind?  Be prepared to be misunderstood.

Quote
but there is a lot of this thinking implicit and even explicit in these posts.


Better to say that we are prepared to take responsibility for our actions, and expect others to do the same.

Quote
WhatEVER it takes to stop rape. Whatever. That would be great. Let's do it.


Well, lets lock up women.  Or abolish the crime.  Or legalise prostitution.  Or jail innocent people.  Or....
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 22, 2004, 02:58 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
red herrings like the Taliban and women not being responsible for the way men react....<snip>

We aren't responsible for the way men react. That's key; that's the most important point, perhaps, of feminism. It's not about us. It's your feelings, your actions, your reactions. It's not our problem, or it shouldn't be. We can't help it that men have these biological things. We're just trying to get home from work, do the shopping, get the garden weeded, feed the baby: it's not our fault that men get excited. Men need to take responsibility for that instead of trying to blame it on women. The Taliban is the most explicit expression of this in the modern world, but there is a lot of this thinking implicit and even explicit in these posts.


There is none of that in my posts, or in the post Renegade made that started this from what I can see.  He wasn't addressing your red herring - he was addressing the tendency of some women to exploit men through the use of their sexuality, and I think indeed there is a component of culpability there for women (and in this instance we are NOT referring to men's reactions in situations like rape or the like).

Women do use their sexuality to exploit men sometimes: FACT.   They should be responsible for their right to be assertive in this manner and admit that they can do it:  FACT.
It is wrong to rape and blame your provocation on a woman:  FACT.

Now did you hear anyone say different regarding that last line in this conversation?  I'm going to say this really simply and slowly...women    are not responsible for men's actions, but they are responsible for theirs.
If a person walks up and strikes another person bigger than them, then they can expect to get hit back.  That's called understanding possible consequences.  Your rhetoric sounds  a lot like you demand the right to strike the bigger person without expecting any retaliation.  That's called bullying.

I think it is wrong to expect others are responsible for how they react, no matter the stimuli.  That is too simplistic.  It all depends on the stimuli you give them.

A punch in the face for example is harsh stimuli, likely to lead to an equal or more powerful reaction.  You seem to demand cause without effect.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 22, 2004, 03:25 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Men draft men, men fight men, and men rape women. I'm not sure of the relevance or point of the argument you are making. Seems to me to be a series of man-caused problems all around.


Abu Ghraib, anyone?   Women serve on draft boards (without being required to die), women fight men (50% of DV initiation according to over 100+ scholarly studies), and women do rape men (usually the weaker - i.e. children and young adults).  Women can act pretty badly too so let's just drop the 'women are innocent' rhetoric.  The history of women leaders disproves that, unless you think all of these great women of history had no minds of their own and were coerced into collusion with the patriarchy.  In which case feminists can park their brain at the door, as it likely won't stop them from championing the achievements of these 'independent women' in the revisionist herstory books.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Oldfellow on Jun 22, 2004, 03:54 PM
Greetings all - this is the first post of a longtime lurker so please be gentle.  I can't resist putting my 2 cents in on this having watched Pheebs use the same logic on other threads.  Pheeb - you seem to think that the interactions of men and women occur independently (men do/are responsible for men stuff, women do/are responsible for women stuff).  What an interesting world view.  Many women I know and respect say that a man won't do much of anything worthwhile (in their view) unless a woman makes him do it.  Similarly, I'm told by several of my female colleagues that men are so easy to manipulate sexually that they are truly pathetic.  After observing life for many decades now, I would say the following:

Most men I know are driven to protect and defend their families.  Historically, warfare and violence are the result of humans competing for scarce resources.  That is, the motives behind many conflicts is to protect and provide for women and children.  You seem to think that men fight wars for sport.  If you had ever been in one you would realize that there is NOTHING fun about war and I don't know any male who wishes he could go fight another one.
 
Pheeb - do you really think that the world is a nasty brutal place because of the violent and competitive nature of males OR is the violent and competitive nature of males the result of the world being a nasty brutal place?  If women were in charge, would we all just share??  I think the world has many hard realities of which you are either unaware or in a dreamy denial of.

Also, my experience on the planet tells me that women obviously do use their sexuality to manipulate and exploit men (it's their primary weapon followed closely by bitching).  I see it everyday and see women boasting about it everyday. It could be as simple as getting special treatment at the store or catching that "perfect man" at work. I like the 80/20 rule:  women who dress provocatively are trying to attract the attention of a small group (20%) of the men they encounter.  If you are in the unfortunate 80%, then any advances you make could be construed as harrassment or worse. Of course, in your view, the woman will always make her intents perfectly clear through a mixture of body language and indirect comments. If only the men were bright enough to notice we wouldn't have any of these nasty misunderstandings (this is sarcasm).

Anyway, nice trolling.  You even got me to do my first post!
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 22, 2004, 05:00 PM
Phebe, you have out-contorted yourself this time. You have ducked, dodged and weaved so much you're making people dizzy. You've backed yourself into so many corners with contradictory statements on this thread that you've had to resort to your old "men rape, men make war - that's what they do" trick. You know that one - the one I warned everyone about when you landed here in your trollmobile.

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35699

I'm just surprised it took you this long to use it.

Quote
You are so SURE yours is the only way anyone can think that you suppose I am pretending not to understand some very unclear communications.


You are the only one who seems to have trouble with these 'unclear communications.' It seems that they are crystal clear to everyone else. If the topics here are too complex for you maybe you should find a less challenging forum.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Gabriel on Jun 22, 2004, 05:37 PM
The topic has drifted a bit, I thought that might happen. Though, I don't see much of an argument for why rape is a big deal or worse deal than any other crime. It seems to be that it is not.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 22, 2004, 05:46 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Phebe, you have out-contorted yourself this time. You have ducked, dodged and weaved so much you're making people dizzy. You've backed yourself into so many corners with contradictory statements on this thread that you've had to resort to your old "men rape, men make war - that's what they do" trick. You know that one - the one I warned everyone about when you landed here in your trollmobile.

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35699

I'm just surprised it took you this long to use it.


Indeed Phebe, consider this warning one, breaking of the rules - no negative universal sexist generalizations of the opposite sex.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 22, 2004, 09:10 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
.

...The fact that you happen to be turned on is what I think you are actually talking about, and that is hardly our fault.

So men get turned on, and some of them decide that's somehow OUR fault...



It's not the sheep's fault that its presence arouses the wolf's predatory nature....

On the other hand, it's not really the wolf's fault either.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 23, 2004, 12:03 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"

You may have noticed that the women participants in this discussion (and in almost every discussion of sexual issues) tend to be concerned with avoiding unwanted sexual advances from men and seem to be intimidated by them, while the men tend to be concerned with gaining opportunity to make sexual advances.

Again, why would a woman want to remain vulnerable to emotional damage and intimidated by man's sexual advances when she dosen't have to be?


You are saying we should just give it up willingly and not bother to call it rape. Seems a somewhat simplistic point of view! Disease, pregnancy, being married, being in love with someone else, being grossed out by the rapist, not wanting to be controlled, those all come quickly to mind as reasons not to accept rape.

The reason we feel intimidated is that we may lose. Nothing good about getting taken advantage of in such significant ways.



Phebe, you seem to be the only participant in this discussion standing for a contrary point of view and I admire your courage in doing so.  Your participation prevents this discussion from degenerating into an amen choir.  I also appreciate that the board administrators have allowed this debate.



What I am saying is that I, as a man, have not been socially constructed to experiencee it as "rape' if a woman were to force herself on me sexually.  I would be more likely to enjoy the experience.  In the actual case where the woman attempted to rape me I merely experienced amusement.  Curcumstances  prevented me from enjoying it as a sexual experience.

But, I absolutely never experienced a sence of being, "...Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or (wo)men, powerless...."

I do not bear the burden of those feelings.  I have not been socially constructed to do so.



Nor do I bear the burden of the issue women have with 'control of their bodies' where sexuality is concerned...
Quote
...Control over her own body. That's what we're discussing, right? Whether men have a right to use women's bodies for their own pleasure whether we like it or not. If she hints, looks worried, tries to get up, says no but is ignored, etc., etc. it may be "overpersuasion" rather than rape, but she has still lost control of what happens: THAT is why she's mad, of course!...
You could use my body all night if you wanted and the issue of whether or not I had "lost control over my body" would be irrelevant to me.



Those feelings are alien to me in connection with the prospect of a woman raping me because I have not been socially constructed to experience them.



An unspoken assumption of Feminist social construction theory is that since gender characteristics are socially constructed they can therefore be socially re-constructed in whatever way we deem appropriate.  I was curious as to why women would not want to relieve themselves of the burden of feeling...
Quote
...Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or men, powerless....
...by applying the simple expedience of social re-construction.  It worked for me.



I am not saying that you should 'not bother to CALL it rape'; I am saying that you need not EXPERIENCE it as rape.  I am not saying that you SHOULD do this, that is your decision.  I was wondering why you would not choose to;  maybe you just never thought of it.




Quote
I had the same experience you did, and threw him off and left. So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that. As you did! But you were bigger; I was lucky. It was probably easier for you and chancier for me, so of course women feel anxious. (Though talk about a clear no --- there was no way that guy was getting anything but major, major trouble and injury and loud shrieks in the dorm and trips to the police station if he hadn’t given up when I threw him off. What a total idiot! He just plain wasn’t going to take anything I didn’t want to give. I’d have died first.)


Actually, your did not have the same experience as I.  There were similar events but you experienced them in an entirely different way.




Quote
A man is someone who has the capability to rape; everyone else is a woman.



A very unpleasant...
...but true...
Quote
...slogan. But at least you aren't one of these men who somehow think women can rape. This always seemed ridiculous to me.




You are correct.  Adult women do not rape adult men.  The statement is not only true, it is a defining characteristic that distinguishes men from women.  You could use that statement to explain to an alien how to tell the difference between a man and a woman.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jun 23, 2004, 12:32 AM
Women do rape men. Why do you think they can't? Ok legally speaking they can't but it does happen in real life.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 23, 2004, 06:54 AM
Quote
Adult women do not rape adult men. The statement is not only true, it is a defining characteristic that distinguishes men from women. You could use that statement to explain to an alien how to tell the difference between a man and a woman.


When women rape, they tend to do so by taking advantage of those weaker and smaller than them, like children and young adults.  Also they tend to use manipulation more than force.   This is generally why you won't see an adult woman rape a man, though that HAS happened.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 23, 2004, 09:51 AM
What you said makes perfect sense, Jessy, women take advantage of weaker subjects, children and they do rape men. This is such a slippery slope that a very large majority of women seem to quickly dismiss just as Phebe has. They minimize the wrong doings of women who rape and always slide the tables of blame and damnation over to men as the foundation of all that entails rape, molestation and overpowering another persons will. I call that femisms love child, indoctrination with a punch that huts everyone, only feminists care very little because even when it hurts women when the backlash comes, they make sure their higher ground of moral entitlement has a solid foundation. Look at the laws, the sociological damage this mindset has done to our society, women looking for harsher sentencing for rape than other tragic offenses which hurt society just as bad. It makes me ill when I think about it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 23, 2004, 10:44 AM
Quote
It's not the sheep's fault that its presence arouses the wolf's predatory nature....

On the other hand, it's not really the wolf's fault either.


This is something that I would like to expand upon to help shed some light. When a woman wants a baby, it is seen as that: she wants to produce offspring, or her "biological clock is ticking". When a man wants to copulate, it is seen as "having sex", something which he is doing strictly for enjoyment, like going to a theme park or going to a movie. Even when society *does* acknowledge that male sexual behaviour can be or *is* biological or instinctually driven, when a male actually acts on it, BAM! it is viewed completely as his free-willed decision completely based on his desires as a "person".

Picture this. You have an apple on your head and someone is going to fire an arrow from a bow and try to peg the apple. You are new to this and whenever the bow is drawn, you instinctively flinch. The person is getting annoyed, but you cant help it; your body is reacting instinctively. That is what is happening with human males. Males are *biologically* programmed to feel aroused or stimulated when certain stimuli presents itself.

*Yet* society views this as being strictly free-willed decision-making on the males part: they are blamed completely for being  a"predatory wolf" and therefore society does *nothing* to educate men about "restraining" their urges in order to avoid getting manipulated. Instead society *enforces* mens sexual urges and exploits it. Society continually informs males that "sex" with a woman is the greatest thing in the world and they should seek it out regsardless of consequences. When a situation goes bad, the male is reprimanded and scolded.

Thats my observation.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 23, 2004, 01:49 PM
Anyway, nice trolling. You even got me to do my first post!

I'm not trolling, oldfellow. But that was an interesting post and I wish you would do more!  :)

Pheeb - do you really think that the world is a nasty brutal place because of the violent and competitive nature of males OR is the violent and competitive nature of males the result of the world being a nasty brutal place? If women were in charge, would we all just share??

The former, and yes.

I like the 80/20 rule: women who dress provocatively are trying to attract the attention of a small group (20%) of the men they encounter.

Nice. I like it too.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 23, 2004, 01:58 PM
An unspoken assumption of Feminist social construction theory is that since gender characteristics are socially constructed they can therefore be socially re-constructed in whatever way we deem appropriate. ...

I am not saying that you should 'not bother to CALL it rape'; I am saying that you need not EXPERIENCE it as rape. I am not saying that you SHOULD do this, that is your decision. I was wondering why you would not choose to; maybe you just never thought of it.


A true intellectual. Very impressive argument.  :)


It's not the sheep's fault that its presence arouses the wolf's predatory nature....

On the other hand, it's not really the wolf's fault either.


Pat: yes, I agree that's the bottom line. We are arguing about nonoptional conditions, at least to some extent.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 23, 2004, 02:07 PM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
What you said makes perfect sense, Jessy, women take advantage of weaker subjects, children and they do rape men. This is such a slippery slope that a very large majority of women seem to quickly dismiss just as Phebe has.


It also makes sense from a feminist perspective.   If rape is a crime of 'power and violence'  (hint: not sex) as they claim, then it would follow that the pecking order goes from the most physically powerful to the most vulnerable.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Gabriel on Jun 23, 2004, 02:51 PM
Quote from: "Renegade"

*Yet* society views this as being strictly free-willed decision-making on the males part: they are blamed completely for being  a"predatory wolf" and therefore society does *nothing* to educate men about "restraining" their urges in order to avoid getting manipulated. Instead society *enforces* mens sexual urges and exploits it. Society continually informs males that "sex" with a woman is the greatest thing in the world and they should seek it out regsardless of consequences. When a situation goes bad, the male is reprimanded and scolded.


Good observation, I would like to elaborate. Men's respond to stimuli, so women dress in sexual manners to trigger that sexual response (or casually slip sexuality into conversations), it has been observed that when a man has been sexually aroused, even slightly, he is less rational and makes poor decisions, this can be overcome to a point. This is what marketing executives take advantage of.
There is a reason why females dress a certain way, they are trying to stimulate the male sexual response.
To deal with the rape issue, people should be holding females responsible for:
a. putting themselves in bad situations
b. triggering the male sexual response.

Females wish to be able to tease men at their whim, turning men on and then not following through. They get annoyed when some men respond to their dress, but not others. Men should have psychic powers to be able to discern who the female wishes to talk with.

Although males should be held responsible for a rape, the culture should not be encouraging females to tease men, dress in provocatively, and putting women in stupid situations.
Nor should it be convicting men of rape if a women does not make her desire not to have sex clear to the man. In face, the prosecutors in the Kobe Bryant case are trying to make the claim that whether or not the women consented is irrelevant:

Quote
The issue of consent has emerged as a key battleground between attorneys in the case. The defense wants jurors told they can convict the Los Angeles Lakers star only if prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not consent to sex -- and that Bryant knew it.

"The jury has to be told that if someone consents, that's not submission against her will," argued defense attorney Hal Haddon, who said it is the first time a Colorado judge has had to consider the issue.

Prosecutors said they are required to prove only that Bryant's actions were enough to cause the woman to submit to sex against her will, making the consent question moot.

"By proving the elements (of sexual assault), you necessarily disprove consent," said Matt Holman, an assistant state attorney general helping with the case.

Scott Robinson, a Denver defense attorney who is following the case, said prosecutors were taking an "extreme position" in suggesting her consent does not matter. "It seems anathema to our traditional view of what constitutes rape," he said.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2004-06-22-kobe-bryant-case_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA&POE=click-refer

kind of a messy post, but I'm too busy to clean it up currently.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 07:19 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"

A true intellectual. Very impressive argument.  :)


Thank-you, Phebe.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jun 24, 2004, 08:42 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Pheeb - do you really think that the world is a nasty brutal place because of the violent and competitive nature of males OR is the violent and competitive nature of males the result of the world being a nasty brutal place? If women were in charge, would we all just share??

The former, and yes.


That is where we disagree 100%.  How come are victims of child abuse, Vietnam vets and others who suffered alot have crime rates 30 times greater then those nonabused, while men have rates only 6 times higher then women?  As of 1860 in UK, women committed 60% of murder.

Given your level of sophistication on social issues, I would be surprised if you do not know criminology.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Renegade on Jun 24, 2004, 09:17 AM
Quote
do you really think that the world is a nasty brutal place because of the violent and competitive nature of males


Well, considering that no one gets to *choose* being male or female and IF violence and competitiveness is part of being male, then they are still not at fault, even if this is the case. A man did not *choose* to be a man, so the violent/competitive aspect was forced upon him without any say so.

R
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 24, 2004, 10:16 AM
I'm wondering if women do often socialize and expect men to be competitive and agressive, as these qualities seem to benefit women as much as men?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 24, 2004, 10:20 AM
To deal with the rape issue, people should be holding females responsible for:
a. putting themselves in bad situations
b. triggering the male sexual response.


That's what fundamentalist Mormons think right in this country. Women must wear long dresses with long sleeves and high necks and special (robust) underwear, no matter how hot it is. It's supposed to be the women's fault if men get excited, so they have to all stay together and stay away from men and sit separately in church.

Not that it does the fundamentalist Mormon women any good; they are still brainwashed into polygamist marriages at age 14.

I'll never agree with this idea that if men rape women, it's somehow the women's fault. I think renegade makes some good points: if the society gives problematic messages to men that end up getting them in trouble, it's each man's responsibility to figure that out and restrict the stimuli they take in.

Crime is crime. You wouldn't like physical forcing; we don't like it either.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 04:15 PM
Quote from: "Bagu"
Women do rape men. Why do you think they can't? Ok legally speaking they can't but it does happen in real life.

Adult women do not rape adult men.




Here is Phebe's (an adult woman's) description of an attempted rape against her and her reaction to it:
Quote from: "Phebe"
I had the same experience you did, and threw him off and left. So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that. As you did! But you were bigger; I was lucky. It was probably easier for you and chancier for me, so of course women feel anxious. (Though talk about a clear no --- there was no way that guy was getting anything but major, major trouble and injury and loud shrieks in the dorm and trips to the police station if he hadn’t given up when I threw him off. What a total idiot! He just plain wasn’t going to take anything I didn’t want to give. I’d have died first.)
Quote
...how women feel about it. Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or men, powerless.


Here is my (an adult man's) description of similar events and my reaction to them:
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
I did not own a TV and I was visiting a neighbor to watch a show. There was a guest also visiting the neighbor, someone whom I had not previously met. The guest was thouroughly inebriated and suddenly, without warning lept across the couch upon which we were both seated, tackled me, pinned me to the couch and attempted to force me to have sex.

I did not in any way feel personally violated. I found the incident rather amusing. If circumstances had been different I might have even cooperated with the assailant. This was not the most attractive person I had ever met, but, what the heck, I wasn't having sex with anyone at the time anyway. Had it been a more attractive person I might have found it interesting. I had actually forgotton this incident and was reminded of it while reading this discussion.



As you can see Phebe and I experienced similar events in entirely different ways.  I did not experience the events as 'rape'.  An adult man does not experience sexual aggression from an adult woman as rape.  Further, an adult woman does not possess the same potential to experience the sense of gratification that a man can from an act of sexual aggression.  Even a sociopathic woman has no incentive to attack a man.  

I do not regard manipulation as rape.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 04:21 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
... You wouldn't like physical forcing...


That's not exactly true.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 24, 2004, 04:37 PM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Quote from: "Bagu"
Women do rape men. Why do you think they can't? Ok legally speaking they can't but it does happen in real life.

Adult women do not rape adult men.


There have been numerous cases in South Africa of groups of women raping men and infecting them with AIDS.  Two of them have been posted on this board already.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 06:51 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Quote from: "Bagu"
Women do rape men. Why do you think they can't? Ok legally speaking they can't but it does happen in real life.

Adult women do not rape adult men.


There have been numerous cases in South Africa of groups of women raping men and infecting them with AIDS.  Two of them have been posted on this board already.


Let's not overlook the possibility that this is some kind of urban myth.  I have to imagine that under that kind of stress a man would have diffculty performing for one woman, let alone a wild mob.  For the sake of discussion I will stipulate that it happened.

I wasn't there so all I can do is speculate.  So, I speculate that these women were a murderous mob intent on infecting the man with a deadly diseaese rather than a rapacious mob bent on gratifying an uncontrolled sexual urge.  Women are not capable of experiencing sexual release by forcing men to have sex.

I further speculate that the victim did not experience a profound sense of grief as a result of the loss of control over his sexuality as a woman would.  He was probably in fear for his life.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 24, 2004, 06:55 PM
Quote
Women are not capable of experiencing sexual release by forcing men to have sex.


Why not? It works with cucumbers - and they have no say in the matter at all.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 07:10 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Quote
Women are not capable of experiencing sexual release by forcing men to have sex.


Why not? It works with cucumbers - and they have no say in the matter at all.


Ah... but they require romantic fantasy with their cucumbers.  Besides, they use fresh cucumbers; a resisting man is like an overripe, rotten cucumber.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jun 24, 2004, 07:13 PM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"


As you can see Phebe and I experienced similar events in entirely different ways.  I did not experience the events as 'rape'.  An adult man does not experience sexual aggression from an adult woman as rape.  Further, an adult woman does not possess the same potential to experience the sense of gratification that a man can from an act of sexual aggression.  Even a sociopathic woman has no incentive to attack a man.  

I do not regard manipulation as rape.


Not all men experience rape the same way as you. There are many religious men who believe in keeping their bodies pure. My friend being one example, he's a faithful church-goer, a bit on the small side, one night some girl he dated raped him and he didn't take it too well, and didn't find it amusing to say the least. What made it worse was the law doesn't offer him any protection.

Women have sexual urges too, that girl that raped my friend probably dated him expecting a one night stand and when it looked like he wasn't going to give it, she couldn't handle the rejection. Doesn't 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'?  :)  It's definitely no justification for women to rape, just shows that they do lose control over their sexual urges.

But I agree with your last sentence. Manipulation is not rape, it could be classified as conning or something.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 24, 2004, 07:28 PM
Quote
Ah... but they require romantic fantasy with their cucumbers. Besides, they use fresh cucumbers; a resisting man is like an overripe, rotten cucumber.


Not true. Women have had orgasams while being raped - were they fantasizing? All it takes is stimulation.

A man with a gun to his head can still get a full erection, all it takes is stimulation. An unconscious man can get a full erection. If you are male you would know this.

I am not the only man I know who has woken up in the middle of intercourse. Was I raped? I did not give consent.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 24, 2004, 07:54 PM
Absolutely...if Pat were a man he would know that an errection is simply a physiological reaction.  Maybe he is a man and does know that.

Do you agree Pat?  Is an errection simply a physiological reaction?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 08:50 PM
Quote from: "Bagu"
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"


As you can see Phebe and I experienced similar events in entirely different ways.  I did not experience the events as 'rape'.  An adult man does not experience sexual aggression from an adult woman as rape.  Further, an adult woman does not possess the same potential to experience the sense of gratification that a man can from an act of sexual aggression.  Even a sociopathic woman has no incentive to attack a man.  

I do not regard manipulation as rape.


Not all men experience rape the same way as you. There are many religious men who believe in keeping their bodies pure. My friend being one example, he's a faithful church-goer, a bit on the small side, one night some girl he dated raped him and he didn't take it too well, and didn't find it amusing to say the least. What made it worse was the law doesn't offer him any protection.

Women have sexual urges too, that girl that raped my friend probably dated him expecting a one night stand and when it looked like he wasn't going to give it, she couldn't handle the rejection. Doesn't 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'?  :)  It's definitely no justification for women to rape, just shows that they do lose control over their sexual urges.

But I agree with your last sentence. Manipulation is not rape, it could be classified as conning or something.


I have no doubt your friend experieced great distress.  However, my speculation would be that his distress occured over the circumstances of his religious convictions and their having been violated by this sexual encounter.  A woman is constituted in such a way as to experience a profound sense of grief over  having 'lost control of her sexuality'.  She will react this way regardless of any specific circumstances in her life.



In my case, the presence of my wife in the room precluded my actually enjoying the encounter and my principles of faithfulness were in danger of being violated; those were the circumstances.  But, I am not constituted in such a way as to experience a profound sense of grief over the loss of control of my sexuality.

That being said,  you seem to have cited an actual case of a woman raping a man for the purpose of releasing uncontrolled sexual urges.  It is the only such case I know of.

I intend to be cautious and view this case as an abberation - for now anyway...
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 24, 2004, 08:56 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Women have had orgasams while being raped -




I guess if I were female I would know this.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jun 24, 2004, 09:31 PM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
A woman is constituted in such a way as to experience a profound sense of grief over  having 'lost control of her sexuality'.  She will react this way regardless of any specific circumstances in her life.


Interesting point. So 'control over sexuality' is something innate in women and socially constructed in men. I'm no expert in this field, what is innate or socially constructed, so I can't give an opinion in this area. Point noted.

Either way, I think crime should be objectively defined, not based on anyone's feelings or 'damage'. eg Recently the man in Germany who allowed someone to kill and eat him up. The cannibal should be charged with murder, even if the victim consented.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 24, 2004, 09:44 PM
Pat said:

Quote
Mr. Nickle wrote:
Women have had orgasams while being raped -


I guess if I were female I would know this.


If you were a female and had been raped and had an orgasam during the rape I guess you would. Or you could read about it. What's your point? I've read that sometimes people who have limbs cut off still feel them - I have no intention of chopping off my hands to see if this is true - I'll take their word for it.

Having an orgasam during rape is not something a lot of women would probably experience since most women are not raped. However, we can take the word of those that have had that experience, that it happens.

On the other hand, if a man has a penis and a pulse there is a very good chance he's woken up with a stiffy. Once again, if you're a man you should know that this is very, very, very common. Have you never heard the expression "woke up under the tent"?

I really don't see what your point is. Please explain.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 25, 2004, 10:24 AM
Women have had orgasams while being raped -  

I guess if I were female I would know this.



Nonsense. I've never heard it, I don't believe it, it would be a vanishingly rare occurrance, and the police would have to question the definition of rape in that case.

Edited to add --- in my opinion this is the usual "women like to be raped and besides, what's the big problem anyway" excuse for rape. Hey, we don't like it or we wouldn't call it "rape." It's a terrible thing to do. Quit making excuses for it. It's a crime and a harmful thing to do to another person.   :evil:
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 25, 2004, 10:35 AM
I've never seen any evidence that women orgasm during rape.  I have however seen evidence that shows they lubricate, which of course, is a natural physiological reaction like an errection in men.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 25, 2004, 11:35 AM
Quote
Edited to add --- in my opinion this is the usual "women like to be raped and besides, what's the big problem anyway" excuse for rape. Hey, we don't like it or we wouldn't call it "rape." It's a terrible thing to do. Quit making excuses for it. It's a crime and a harmful thing to do to another person.


Intrepret it anyway you want to - it does not alter the intent of the poster.
If internet forum posts give problematic messages to readers that end up getting them confused, it's each reader's responsibility to figure that out and restrict the posts they take in.

To spell it out in crayon for you Phebe, since you can't seem to follow along:

It was a response to the position that women require romantic fantasy with their cucumbers to achieve orgasam.

You really had to do a lot of reading into things to get your post up above.

I'll say this for about the 50th time also because you can't seem to understand or remember. (If you have a mental disability or disease please accept my apologies for seeming harsh)

No one here thinks rape is ok. Nobody made excuses for it - nobody thinks it's good. You've been whipping this dead horse since you rode in here.
See: http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35692

You are the only person who pushes the attitude that "women ask for it  - women like it - men excuse it". None of the posters on this board hold attitudes like that. Try as hard as you want for as long as you want - nobody is going to 'slip up' and say anthing resembling the above because nobody here thinks it. (Apart from you, that is.)

Quote
Nonsense. I've never heard it, I don't believe it, it would be a vanishingly rare occurrance, and the police would have to question the definition of rape in that case.


Phebe, what you haven't heard of could fill a warehouse - it does not mean it's not true. Please provide links to prove it's not true. We're tired of feeding you links so you can just dissmess them. (BTW I like how you used stories about roving gangs of violent men in africa - and at the same time dismiss stories about rapist women in africa because - it's like, who ever heard of that place?)

Why would the police have to question the definition of rape in that case? Physical response is not linked to conscious decisions or free will. You can will it not to hurt all you want but if I punched you in the face it's gonna hurt. Would the police have to question the definition of molestation if a woman masturbates a 12-year-old boy and he ejaculates?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 25, 2004, 11:52 AM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Quote from: "Bagu"
Women do rape men. Why do you think they can't? Ok legally speaking they can't but it does happen in real life.

Adult women do not rape adult men.

Here is Phebe's (an adult woman's) description of an attempted rape against her and her reaction to it:
Quote from: "Phebe"
I had the same experience you did, and threw him off and left. So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that. As you did! But you were bigger; I was lucky. It was probably easier for you and chancier for me, so of course women feel anxious. (Though talk about a clear no --- there was no way that guy was getting anything but major, major trouble and injury and loud shrieks in the dorm and trips to the police station if he hadn't given up when I threw him off. What a total idiot! He just plain wasn't going to take anything I didn't want to give. I'd have died first.)
Quote
...how women feel about it. Out of control, threatened, contaminated with disease and impregnation, degraded, humiliated, injured, terrified, betrayed, unable to trust the world or life or men, powerless.


Here is my (an adult man's) description of similar events and my reaction to them:
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
I did not own a TV and I was visiting a neighbor to watch a show. There was a guest also visiting the neighbor, someone whom I had not previously met. The guest was thouroughly inebriated and suddenly, without warning lept across the couch upon which we were both seated, tackled me, pinned me to the couch and attempted to force me to have sex.

I did not in any way feel personally violated. I found the incident rather amusing. If circumstances had been different I might have even cooperated with the assailant. This was not the most attractive person I had ever met, but, what the heck, I wasn't having sex with anyone at the time anyway. Had it been a more attractive person I might have found it interesting. I had actually forgotton this incident and was reminded of it while reading this discussion.



As you can see Phebe and I experienced similar events in entirely different ways.  I did not experience the events as 'rape'.  An adult man does not experience sexual aggression from an adult woman as rape.  Further, an adult woman does not possess the same potential to experience the sense of gratification that a man can from an act of sexual aggression.  Even a sociopathic woman has no incentive to attack a man.  

I do not regard manipulation as rape.


You realize you are comparing your expierence to what Phebe, abstractly, rationalizes women might feel when raped.

Her concrete descriptions of how she felt after her "attempted" rape and rapist are:

"So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that"
"what a total idiot!"

Thus we have feeling good and a sense of amused superiority from Phebe. The rest of what she posted had nothing to do with her own experience of attempted rape.

You said yourself that you felt amused after your attack.

So in terms of attempted rape, both you and Phebe had the same responce. Amusement.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 25, 2004, 12:04 PM
Quote from: "Bagu"
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
A woman is constituted in such a way as to experience a profound sense of grief over  having 'lost control of her sexuality'.  She will react this way regardless of any specific circumstances in her life.


Interesting point. So 'control over sexuality' is something innate in women and socially constructed in men. I'm no expert in this field, what is innate or socially constructed, so I can't give an opinion in this area. Point noted.


We can observe this apparent difference between women and men and note that we are constituted differently without having to decide whether its source is innate or is the result of social construction.  Feminist social construction theory holds that ALL gender characteristics are socially constructed.  I often opt to to stipulate Feminist social construction theory for purposes of discussion.

Quote
Either way, I think crime should be objectively defined, not based on anyone's feelings or 'damage'. eg Recently the man in Germany who allowed someone to kill and eat him up. The cannibal should be charged with murder, even if the victim consented.


I agree with you.  I am discussing the subject of rape from a sociological perspective rather than a legal one.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 25, 2004, 12:15 PM
Quote
We can observe this apparent difference between women and men and note that we are constituted differently without having to decide whether its source is innate or is the result of social construction.


This apparent difference is almost certainly as a result of how men are taught to value their sexuality in my opinion.  I think the fact that even at birth, their sexuality is often devalued by forced removal of a part of their sexual organ, often for purely asthetic reasons, gives some insight on how much men are taught to value control of their own sexuality by society, i.e. very little.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 25, 2004, 05:06 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"

You realize you are comparing your expierence to what Phebe, abstractly, rationalizes women might feel when raped.
Phebe's abstract rationale corresponds squarely with staemments made by women who have been raped and with Feminist theory.   Do you have a different perspective on the feelings of women who have been raped?

Quote
Her concrete descriptions of how she felt after her "attempted" rape and rapist are:

"So I won and he lost and I felt good ever since about that"
"what a total idiot!"

Thus we have feeling good and a sense of amused superiority from Phebe. The rest of what she posted had nothing to do with her own experience of attempted rape.

You said yourself that you felt amused after your attack.

So in terms of attempted rape, both you and Phebe had the same responce. Amusement.



Phebe's response sounds more like the thrill of victory after having won a battle for her own life...
Quote from: "Phebe"
...I'd have died first...
...and anger...
Quote
--- there was no way that guy was getting anything but major, major trouble and injury and loud shrieks in the dorm and trips to the police station...


I was merely amused by the fact that a drunken woman would actually tackle me and try to have sex with me, and by thinking about what a good campfire story this will be.  No anger whatsoever.  If I had been single at the time I might have suggested that we go someplace more private.





Phebe's positive feelings were towards her having thwarted an attack and having maintained control of her sexuality.
For me, neither victory nor maintaining control of my sexuality was ever an issue.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 25, 2004, 05:35 PM
Quote
I was merely amused by the fact that a drunken woman would actually tackle me and try to have sex with me, and by thinking about what a good campfire story this will be. No anger whatsoever. If I had been single at the time I might have suggested that we go someplace more private.


Well, you are unique among the men I know. I think you're actually the first one I have ever heard tell a story like this one. I know lots of guys who have had one-nighters but none who were impressed by an unknown, drunk woman jumping on them and trying to 'do' them. Most guys I know are not so desparate that they jump up-and-down with joy because any random woman shows a sexual interest in them.

Going someplace private could have been a huge mistake. Since she was drunk and you didn't know her it would have been hard for you to defend yourself if she decided to say you raped her. Lucky escape there!

Quote
For me, neither victory nor maintaining control of my sexuality was ever an issue.


Don't you value your sexuality? My body is my own and I decide who touches it and how - no different than a woman.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jun 25, 2004, 06:47 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"
Well, you are unique among the men I know....
That may be the truth


Quote
... that they jump up-and-down with joy because any random woman...
I don't remember jumping up and down for joy but as long as your about to be raped anyway you might as well lay back and enjoy it.


Quote
My body is my own and I decide who touches it and how - no different than a woman.
I have a more relaxed attitude.



But, my unique propensity for relaxation aside, when women touch our bodies in ways and places that we did not invite, we are unlikely to experience the same sense of profound grief that women tell us they experience.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 25, 2004, 07:17 PM
Quote

...  as long as your about to be raped anyway you might as well lay back and enjoy it.


Phebe, I was wrong. There is someone here who seems to think rape is a joke. Rip him a new one please.

Quote
But, my unique propensity for relaxation aside, when women touch our bodies in ways and places that we did not invite, we are unlikely to experience the same sense of profound grief that women tell us they experience.


Just 'cause you get off on it does not mean most men feel the same way.

What can you possibly base that on? It's a pretty big generalization to say that men can't possibly feel the same grief or violation that women can.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 25, 2004, 10:02 PM
It strikes me that this whole argument may be the exact reverse of the old "women of ill repute can't be raped" chestnut.

A patriarchal society might just assume the opposite of our own; that a woman would consent to sex with any man unless she had something to defend i.e. her good name. Thus any women who doesn't have a good name to defend would accept the advances of any men.

This is exactly the position we hold on men now. Any man will, as a matter of course, concent to sexual activity unless he has something to loose. Usually that something is manhood.

Thus the only rape(of women) that exists in a patriarchal society is that of a virtuous woman who stands to loose her virtue. And the only rape(of men) in a matriarchal society is that of a man who stands to loose his manhood. Since a man isn't seen to loose manhood through sex with women (sex with women is affirming of manhood--at least for our society) then a man cannot be raped by a woman.

This attitude, of course, puts men at the sexual use of women all times and any time. A man's body is public property.

Nice to see the pendulum swings both ways, isn't it?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pernicious on Jun 26, 2004, 11:44 AM
I have been in situations where I was taken advantage of. After being very inebriated I have been jumped upon a few times. It is shocking for sure

Heck whenever I go out in public and I wear my kilt I have women continuously attempting to lift my kilt. Heh at last oktoberfest I had women ducking to see what I was wearing underneath. Stuff if a guy did it he would be arrested.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 26, 2004, 12:22 PM
Pernicious, I'm in Nova Scotia and there are probably more guys wearing kilts here than in Scotland.  :D  

You would think that by now it would not be something that would draw much attention but everywhere you go women are doing exactly what you talk about. "Hey, what you got on under there? Are you a real Scot?" and trying to take a peek.

You are right on the money when you say a man would be arrested for such behaviour.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Synic on Jun 26, 2004, 12:26 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
It strikes me that this whole argument may be the exact reverse of the old "women of ill repute can't be raped" chestnut.

A patriarchal society might just assume the opposite of our own; that a woman would consent to sex with any man unless she had something to defend i.e. her good name. Thus any women who doesn't have a good name to defend would accept the advances of any men.

This is exactly the position we hold on men now. Any man will, as a matter of course, concent to sexual activity unless he has something to loose. Usually that something is manhood.

Thus the only rape(of women) that exists in a patriarchal society is that of a virtuous woman who stands to loose her virtue. And the only rape(of men) in a matriarchal society is that of a man who stands to loose his manhood. Since a man isn't seen to loose manhood through sex with women (sex with women is affirming of manhood--at least for our society) then a man cannot be raped by a woman.

This attitude, of course, puts men at the sexual use of women all times and any time. A man's body is public property.

Nice to see the pendulum swings both ways, isn't it?


So what you're saying is, it's ok for men to sexually abused, since we supposedly did this to women in the past?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 26, 2004, 12:30 PM
Quote from: "Synic"

So what you're saying is, it's ok for men to sexually abused, since we supposedly did this to women in the past?


No I'm not.

Would this help?

<Sarcasm> Nice to see the pendulum swings both ways, isn't it?</Sarcasm>
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Synic on Jun 26, 2004, 12:32 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
No I'm not.


If you say so.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pernicious on Jun 28, 2004, 06:09 AM
Quote
Pernicious, I'm in Nova Scotia and there are probably more guys wearing kilts here than in Scotland.  

You would think that by now it would not be something that would draw much attention but everywhere you go women are doing exactly what you talk about. "Hey, what you got on under there? Are you a real Scot?" and trying to take a peek.

You are right on the money when you say a man would be arrested for such behaviour.


Exactly, there are double standards at work here. It is because men are socialized to crave womens attention, and have tolerance for actions which would be inappropriate if a man did it to a woman.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Quasimodo on Jun 28, 2004, 02:52 PM
Quote
Exactly, there are double standards at work here. It is because men are socialized to crave womens attention, and have tolerance for actions which would be inappropriate if a man did it to a woman.

Sure there's a double standard at work here; but men aren't the attention cravers, women are. The real source of the double stanadard is respect, or lack thereof. Men/boys from their earliest age are taught to respect women. Women/girls are never taught at a young age to respect men. Certain men perhaps, but not men as a group. Rather, they are taught to respect themselves and demand respect from men. The only women who can be truthfully said to have been taught to respect men are those who were taught young to respect all people. This is fairly recent societal development (in terms of centuries); I'm prettty sure the men back in the sword and saddle days got mucho respect.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 07:11 AM
Pat saying, "as long as your about to be raped anyway you might as well lay back and enjoy it. "

I would guess you are aware, Pat, that this is the exact quote feminists used to accuse policemen of using when they would come to high schools to give the girls' health class lectures. It was utterly offensive and impossible for girls to relate to -------- because it's basically a male point of view. Eventually they did stop saying that, I have read.


typhonblue saying, "This attitude, of course, puts men at the sexual use of women all times and any time. A man's body is public property. "

Ummmmm.......except that women can't do anything about it forcibly, being smaller and less aggressive.

Although that kilt story goes the other way, I admit! Reminds me of a Fox news story this past weekend ---- a guy was caught on a Target store security camera bending down as if to pick something up on the floor and aiming a camera up a girl's short skirt. The news item said police were interested in talking to this guy......

Now if the girls only talk about it but the man actually did it, that would be interesting. Do women ever actually succeed in deliberately looking under the kilts?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 29, 2004, 08:42 AM
:roll: sigh

Phebe, r-e-a-d the posts.

Quote
Heck whenever I go out in public and I wear my kilt I have women continuously attempting to lift my kilt. Heh at last oktoberfest I had women ducking to see what I was wearing underneath.


Attempting to lift, looking underneath. What part don't you understand? Are you saying it's ok to TRY but not if they succeed. Somehow I think you would call a man trying to lift up or look under a woman's skirt or asking rude questions about whether or not she's wearing underwear to be offensive, sexist, aggressive and taking away a woman's control.

Why don't you condem women who act in this manner instead of trying to excuse them by asking if they succeeded in their attempts?

Oh, and by the way,
Quote
Pat saying, "as long as your about to be raped anyway you might as well lay back and enjoy it. "

I would guess you are aware, Pat, that this is the exact quote feminists used to accuse policemen of using when they would come to high schools to give the girls' health class lectures. It was utterly offensive and impossible for girls to relate to -------- because it's basically a male point of view.

I'm male and I don't hold that point of view. I'm sickened and offended that you suggest that.

Quote
Ummmmm.......except that women can't do anything about it forcibly, being smaller and less aggressive.

That's a sweeping generalization. To spell it out for you Phebe. The attitude that men's bodies are public property was aptly demonstrated by your response to women flipping men's kilts. You didn't have a problem with it did you? Women smaller? Possibly. Less aggressive? In what way? I think a wittle woman would have to be pretty aggressive to flip the kilt of a burly meanie-man twice her size, wouldn't you agree? Or maybe she feels entitled to do what she wants with his body and have a peek - an entitlement bestowed upon her by a society that tells men to shut up and take it like a man.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 08:48 AM
Attempting to lift, looking underneath. What part don't you understand? Are you saying it's ok to TRY but not if they succeed. Somehow I think you would call a man trying to lift up or look under a woman's skirt or asking rude questions about whether or not she's wearing underwear to be offensive, sexist, aggressive and taking away a woman's control.

Why don't you condem women who act in this manner instead of trying to excuse them by asking if they succeeded in their attempts?


Okay, I condemn them. Still, note that you are describing 100% of the problem women JOKING about the well-known supposed humor of a man wearing a skirt.  In no case did they do it secretly, or successfully.

Whereas the Target security camera clearly showed a man secretly and successfully photographing under a young woman's skirt.

So I'm thinking something quite differently is going on in the two cases. The women are joking; the man in Target was exploiting.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 29, 2004, 09:10 AM
Quote
Okay, I condemn them. Still, note that you are describing 100% of the problem women JOKING about the well-known supposed humor of a man wearing a skirt. In no case did they do it secretly, or successfully.

:yikes: You condem them....buuuuuut you make an excuse for them again. (BTW it's a kilt, not a skirt - and has been worn by men in many cultures for thousands of years.) They didn't do it secretly, NO, because they don't feel that there is any problem if they do it in public. Imagine the power to be able to forcibly check out what someone is wearing under their clothes, in a crowded public gathering, without fear of reprisal by the victim or the authorities. Talk about empowerment!! And they are successful much of the time, believe me, it's a celtic craze here and you see it at nearly every wedding.

Quote
Whereas the Target security camera clearly showed a man secretly and successfully photographing under a young woman's skirt.

So I'm thinking something quite differently is going on in the two cases. The women are joking; the man in Target was exploiting.


So, if I follow you correctly, if the man said "Hey baby what you got on under there? Whooooo!" and then flipped up her skirt and took a picture it would be OK because he was only joking?

Like I said - when a man does it to a woman you call it 'exploiting', when a woman does it to a man you call it 'joking'. In neither case did the target give their consent - therefore it is not a joke. Your double standard is unshakable.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 29, 2004, 09:25 AM
Phebe why are you making excuses for these women?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 09:42 AM
So, if I follow you correctly, if the man said "Hey baby what you got on under there? Whooooo!" and then flipped up her skirt and took a picture it would be OK because he was only joking?

They didn't flip up your skirt and they didn't take a picture they could take home. That is my point. They were joking with words. What you describe the man doing is exploitation with physical behavior and photography, which is very different from teasing, naughty verbal and visual jokes.

I don't think even the women's joking is in good taste and I personally would not do it (and never have when confronted with kilts and pipes -- despite a very Scottish maiden name, I am American centuries enough to run the other way). But their behavior does not resemble the behavior of the guy in Target, which was deliberately taking something, the woman's privacy, in a sort of act of theft. That was not a joke, and he didn't mean it to be -- he was stealing something for personal use at home or to sell.

I think it's an interesting idea, that men's body's are "fair game" in some sense, but I think it's an idea that fails. In the first place, women lack the strength and aggressiveness to take advantage in the way some men take advantage of women's bodies. In the second place, open and obvious joking is not at all the same as deliberately exploitative and secretive picture-taking under someone's skirts. That simply isn't happening to kilt-wearers, but it is happening to women. The Hooter's job interview was another such case, in addition to the recent Target crime.

There are jokes and there are crimes; I think these are very different.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 29, 2004, 09:44 AM
I think you are purposely evading the question, Phebe. If a man said that in a workplace it would be considered a crime. I can assure you 100% of the Ms. forum feminists would say it was a crime. He said women are free to lift a mans kilt at a wedding and do the very same thing, that is a crime.
If a man admires a women gentlemanly all feminists call it "exploiting", are you a feminist?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 09:55 AM
If a man admires a women gentlemanly all feminists call it "exploiting", are you a feminist?

If a man admires a woman in a gentlemanly fashion, we don't notice.

That is what defines the admiration as gentlemanly. It isn't pushy.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 29, 2004, 10:03 AM
Ok I see your point, it is pushy and wrong to make the woman or man uncomfortable with your admoration. It is still the same thing, there are no special rules for women, or at least there shouldn't be any.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 10:11 AM
Okay, I agree.   :)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 29, 2004, 11:00 AM
Quote
I think it's an interesting idea, that men's body's are "fair game" in some sense, but I think it's an idea that fails.

You can't really think something is an interesting idea if you also think it fails at the same time...unless you don't understand the meaning and implications of the english language and simple logic. What do you mean by interesting in this instance?

Quote
In the first place, women lack the strength and aggressiveness to take advantage in the way some men take advantage of women's bodies.

Again with the lack of aggressiveness. Like I said before, a small, teensey, weensey, wittle, oppressed woman must contain incredible aggressiveness to flip the kilt of a huge man, non?

Quote
In the second place, open and obvious joking is not at all the same as deliberately exploitative and secretive picture-taking under someone's skirts. That simply isn't happening to kilt-wearers, but it is happening to women.


Quote
They didn't flip up your skirt and they didn't take a picture they could take home. That is my point. They were joking with words. What you describe the man doing is exploitation with physical behavior and photography, which is very different from teasing, naughty verbal and visual jokes.


Phebe, they DO flip up the kilts, that's what I described. That is the point.  Don't put words in my mouth thank you very much. Stop comparing apples and oranges. The perv in Target looked up her skirt. The women at the weddings I have been to (including my own) flip up guys kilts. You keep dismissing it as joking. Fine, next time I see a woman flip a guy's kilt up I'll just flip her dress up. I'll tell her that a feminist told me it was ok because I was joking. I'm sure she'll have no problem with that.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 29, 2004, 11:09 AM
Maybe the next time some perv woman flips up your kilt you should consider calling the cops?  The joke after all is not in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 29, 2004, 11:17 AM
Unfortunately the cops will most likely think exactly as Phebe does. It's a joke when a guy is sexually molested by women (which is what this is) because of the attitude that a man's body is public property, his body is available at all times to any woman. It isn't a joke when a woman is sexually molested because of the prevailing belief that she should control her body at all times, her body is private to her. Thus it's just *obvious* when a man molests a woman he is violating her, but when a woman molests a man she's just using a resource she has every right too.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 29, 2004, 11:19 AM
Luckily, in situations of this nature it isn't up to them to decide whether or not to press charges.   Not that I am advocating such a thing, but a guy should be able to wear a kilt without being molested if he wants to.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 11:24 AM
Phebe, they DO flip up the kilts, that's what I described. That is the point. Don't put words in my mouth thank you very much. Stop comparing apples and oranges. The perv in Target looked up her skirt. The women at the weddings I have been to (including my own) flip up guys kilts. You keep dismissing it as joking. Fine, next time I see a woman flip a guy's kilt up I'll just flip her dress up. I'll tell her that a feminist told me it was ok because I was joking. I'm sure she'll have no problem with that.

Good idea, Mr. Nickle; then tell us what happened.

Actually, you could try telling them you are going to flip up their's; that a feminist told you turn about is fair play. It might well stop the behavior, which I can imagine is distracting if they come up from behind while you are playing the pipes......  :D   :D

Okay, typhonblue, I think you make a good argument. I doubt this happens very often --- kilts at weddings have got to be rare! I don't think women would dare play around like that normally because the men will tend to like the game too much and promptly go further. Still, it would be excellent for women to avoid any of that sort of joking.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 29, 2004, 11:41 AM
Quote
Okay, typhonblue, I think you make a good argument.

She agrees with your point. Yay. She is your friend. :D

Quote
I doubt this happens very often --- kilts at weddings have got to be rare!

She does not agree with your same point and dismisses it. Huh?  :? ...

Quote
I don't think women would dare play around like that normally because the men will tend to like the game too much and promptly go further.

...and turns it around to throw a disgusting accusation against men in general.

So, Phebe agrees with, then dismisses the point by saying it must never happen because kilts at weddings are rare. She has forgotten that I have already posted repeatedly how common kilts are at weddings in my part of the world and that Pernicious has also witnessed this happen. Then says men would like it too much (kinda like saying women like to be raped eh Phebe?) and would in turn do worse to the women. Now if we call flipping a kilt sexual assault or exploitation then what would one step further be? Oh yeah, I bet she is referring to rape.

So if I have intrepreted your post correctly Phebe, the women are fearful of flipping a guy's kilt because she thinks she will be raped? Is that it?

Now, I'm curious. If you think that the occurance of a woman flipping a man's kilt is vanishingly rare and you have never witnessed it... then what are you basing your premise on?

It can't be first hand experience because you said you never seen it happen.

It can't be from second hand experience because you say you have never heard of it. If you had heard many accounts of it from people you would not be saying that kilts at weddings are rare (which they are not).

Have a lot of women told you they went to a wedding and were going to flip a guy's kilt but were afraid the man would 'like it too much' and in turn sexually assault or rape them?

Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 12:12 PM
I have already posted repeatedly how common kilts are at weddings in my part of the world

Nova Scotia is not the center of the universe.

you would not be saying that kilts at weddings are rare (which they are not).

They are rare everywhere but Scotland and Nova Scotia, I suspect. I've been to a lot of weddings and never seen men wearing skirts. Yet.

the women are fearful of flipping a guy's kilt because she thinks she will be raped?

The argument is not about kilts, which only male Scottish culture hobbyists wear; it's about whether men's bodies are public property, unlike women's bodies, which we try to carefully guard from random molestation. The point I am making is that I doubt this is a general phenomenon, leaving aside the rare and somewhat eccentric Ladies from Hell wearing kilts (WWII description of the Scottish troops), because women who treat men's bodies as public property, say unzipping them in bars, feeling them up in bars, etc., are quickly going to get twice as much back and therefore will find themselves out of their depth very soon and won't do it again.

It's exactly the same issue as hitting: the woman who hits a large man is likely to get in serious trouble, and the same will happen if she touches him sexually in public. We don't do this much because men do it back worse. I have never seen women do this and I don't believe it happens much, always excepting the rather unusual weddings you attend.

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Oh, my.  (http://www.jeffpylenz.com/JP's%20Incredimail/Incredimail%20Smileys/Smiley%20Co/SMILEYS/Basic/19_indifferent.gif)  (http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/sleep/schla23.gif)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 29, 2004, 12:50 PM
But men *don't* do it back because women's bodies are considered private property, no trespass. And that holds for both sexual and violent intent.

You posted one counter example to Mr. Nickle's and that counter example obviously recieved a lot of note for precisely the same reason that Nickle's examples don't! When a man molests a woman its seen as a violation, when a woman molests a man its dismissed as, at worst, a joke. Therefor the former is prosecuted and ends up in the papers while the later is laughed at.

In fact you've managed to twist and ignore the evidence presented by suggesting a woman would never molest a man because he would turn around and rape her.

Obviously the women fliping Mr. Nickle's kilt don't feel that way. And I would say, having spoken to good looking men about this very issue(good looking men being the ones who feel most acutely society's lack of respect for men's bodies, simply because they are more often the target of agressive women), that the women who molest them don't feel that way either.  

Further, I've noticed an interesting tendancy. A woman will only take the initiative only when she wants sex from a man and nothing more. And when she does she is very aggressive, far more then a man would ever dream of. Yet when social contact is desired, in other words anything that might involve money--dinner, dance, movie-- the man is still on his own.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 29, 2004, 01:02 PM
Quote
Nova Scotia is not the center of the universe.


I never said it was - but was merely offering an example for you to dismiss out of hand.

Quote
They are rare everywhere but Scotland and Nova Scotia, I suspect. I've been to a lot of weddings and never seen men wearing skirts. Yet.

Instead of just suspecting why not do a little research? It would broaden your horizons. I know that people of scottish descent are all over the world and wear KILTS (again NOT skirts). I don't suspect, I know. Knowing is much more empowering than suspecting.

Quote
The argument is not about kilts, which only male Scottish culture hobbyists wear; it's about whether men's bodies are public property, unlike women's bodies, which we try to carefully guard from random molestation.

For someone who have never seen a man wearing a kilt at a wedding you are suddenly an expert on who wears them?? OK Phebe, since you have stated what you think this argument is about can we get you to stick to it? That would be nice. Thanks.

Quote
because women who treat men's bodies as public property, say unzipping them in bars, feeling them up in bars, etc., are quickly going to get twice as much back and therefore will find themselves out of their depth very soon and won't do it again.

Now we're getting somewhere. Women who treat men's bodies as public property are quickly going to be left alone. Because as we have shown above, actions that women perform against men are treated as 'JOKING' men performing the same action against women will have bouncers pounding their heads in about 5 seconds after the woman screams. Doubt me? Go to a bar and scream Phebe. See how long till the bouncers come.

Quote
We don't do this much because men do it back worse. I have never seen women do this and I don't believe it happens much,

Once again how can you make a statement of fact: "women don't do this much" when you "have never seen women do this" and you "don't believe it happens much"? To continue your logic train - if women rarely do this then it has to be equally rare that the men would be molesting them back since the man's actions are a response to the woman's. If the occurances were are rare as you think then it would make determining trends very difficult since you are working from such a small sample size.

Quote
always excepting the rather unusual weddings you attend.

Why are Scottish traditions at weddings involving people with Scottish heritage considered unusual?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 01:56 PM
A woman will only take the initiative only when she wants sex from a man and nothing more. And when she does she is very aggressive, far more then a man would ever dream of.

Impossible, typhonblue. If what you say were true, then it would be predominantly women getting arrested for rape, but it is almost solely men who are arrested for rape.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 29, 2004, 02:02 PM
Why are Scottish traditions at weddings involving people with Scottish heritage considered unusual?

All my people are of Scottish heritage and most of the family is blond; we never did kilts, I can tell you.  :o
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 29, 2004, 02:25 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
A woman will only take the initiative only when she wants sex from a man and nothing more. And when she does she is very aggressive, far more then a man would ever dream of.

Impossible, typhonblue. If what you say were true, then it would be predominantly women getting arrested for rape, but it is almost solely men who are arrested for rape.


They are not arrested for rape because of the perception that men's bodies are public property.

Please keep up to the discussion.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 02:40 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
It is an interesting question. Dan Lynch once called it "assault with a friendly weapon."

So.....why should it be a crime at all? Should it be a crime if it happens to men? If men rape men, should that be overlooked as no real problem? After all, it's less of a problem for men: you can't get pregnant from it.


Actually that's a Matthew Fitzgerald quote "assault with a friendly weapon".  

So far "consent" is not a defence for a sexual assault allegation in Canadian law.

However I do remember where some chick was trading emails with a guy with "rape fantasies" involved in their online flirtations.  I guess he raped her but was aquitted because of the emails.  I believe it was in New York.

But you are exactly right in my opinion as to why 'rape' is such a big deal in the first place--pregnancy!
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 02:48 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
because it threatens women's source of power.

Um-hum....threatens her value to the patriarchal society: her possession of her own sexuality, which she can transfer to husband or boyfriend, for instance, is another perspective, but in general, I like your thinking, typhonblue.




Thanks for the re-vised history lesson.  But you surly must know that it was in fact the American Communist party that promoted the fact that women were all rape victims of the patriarchy , not the so called patriarchy losing purity of their property.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 02:53 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Great collection, Wolf. I love emoticons too.
(http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/fam/fam28.gif)

A lot of men have pointed out this prison problem. I think it would be good for the whole society if that were stopped. It could be done, too. We are a rich enough country for the security and phyical plant to support that kind of imprisonment. Not my business, I guess, but it seems to me it would be a good male rights activist cause.

     



Where as female on female rape is considered a "good rape".
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 02:57 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"

What about these girls who are very passive, they don't want to hurt feelings, cause a scene, be loud, they want to be liked? Like Kobe Bryant's accuser, inching herself toward the door, but too late? I'm asking. Women like me or typhonblue, strong personalities, we're never going to be raped --- such men would steer clear. They're looking for little Miss Pleaser. What about them? What do women have to do before any man would agree it was clear, they definitely didn't consent?



Out of curiosity , why do you care about these women for?  Women you don't even know, and women you've basically made up for the purpose of your debate?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 29, 2004, 02:58 PM
Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
Quote from: "Phebe"

What about these girls who are very passive, they don't want to hurt feelings, cause a scene, be loud, they want to be liked? Like Kobe Bryant's accuser, inching herself toward the door, but too late? I'm asking. Women like me or typhonblue, strong personalities, we're never going to be raped --- such men would steer clear. They're looking for little Miss Pleaser. What about them? What do women have to do before any man would agree it was clear, they definitely didn't consent?



Out of curiosity , why do you care about these women for?  Women you don't even know, and women you've basically made up for the purpose of your debate?


That's a good point. I think the answer is that Phebe is so woman-focused she even cares about the feelings of blow up dolls.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 03:05 PM
Okaaaay......I agree totally. Except for the feminist bit. Of COURSE men usually initiate sex in our society! And what's more, you'd probably be very startled and start to call it "rape" if the women suddenly took out after you.

Actually I dissagree with this statement completely.  I believe women initiate sex or flirt in total equality with men.

Women are far more subtle and play passive but it doesn't mean they are not luring a man to sex.  Some women just stand in close proximety just to meet a perticular man.  

Hell, if a man sung the songs Alinas Morriesette sang "I wanna Know" for instance he'd be dubbed a stalker.  Alanis won a grammy.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 03:08 PM
Cry rape? Unlikely. More like I'd go into shock, pure and simple. Phebe, you have to understand; sex is a commodity. I see this everyday. I organise the phone bill at my student accomadation. The day before yesterday, the bf of one of the students paid me some £62, for her phone bill. Why? Because of sex.

She does not push for sex, because she knows she can sell it. There is no profit in a women pushing for casual sex with a male.



Which is interesting because I accuse feminists of being communists all the time.  This of course is a major issue for communists in case people were unaware.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jun 29, 2004, 03:11 PM
That's a good point. I think the answer is that Phebe is so woman-focused she even cares about the feelings of blow up dolls.


HA!

I just spit all over my screen.


But it does reveal the group pathology of feminists.   It's a great force to be reckoned with.  Especially when you know how entire groups with vote etc....
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 29, 2004, 07:19 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Why are Scottish traditions at weddings involving people with Scottish heritage considered unusual?

All my people are of Scottish heritage and most of the family is blond; we never did kilts, I can tell you.  :o


Never is a big word coming from a Scottish person whos family is being accredited to practicing traditional Scottish rights. You can be a Catholic and never go to church but that makes you far removed from being a practicing Catholic.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Q on Jun 30, 2004, 04:20 AM
Phebes dear, at the last wedding I was at there were 4 kilts...and tis was some 400 miles from scotland, in the FENS!

So they can't be that rare.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 08:32 AM
They are not arrested for rape because of the perception that men's bodies are public property.

Nonsense. They are not arrested for rape because women don't, and can't, rape.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 08:35 AM
Actually that's a Matthew Fitzgerald quote "assault with a friendly weapon".

Okay, I'll stop attributing it to you all over the Internet, then, Dan Lynch.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 08:37 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
They are not arrested for rape because of the perception that men's bodies are public property.

Nonsense. They are not arrested for rape because women don't, and can't, rape.


Sure they do.  Women rape minors all the time.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 08:40 AM
Any chance we could separate statuatory rape from actual forced rape for the purposes of this discussion?

I'm not actually very interested in enthusiastic people having sex under the age of consent. That seems to me a legal issue that the state, schools, and parents are interested in.

I'm more interested in rape as a crime of forcing unwilling women.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 08:40 AM
http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20040623/localnews/699663.html

"Woman charged with rape"

Your ignorance not withstanding.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 08:42 AM
You are including child molesting as rape, but that's not really what this discussion is about, at least as it started out . If you want to include child molesting, a lot more men are charged with that than women are, so I question if your side of the argument will profit.

I wonder why that incredibly beautiful woman wanted to have sex with boys instead of men? I saw that this morning and I did wonder about that.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 08:44 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Any chance we could separate statuatory rape from actual forced rape for the purposes of this discussion?

I'm not actually very interested in enthusiastic people having sex under the age of consent. That seems to me a legal issue that the state, schools, and parents are interested in.

I'm more interested in rape as a crime of forcing unwilling women.


Of course you are, you're a feminist.  Feminists don't have any concern about male victims of rape, whether it's men doing the raping or women doing the raping.  Also, there have been cases in the US of women gang raping grown men, rarer though it may be.  It can and does happen, and it isn't any less traumatic for a man, even when it is a woman doing the raping.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 08:47 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
You are including child molesting as rape, but that's not really what this discussion is about, at least as it started out .


Wrong.  You mean to say that this discussion is not about how you define rape.  Well you are right, it isn't.

Quote

If you want to include child molesting, a lot more men are charged with that than women are, so I question if your side of the argument will profit.


Wrong.  Fathers committ less child abuse than mothers in the US.

Quote

I wonder why that incredibly beautiful woman wanted to have sex with boys instead of men? I saw that this morning and I did wonder about that.


She said she found it hot because it wasn't allowed.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 08:47 AM
I just am never going to believe in this stuff, Sir Jessy. It's the classic "women do it too" defense, but it's particularly implausible in this case.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 08:57 AM
Well which stuff are you not going to believe?  Tell me so I can find you evidence.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 09:03 AM
Claim one:

'According to the "Third National Incidence Study Of
Child Abuse and Neglect", U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, "Of children maltreated by a
birth-parent, a sizeable percentage were abused by
the mother (75%)."

Women commit the majority of child abuse:

 The mother was the perpetrator in 57.0% - 61.4% of child abuse cases.

 [Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1987; I believe the
 natural father was the perpatrator in about 15% of cases, with other
 men and women (e.g., step parents) in the remaining].

 Statistics compliled by almost every state child protective service
 agency indicate that mothers abuse their children at a rate
approaching
 or exceeding twice that of fathers, e.g., Minnesota 62%, Virginia 67%,
 Alaska 67%, Texas 68%, New Jersey 70%. In Michigan, 49% of child abuse
 was committed by single parent mothers.

 [Minnesota Department of Human Services, 1994; Ditson and Shay,
 Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 1984; OP-ED Washington Post, 1994]

 Of 10883 cases of abuse in the Puget Sound region of Washington state
 in 1990, 68.3% was committed by the natural mother (26.5% by the
natural
 father).

 [Washington Child Protective Services, 1991]

 Women are 62% more likely than men to abuse children, and boys are
 more than twice as likely as girls to receive physical injuries.

 [Suzanne Steinmetz (chairperson of the sociology department at the
 University of Indiana), quoted by David Thomas in Not Guilty: The
 Case in Defense of Men, 1993; I believe this comes from Steinmetz,
 Women and Violence: Victims and Perpetrators, American Journal of
 Psychotherapy, 3, 1980].

 Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to physically abuse
 children; physical and sexual abuse are three times greater in female
 headed households.

 [USA Today, 12-7-95]

 53% of child abuse perpetrators are female, 21% male, and 23% both.
 (some are unknown)

 [Nagi, Child Maltreatment in the United States, Columbia
 University Press, New York, 1977]


Women are more likely to kill their children:

 Mothers accounted for 55% of defendants in slaying of offspring and
were
 more likely to murder a son than a daughter (64% to 36%), with the
 majority of the victims under 11.

 [Department of Justice, Murder in Families, NCJ-143498]

 Of 556 child abuse fatalities in a survey of 20 states, the
perpatrator
 was a woman in 55.7% of all cases (76.4% the parent).

 [American Human Association, American Association for Protecting
 Children, 1986]

 Of 1211 child abuse fatalities, 654 boys and 557 girls were killed
 by 678 women and 533 men (women: 56%)

 [National Committe for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect,
1990]

 Mothers committed 54% of parent-child murders in Canada between 1974
 and 1983.

 [Daly and Wilson, Parent-Offspring Homicides in Canada, 1974-1983,
  Science, 242, 519-524, 1988]
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 09:12 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
I just am never going to believe in this stuff, Sir Jessy. It's the classic "women do it too" defense, but it's particularly implausible in this case.



I don't see what your problem with it is, you have used the same approach on the thread about women in the KKK (WKKK). Not only did you say men do it too but that men started it, why be so dishonest?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 09:15 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
You are including child molesting as rape, but that's not really what this discussion is about, at least as it started out . If you want to include child molesting, a lot more men are charged with that than women are, so I question if your side of the argument will profit.

I wonder why that incredibly beautiful woman wanted to have sex with boys instead of men? I saw that this morning and I did wonder about that.



Molestation is not intercourse, the latest news story about a teacher having sex with a 14 year old special ed student is about rape.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jun 30, 2004, 09:26 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"

Nonsense. They are not arrested for rape because women don't, and can't, rape.


Women are not arrested because the law says so. But the law doesn't tell you what is right or wrong. It is a political tool.

This just sums up the feminist philosophy: Women never do anything wrong.

They have always tried to legalize crimes which women commit, beginning with abortion, and now raping of men. Giving the impression that it's totally fine to do such things.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 09:33 AM
Women can and do rape.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 11:25 AM
Women don't rape eh Phebe?

The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, Thursday, August 7, 1997.

THREE WOMEN ARE INDICTED ON ATTACK ON CHILD MOLESTER

By Frank Hinchey
Columbus Dispatch Assistant State Editor

DELAWARE, Ohio -- A mother, her daughter and the daughter's aunt have
been indicted on charges of rape and kidnapping of a male relative -- a
convicted child molester.

Mary Franks, 44, of 9431 Kilbourne Rd., Sunbury; her daughter, Jewell
Hosler, 28, 37 North St., Delaware; and Vickie Coulter, 39, 130 Hanover
Rd., Lot 135, Delaware, were charged with one count each of rape and two
counts each of kidnapping by a Delaware County grand jury that met
Tuesday.

Franks' husband, Rick, 43, was indicted on a charge of bribery in the
case. He is accused of offering the 27-year-old victim $500 initially,
then $3,000 later, to drop the charges shortly after the attack July 26
at the man's residence in Delaware, according to court papers.

The victim was found later that day naked and wrapped in a blanket
behind a pizza parlor in his former hometown of McComb, a village in
Hancock County, a sheriff's report stated.

His head and pubic hair had been shaved. The words "I am a child
molester" were written in black marker on several places of his body,
including the inside of one of his legs, the report stated.

The victim had been convicted of gross sexual imposition of a child in
Hancock County in 1994. He was sentenced to two years in prison in 1995
and was released in January.

According to a police report, Mr. Franks told authorities he understood
there was "bad blood" between the victim and a family member.

The victim told McComb police the three women entered his residence,
wrestled him to the floor, cut off part of his sweat pants and
underwear, tied him up, shaved him and assaulted him anally with an
8-inch cucumber, reports indicate.

"He said he was . . . screaming with pain," the report said.

The victim stated the women put heat-producing ointment on his genitals.

At one point, one of the women put a pillow over his head in an attempt
to smother him, the victim told officers.

The women indicated they thought about taking the man to Findlay and
throwing him into a bar with no clothes on, the report stated. The
victim instead was taken to McComb from Delaware and dumped behind the
pizza parlor, the report said.

Mrs. Franks and Hosler were stopped that night in a sports-utility
vehicle on I-75 by Bluffton police and arrested by a Hancock County
deputy sheriff, the sheriff's office said.

An arrest warrant has been issued for Coulter, said Dane Gaschen,
Delaware County assistant prosecutor.  At the victim's residence in
Delaware, officers found a cucumber, an open container of petroleum
jelly and hair clippings near a chair.

Contacted last night, the victim's only comment was: "The charges are
appropriate."

Jewell Hosler is in the Delaware County jail in lieu of $50,000 bond.
Mrs. Franks posted $50,000 bond, and Mr. Franks is free on his own
recognizance.
(end of article)

*******************

Apparently this man is not the most sympathetic victim, but the statement, 'women don't rape' is certainly W-R-O-N-G anyway you look at it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 30, 2004, 11:39 AM
Nonsense. I don't believe it. That's just silly. Who ever heard of Ohio? This must be an urban legend.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: PowerMan72 on Jun 30, 2004, 12:45 PM
:lol:

Indeed.  Why are you still wasting your time with that troll?  Do you really think that you're going to be able to convince her of anything?  The brainwashing is too powerful.  Give up already.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 01:25 PM
Not only did you say men do it too but that men started it, why be so dishonest?

I didn't say men did it too (lynching), I said men did it only. That's historical fact. If only women had been around, there wouldn't have been any lynching. That is obvious.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 01:29 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Not only did you say men do it too but that men started it, why be so dishonest?

I didn't say men did it too (lynching), I said men did it only. That's historical fact. If only women had been around, there wouldn't have been any lynching. That is obvious.



Just as all the left decides every political member and affiliate of the administration is commiting mass murder unjustifiably in Iraq simply by association, as does feminists and women take credit for all their peers actions in the KKK. Live with it Phebe because you won't be getting it both ways here. That is historical fact.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 01:30 PM
Cucumbers. Why does so much gender talk somehow have to revolve around cucumbers?

However, Sir Jessy proved his point: I agree, considering the helpful cucumber, that news story is a rape of a man by women. You must have looked a long time for that one.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 01:34 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Cucumbers. Why does so much gender talk somehow have to revolve around cucumbers?

However, Sir Jessy proved his point: I agree, considering the helpful cucumber, that news story is a rape of a man by women. You must have looked a long time for that one.


Why do you have to be so obtuse? How do you know he took such a long time, or is that just you being snide because your debating skills are defeated and you can't take it? Either accept it as credible and back down from your position or counter it responsibly in a mature fashion, non sequitors are lame.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 01:40 PM
My point is that hundreds of thousands of rapes by some men of women occur yearly in this country. The "women do it too" defense required searching out a single 1997 story about a child molester attacked by women with a cucumber: that is not what I'd call a rape-by-women epidemic.

My point also is that I'd like men generally to take responsibility for this high level of violence toward women and help stop it; saying "women do it too" isn't realistic or helpful.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 01:48 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
My point is that hundreds of thousands of rapes by some men of women occur yearly in this country. The "women do it too" defense required searching out a single 1997 story about a child molester attacked by women with a cucumber: that is not what I'd call a rape-by-women epidemic.

My point also is that I'd like men generally to take responsibility for this high level of violence toward women and help stop it; saying "women do it too" isn't realistic or helpful.


Now you are splitting hairs, you pointedly said "Women NEVER rape, it is IMPOSSIBLE, it NEVER HAPPENED". No one said it had to turn into a debate over who does it more, who does it on Sundays after brunch, blah blah blah. No one mentioned epidemic proportions, your inserting that into this is hogwash.

Admit it, women can and do rape, it is simple as that, you are wrong Phebe.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 01:57 PM
My opinion is that the thrust of many of these discussions is that whatever male crimes occur are okay and not a problem, as long as you can somehow say that "women do it too." However strained this claim is, as in the lynchings, which women simply never did, but the thread was started to blame lynchings on women all the same.

Sir Jessy found a 1997 story of women with a cucumber and a criminal. You want to use this to make up for every one of the hundreds of thousands of rapes men commit on women, yearly. I definitely don't agree with that tactic and I'm not planning on helping you bless all those many crimes with one cucumber. It's simply not relevant.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 02:03 PM
Well I see it as men saying they are tired of women like you purposely stating women have NO hand in this crime when they do. When men try to point it out you come back with this lame argument that men saying women DO this, to prove your claim that women do NOT is WRONG. I get up a little earlier in the morining than you and you wont be sliding me down that slippery slope. No one said men here think NOTHING of rape, no one here says its ok to rape. They said your belief that women NEVER RAPE, CANNOT RAPE, is wrong. Women do rape, that is a fact.


Move on.

Nothing anyone provides you as proof positive that your incorrect bigoted contentions is wrong will be good enough according to you. We get that message loud and clear.

I don't know about the rest of you but this women just said "It's just not relevant".

Do you really need to read more of it to know this woman is a gender feminist who hates men?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 02:11 PM
Bravo DJ.  The fact is that Phebe is moving the goal posts to cover her shame at making an idiotic absolute statement of "Women don't rape".  Not only was she wrong on that count she was also wrong on the child abuse count too.

Fact of the matter is that no one here is arguing that women do it too and that this somehow makes rape 'ok'.  That's just Phebe inserting her feminist red her-ing  into the discussion.  I think rape is morally wrong, and a crime as well, as does most every member of this board except Phebe.  Phebe has no problem with rape when it's only men or male children being raped.  She stated outright that she thinks the term rape only applies to women (as victims).

So who in this discussion is REALLY saying that '[insert gender] does it too', and therefore it is ok?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jun 30, 2004, 02:16 PM
Maybe all those men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning' eh Phebe?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jun 30, 2004, 02:27 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
However strained this claim is, as in the lynchings, which women simply never did, but the thread was started to blame lynchings on women all the same.


You really need to stop smoking the crack.  The point of the KKK article was to show the relation between feminism and racial bigotry.  

"The significance of "Women of the Klan" rests not in its somewhat ebullient celebration of feminist principles, but rather, that it documents in great detail a direct lineage between the Women's Ku Klux Klan and the radical feminist movement as it exists today."

Susan B Anthony in fact refused to stand up for the minority vote, saying she would not until women had the vote.  Universal Suffrage?  I think not.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 02:29 PM
Susan B Anthony in fact refused to stand up for the minority vote, saying she would not until women had the vote.

Quite right, too. My hero; I still keep her dollar coins.  Why should black men get the vote when women couldn't? Doesn't make sense; I definitely would not have supported that either.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jun 30, 2004, 02:33 PM
Maybe all those men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning' eh Phebe?


Ahhhh............my very favorite explanation.

Good night, all.  :)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 03:20 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Bravo DJ.  The fact is that Phebe is moving the goal posts to cover her shame at making an idiotic absolute statement of "Women don't rape".  Not only was she wrong on that count she was also wrong on the child abuse count too.

Fact of the matter is that no one here is arguing that women do it too and that this somehow makes rape 'ok'.  That's just Phebe inserting her feminist red her-ing  into the discussion.  I think rape is morally wrong, and a crime as well, as does most every member of this board except Phebe.  Phebe has no problem with rape when it's only men or male children being raped.  She stated outright that she thinks the term rape only applies to women (as victims).

So who in this discussion is REALLY saying that '[insert gender] does it too', and therefore it is ok?


Thank you Jessy, I appreciate that and yes you are right, Phebe is the only one here making skewed insertions of mal content into the posts of others to evade her indiscretions.

Firstly I would like to address her Susan B. Anthony comment and how she wouldn't want a black man getting the vote if  women can't. I would think that someone of Susan B. Anthony's caliber would want EVERYONE to get the vote. Furthermore, every individual who got it should be looked upon as progress and a huge victory over true oppression. Phebe just shines more light on her true concerns, women and women only, a tried and true bigot.

I have read so many threads over at Ms. where each and every feminist donning Phebe's femme de nomaleshouldlive coat of armor say " I was raped at 15, I was raped at 13". These womyn :roll: call this rape only because the victim is female, when a boy is taken advantage of, a mentally challenged boy such as the one in the news today, it is merely molestation. It is always a downplay to keep the feminist and all women on a higher moral ground while simultaneously making men the only evil entity in society and all of mankind. I am sick and tired of this crap, to put it blunt.

Phebe and her ilk have been saying men are evil because only men to do this, only men to that. This is how they bolster their "This is why men and only men are evil" propaganda. When men stand up and say "Women have been doing it as well but to be fair why not say PEOPLE WHO DO THIS ARE EVIL?" and stop this gender bashing anti male bullshit feminists call fair play and a quest for equality; feminist like phebe turn the tables to say men are using an excuse to say all atrocities brought onto mankind are ok if men do it, which is NOT true. No one here has ever said that.


Your game is tired and worn out Phebe, people here just don't sign onto a feminazi groupthink. You are thus far alone on this ride whilst Standing Your Ground.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jun 30, 2004, 03:22 PM
Sorry double post.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jul 01, 2004, 06:29 AM
"Women have been doing it as well but to be fair why not say PEOPLE WHO DO THIS ARE EVIL?" and stop this gender bashing anti male bullshit

Fine, then you won't mind working to bring the number of sex crimes by men down to the same number committed by women? The population numbers of men and women are roughly equal. So if "women do it too" and there is no difference in the sexes in sex crimes, men shouldn't be committing any more sex crimes than women, right?

If men ARE committing more serial killings and rapes and spouse murders than women, I would say there is a gender problem.

All I ask is that the level of crimes committed by men be no more numerous than the same types of crimes committed by women. If you are claiming there is no gender problem, then that seems fair. And the drastically lower crime rate would make this country heaven on earth.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: dr e on Jul 01, 2004, 07:44 AM
There is a good deal of research that points out the correllation of "powerlessness" and crime.  Those who committ crimes are often those who either are powerless or feel powerless.  Given that idea I think that in order to reduce male crime we need to give men more power.  Bring a man's rights up to the same level that women enjoy and see what the crime stats say.  Working for men's rights can be seen as an anti-crime effort.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jul 01, 2004, 09:02 AM
That is an excellent response Dr. Evil though I doubt it will make any impact on Phebe. All she wants to do is shift all the blame on men while pretending to stay gender neutral. Why men have to tackle other peoples issues alone is beyond me, she is just another shiftless armchair protester who wants to shift blame and demand results. She conveniently ignores the biased family laws and judicial systems that force a hard hand on men, which is a contributing factor as you clearly noted in your post. She also ignores the fact that she doesn't think men can be raped so that skews her stats on men vs. women and who rapes more.

Phebe, you are shooting at shadows with your response, you just can't get off the "Men do it more" or "Men do it women don't" so you fix it, act. Society has a long hard job ahead if it is ever going to seriously address these issues and your take isn't going to accomplish squat.

Your goal as others should be to eliminate ALL counts of rape etc, not ask MEN to reduce all skewed percentages of such acts calculated by biased feminazi drones that have a agenda to achieve an outcome favorable to their own cause rather than what is good for all mankind, Men, Women, boys AND girls.

I can remember when the feminists of the 70s wanted men to get involved to show their seriousness and prove they cared about equality for women and not just say " I agree ". Why don't you stop and think about that, get out there and make a difference without pointing fingers and PROVE you care, huh Phebe? Being an armchair activist has a tendancy to show your true gender feminist colors.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jul 01, 2004, 10:29 AM
An Experiment Using the Imagination.

Let us imagine that we are members of a society that is just like the real society of which we actually are members - - - EXCEPT - - -  in our imaginary society there are no criminal penalties applied when an adult commits rape against an adult member of the opposite sex.  Would members of one sex be more apt than members of the opposite sex to percieve these circumstances as intimidating?  Would there be one sex with members who are more likely than menbers of the opposite sex to percieve these circumstances as presenting an opportunity?  What changes in social structure might result?

Let us now consider a slight modification of our imaginary circumstances.  Let's say there are no criminal penaties when a registered voter rapes another registered voter of the opposite sex.  How might this affect voter registration?


Sometimes people have conversations in which they discuss the frequency with which they are subjected to uninvited, unwanted sexual attention, the sense of intimidation they experience as a result, and how they might thwart such uninvited attention.  Would the people discussing these issues tend to be members of one particular sex?

Sometimes people have conversations in which they discuss how they might obtain a positive response to their uninvited sexual attention.  Would the people discussing this issue tend to be members of one particular sex?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jul 01, 2004, 07:05 PM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
An Experiment Using the Imagination.

Let us imagine that we are members of a society that is just like the real society of which we actually are members - - - EXCEPT - - -  in our imaginary society there are no criminal penalties applied when an adult commits rape against an adult member of the opposite sex.  Would members of one sex be more apt than members of the opposite sex to percieve these circumstances as intimidating?  Would there be one sex with members who are more likely than menbers of the opposite sex to percieve these circumstances as presenting an opportunity?  What changes is social structure might result?

Let us now consider a slight modification of our imaginary circumstances.  Let's say there are no criminal penaties when a registered voter rapes another registered voter of the opposite sex.  How might this affect voter registration?


Sometimes people have conversations in which they discuss the frequency with which they are subjected to uninvited, unwanted sexual attention, the sense of intimidation they experience as a result, and how they might thwart such uninvited attention.  Would the people discussing these issues tend to be members of one particular sex?

Sometimes people have conversations in which they discuss how they might proffer uninvited sexual attention and have it received positively.  Would the people discussing this issue tend to be members of one particular sex?


From an abosolute standpoint a few pages before (Men always rape, women never), you are now moving to a relative one. Which is more realistic. True, men are more likely to rape a woman than vice versa due to generally more physical strength, but the law has taken this probability and generalized it, put it in absolute terms just like you did and now there are no penalties for women who rape. The law is saying, 'Since men are more likely to rape, men ALWAYS rape, and since women are less likely to rape, they NEVER'.

Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"


Sometimes people have conversations in which they discuss how they might proffer uninvited sexual attention and have it received positively.  Would the people discussing this issue tend to be members of one particular sex?


'Proffer uninvited' sounds paradoxical. But if I get what you mean, let me rephrase it. Which sex dresses to attract attention? Which sex is more likely to have rape fantasies?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 01, 2004, 08:54 PM
Hey folks, sorry to break in to the discussion.  But I didn't know this thread was still going.  And being one of the falsely accused (of rape) I wanted toss in something.

I just got done debating with a woman on another board.  This one guy (it's an equity gender board, not feminist, not MRA) POURED out his heart about a false allegation and asked for support.

Well, a woman on that board tossed doubt all over his story, questioned his actions, said she doubted it "was that bad" or that he was under house arrest, and generally sh*t all over him.

Me and this other dude replied to her.  She tossed out the "1 in 4" myth and we shredded that.  She then got "offended" and since I had said that I had "verbally handed her her ass" she expressed that I had "anger issues and was probably abusive towards women in real life."  And, of course, that I hated women and wanted to oppress them.

So, I replied.  I am including my reply to her here, well, because it's one of my finer bits of excoriation (great word) of some "victimologist" who sh*t on some guy who for the FIRST TIME told his false accusation story and asked for help.

Enjoy:

Quote
Gina Said:
"I chose not to address the issue about the rape statistics, not because I was "losing the argument" or because you put me in my place, but because there really is no point in arguing about statistics. People tend to believe in the statistics that support what they already believe. I haven't changed my opinion just because you claim my opinion is B.S. "

     Ummm, no, sorry Gina, the anti-male GENDER-Feminists use whatever statistics suit them.  Sorry that your "1 in 4" spoon-fed answer is wrong, but that aint my fault.  Next time someone gives you a stat, do research, don't just parrot it because it's what you want to hear.

     I notice you couldn't REFUTE my debunking of the "1 in 4" MYTH, but instead played the passive/aggressive "I'm wounded/hurt/not-going-to-dignify-that" stance.  And instead of going to find out if what I (and Brian) had said was true or not, you just ended the discussion.  Keep up that open mindedness, you could be a "Women's Studies professor" with little to no training.


Gina's next pearl of wisdom:
"Every man accused of rape claims the accusation is false. Most of them are lying. We disagree on the exact number, but can we agree on that much at least? Most of them are lying. And many of those who are lying will never experience just consequences for what they did. That, to me, is a heart-breaking tragedy for the victim and for society. To you, perhaps false accusations are a greater tragedy. Perhaps you feel every man who claims he was falsely accused deserves the benefit of the doubt. They should all be believed, even though most of them are lying."

     Ok, let's try ONCE AGAIN to just reverse the situation.  Somthing the "that's different" indoctrinated are loathe to do.  (It would require empathy and logical/equity minded thinking).

     Yes Gina, all men who are accused claim to be innocent.  And guess what?  The presumption, not MY IDEOLOGY, is that they ARE "innocent until proven guilty".  That's an underlying premise to our justice system.  Sorry it's a nuscience to you, but it must be nice to be able to have laws that won't be applied to you.

      And let's deal with another idea: EVERY  WOMEN WHO ACCUSES CLAIMS TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH: and a lot are not telling the truth.  Wow, did that NEVER register on your radar before?  Kinda like how the accused "showed up with his hair combed" in your previous post on the other thread.  Nope, you NEVER smoked it over in your mind that whole ORDEAL of what it is like to be facing YEARS of RAPE in prison as a man.  Must be nice.  This site is for EQUITY FEMINISM, not "Subjective Feminism".  

    We MRAs look at all angles.  We, and I belong to several men's and father's groups, want our CIVIL RIGHTS, not the oppression of women.  And let's get something spelled out: Men wanting their civil rights, pointing out inequity in the "justice system", and protesting our problems is not "woman hating", NOT "oppression of women", and WE includes a lot of women.  

     Yep, Gina, a lot of women are in the Men's and Father's movement.  Meanwhile "Women's Studies" classes have become MANDATORY on many campuses.  Why?  Interest, attendance, and, consequently, the funding, was DYING.  Women are sick, sick, sick to death of man-hating feminists who will rob men (their brothers, sons, fathers, friends, and co-workers) of our civil rights, jail us, blame us for things we didn't do, and ignore our medical/legal/and financial rights. And all the while Gen-Feminists are claiming to be "oppressed". The "victimology" is getting old.

     Here's a clue Gina: Most of the "rape advocacy" money goes to college campuses.  What's WRONG with that, since you are so interested in this subject?  MOST rapes don't occur on college campuses at all, but in inner city area. Yep, the privileged feminist elite take care of their own, and any other women just have to "suck it up".  Some women who need to speak to counselors in the inner city have to get on WAITING LISTS, while pampered college indoctrinee's have 2-3 counselors on duty AT ALL TIMES despite the fact that fewer than 1 rape is reported per 2000-3000 students PER YEAR at any given college.  So, at a college with 80,000 students (Ohio State University) you might get 25-30 rapes in a year.  That's a deplorable number.  It's ghastly.  But notice that there are 2-5 rape counselors funded to be on duty at ALL TIMES, when there is less than 1 rape a week.  On the other hand women who are FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED in the inner city get a waiting list.  And that's mostly women of color, immigrants, and the poor.  

      Getting the picture yet?  No?  Most Gen-Fem's hoot, hollar, and protest about rape, but don't address it in realistic terms at all.  They put the money where it will be SEEN to be doing good, pamper the next elite feminists, and promote the "rape culture" myth.  While their truly disadvantaged "sisters" in the inner city get a WAITING LIST and no press (except to be counted as a statistic).  

     Has it occurred to you that **I** may have done more research, volunteered in the Women's Center in College as a counselor, and offered empathy and support to rape victims ..... more even than you have?  We could get into a "pissing contest" about that, as to who's more empathetic, but actions speak louder, and I got the hours "on desk".  Even after being falsely accused I empathized and  made sure I learned more about rape so that I could prevent it.  What, exactly, have YOU done for the falsely accused ..... ever?    
(          B-I-G      S-I-L-E-N-C-E          )        Thought so.  Moving on .....

     You?  You make comments about "he's got his hair combed in court" and pick apart Franks dating habits after he's been arrested and confined to his house (which you cast doubt upon).

     Yeah, there's a difference in your attitude and mine about gender based crimes.  Is it clearer now?

       You really ought to LEARN about the duplicity of the feminist big lie about the "rape culture" instead of just being spoon fed false stats.  

Let's deal with another thing Gina said, and got wrong:
"When someone is indicted, their name goes in the paper under indictments. That's how our justice system works. It is true for all people accused of crimes."

   No Gina, that, again is FALSE (but you're batting a thousand - at least you're consistant).  Many times, even after conclusive DNA evidence proves a rape accusation to be groundless, the woman is NEVER NAMED.  Yep, they can have her ON TAPE bragging about lying, they can find that the DNA doesn't match her "rapists", and/or they can find that the guy can PROVE he wasn't even in the STATE (all real cases Gina - want the citations?) and HER name will never be printed.  "Flimsy" Rape Shield Laws  ....  indeed.

     And let's look at the "logic and fairness" of these, what did you call it, oh yeah, "flimsy" "Rape Shield Laws".

     The idea, as I understand it, is that "Rape Shield Laws" are in place because rape is such a stigma, that the crime is so abhorrent, that the violation is so severe, and that the crime is SO vicious that even naming the alleged victim in public would do her (and, yes Gina, it's mostly "hers" who are raped) such great harm socially, professionally, and in other ways that it would discourage the reporting of rape if these women's names were published.  Ok, I can empathize.  I can see the thinking and the logic, to a point.

     But what is NOT brought up is this: Since this crime is SO monstrous, SO vicious, SO heinous, and has been given a "special status" that we even allows Bill of Rights violations ... wouldn't it follow that a man ACCUSED of such a crime would be so vilified, in danger of physical harm, economically destroyed, made a social pariah, completely remove his ability to find a mate, and legally prejudice any potential jurors that HIS name should ALSO not be published?

     Oh, "it's the law".  So, let me see if I can follow that illogical but convenient thinking.  Men, who in the past, made unjust laws concerning women weren't REALLY doing anything wrong, correct?  I mean, maybe the men who WROTE it, but certainly not the men who implemented it or practiced it: "It was the law".  I got your drift now.  It's kinda like the guys at Neuremburg who said: "I was just following orders".   Or maybe your of the "but for thousands of year women had [this] and [that] happen to them, the pendulum is just swinging in our favor now" kind of thinking?  Wow, interesting.  Blame a person who wasn't there (and neither were any of your feminist sisters, btw) who didn't commit the act, and who doesn't agree to it now ... blame a man who is innocent so that you can feel empowered.  Or is it more like revenge on a person who is out of your reach or in the grave ... taken out on the next convenient but innocent target.

     Oh, where did you do that?  I imagine with any man accused of rape.  Falsely or not, you've already formed an opinion.  And I can quote you to prove it.  So God forbid you end up on a jury.  ME?  What happens if **I** end up on a jury?  If the guy's guilty: "Bye bye scum bag!!".  Because the next victim could be my sister, my best friend, or (someday) my daughter.  That's what **I** learned from my experience.  Not the "1 in 4", "all men claim to be innocent", "gee Frank, you said you didn't want a relationship with her but you had sex" thinking that you display.  

     Yep.  I certainly see why you got "offended" when I pointed out your sexism.  Must have been the first time your "victimology" bubble went pop.  Better now than later after you passed it on to your children and perpetuated that thinking, and, consequently, added more victims to the guerilla gender warfare that's going on.  Phew, good thing we nipped it in the bud before you passed along those false stats and "that's different" attitude.  We did nip it in the bud ... right?

     Let me help you out with a bit of history here.  There is a time honored and tested word for what is being done to men in America today:  Whenever one group legislates, or has legislated for them, a law or set of laws that don't apply to them, but are applied to another group, and the first group is given "special status/exemption/immunity" to these laws it's called: TYRANNY.

    Funny how you don't see it that way, being a part of the protected aristocracy and all. Or is it "oppressed class" ... funny how I confuse the two when I don't have the same civil rights as you.  Must be me.

Maybe Frank and I should just "go and eat cake" then, MS Antoinette?


    Oh, lastly, the snippy, "toss the hair and turn around, walk away, and say: 'now you may get in the last word'" attitude: it's what I see in 8th graders all the time.  Sorry Gina, this is a serious discussion board for serious adults.

     We may agree, disagree, get into heated discussions, and we can all learn.  But I saw none of that from you.  And, yes, THAT was my opinion.  But YOU getting catty and "getting in the last word" while not bothering to read nor reply to specifics is NOT my opinion.  It's what you did.  

    We MRAs (Men's Right's Activists - BTW) are VERY well read people who have spent hours writing letters, doing research into feminist propaganda, and we constantly DEMAND (from ourselves first) honest facts (with documentation our the wazoo to back it up) to claims.

"1 in 4" is a MYTH.  Perpetuated for money, political power, to scare women, and to demonize men. (and any heterosexual relationship)

Lemme know when you and I can debate again.  But come armed with facts.

L Steven Beene II



Do ya think I gently got my point across ...?

:twisted:  :P  8)

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: PowerMan72 on Jul 01, 2004, 09:06 PM
:notworthy:
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 01, 2004, 09:46 PM
I know I was "unkind" to Gina, but she SH*T all over this dude Frank who STARTED a thread to tell of his false accusation.

He was open, hurt, and grateful for the site even existing.

And what's important here is this: on the thread previously Gina had recounted her own trauma and I HAD BEEN SUPPORTIVE, and the I GENTLY let her know that there was another side of the coin: the falsely accused.

I tried to empathize with her violation, and her VERY NEXT POST (I looked on the time stamp) on another thread she stepped all over this dude Frank and it really got to me.

She had been treated with kid gloves, shown empathy, given respect, and the only "controversial" thing I had done was point out, very respectfully, how men who are falsely accused don't "have it easy" and that it's something that doesn't get reported.

So, I go the the NEXT thread, and there's MS "Victimology" SH*TTING all over this Frank guy.

The reply I posted here was about 3 responses into our "discussion".

And, yes, I had pretty much lost my patience with her by then.

So I verbally smacked her with her own attitudes, debunked her indoctrination, and by gender reversal, let her see her own bullsh*t in the light of day.

She didn't respond to ONE of the debunked factoids we shattered.

Nary a one.

Hey, do you guys hear that?  It's my heart breaking wide open at the shattering of her delusional world of "woman = victim" mirror.

Guess when I pointed out how ugly the reflection was she didn't like it
.

:twisted:

Quote
Hey Gina (I know she's not here and/or reading this): guess what cupcake: The PC 90's are over.  And guys like me are multiplying like Kudzu.  Get used to it.

Nothin' but love for ya.


:D

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Daymar on Jul 01, 2004, 10:10 PM
That's a great post, Beene.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 01, 2004, 10:18 PM
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_17_209.gif)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Awakened on Jul 02, 2004, 07:15 AM
Very inspiring, Steven.
Nice job!  8)
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: dr e on Jul 02, 2004, 09:28 AM
Excellent post Steven.  That's a keeper!

E
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jul 02, 2004, 09:35 AM
Steven, that was great! U da man!! :oh-yeah:
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jul 02, 2004, 10:08 AM
Quote
I know I was "unkind" to Gina, but she SH*T all over this dude Frank who STARTED a thread to tell of his false accusation.

He was open, hurt, and grateful for the site even existing.


Brilliant Beene. You werent unkind at all. Feminazis need to get a dose of their own medicine being the fanatical hypocrits that they are. In fact your response should be posted on every forum.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 02, 2004, 01:22 PM
Wow ... ummm, thanks :oops:

I hoped you guys didn't mind me "hijacking" the current discussion, but I had just posted it, I was pretty happy how it was "crafted",  and when I got here and saw the "Rape" thread was open I thought I would share.

A sincere thanks for the kind words.

It turns out that the site went down and my post didn't post.  No, no conspiracy or anything, the site I was visiting goes down every now and then.  And between my reading Gina's "loving message" and my drafting my response, it went down.  It's back up now and I will now be able to refine it a bit better and post it today.

But, again, I sincerely am FLATTERED that you guys really liked it.

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: InternetDevil on Jul 02, 2004, 01:52 PM
Quote from: "Phebe"
All I ask is that the level of crimes committed by men be no more numerous than the same types of crimes committed by women. If you are claiming there is no gender problem, then that seems fair. And the drastically lower crime rate would make this country heaven on earth.


Especially if men made as many scientific discoveriers as women, that would be great:

--  No Internet, no cars, no TV, no electricity
--  Child mortality rate 50%
--  Life expectation --> 27 years for males, 24 for females

Anyway, under matriarchy the progress will be stalled for many decades.  As a chemist I know that nuclear progress is dead, and nanotech may be dead before it isd born.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Gabriel on Jul 02, 2004, 02:45 PM
Quote
and, yes Gina, it's mostly "hers" who are raped"


I disagree with this one statement. There are no hard statistics on prison rape, but from what I've heard it is a very high percentage of inmates.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 02, 2004, 03:55 PM
Gabe,

Point well taken, and conceded.  But, as you may have noticed, MRA presentations tend to blow whole concepts of "truths" out of the water for people.

If you feed them too much, it's overload.  Even to the ones with open minds.  So, I tend not to put out a 2000 word dissertation on every post.

But, in that vein, it's amaziing the VOLUME and DEPTH of the MSinformation out there we have to regularly overcome.

Since you guys like my last post, here is the latest.  She has told me that she is "not going to respond" and "I'll get the last word" as she will not post at that site as I "offended her". Oh and since I said "I verbally whipped your butt" (paraphrased) and she told me how I was probably violent in real life and was being "verbally abusive" and hurt her feelings.

Cry me a freaking river.

My final response:

Quote
Oh, One last thing that Gina mentioned which I kept wanting to address:

Quote from: "Gina"
"I also don't follow your point about "indoctrination centers" or the relevance of having 700+ women's programs and only 1 for men. Wouldn't you imagine these numbers reflect the relative need for these programs in society? I have never heard a rape victim say she had TOO MANY places to turn for help and I have never heard a man say that he had too few. I also have never heard of a woman seeking help from such a program when she did not actually need it. If you have never counseled a rape victim perhaps you are unaware of the trauma that results. After such a trauma, isn't it natural to seek support and education about how it happened, why it happened, how to keep it from happening again? Why do you find it contemptable for us to do that? "


I'll take this a piece at a time as there is so much wrong with it:


Gina offered:

Quote from: "Gina"
"I also don't follow your point about "indoctrination centers" or the relevance of having 700+ women's programs and only 1 for men. Wouldn't you imagine these numbers reflect the relative need for these programs in society? "


Ummm, Noooooo, I would think the numbers would reflect an attempt to put forth an ideology.  How do I defend MY answer?  Simple:

1) The stats put out at many women's studies programs are ADVOCACY stats, are often blatantly anti-male, and can't survive PEER REVIEW.  So, if they are not empirical stats, they don't present SOLUTIONS to problems (let alone acknowledge women ever being the CAUSE of ANY problem), and the "facts" they present don't hold up outside of their cloistered coven ... it's IDEOLOGY and indoctrination, not sholarship.


2) Which stats do they lie about:  TOOOOoooooo Easy:

   a) Domestic Violence: The DV discussions are all about "patriarchal power" and "oppression", where the woman is the victim (always) and the man is the oppressor (always).  And that doesn't fit the facts at all.  But these courses SAY they are facts, so when these women go out into the world that's what they know.  AT LEAST 40% of DV is done to men.  Where do I get that number?  From the SAME PLACE the Gen-Feminists get THEIRS.  They just ignore 800,000+ men a year who are DV victims.  They do this so that ONLY women's shelters get money.  Think I'm full of it?  Fine, test it out yourself: Look in the phone book, call the police, and/or call the local hospital and ask for the location of the nearest Women's Shelter.  Then .... ask for the one for men.  I won't even tell you the replies you'll get, find out for yourself. Oh, how come, if this is not about demonizing heterosexual men, is there SO LITTLE (read: NONE) talk about woman on woman (lesbian) DV, when it MUST happen?  

   b) Rape:  The "rape culture" stats are myths that have been long debunked.  Rape happens.  Even **1** is wrong.  Yep, after all our argument I haven't changed my stance a bit. RAPE IS WRONG.  But creating false numbers to create hysteria, fear, and suspicion on ALL men (when the vast majority are not rapists) is a POLITICAL move used in INDOCTRINATION.  Think I'm full of it?  Ok, let's replace "men" with "black men".  Or "Jewish men".  WHOA.  Sounds a whole lot different doesn't it.  And, with so many "Womyn's studies" 'professors' (there's a generous term!) being lesbians, it would logically follow that they would be DAMNED interested in stopping woman on woman (lesbian) sexual assault.  But ... not a peep from the "every victim counts" crowd.  And lets not forget the NEVER mentioned rape of men in prison.  But, since that is "men doing it to men" it's just not relevant to the "every victim counts" crowd either.  Nope the ONLY sexual assault that they want to talk about is heterosexual male on female sexual assault.  Not about women not taking no for an answer, getting a man drunk and pressuring him, or women who molest little boys (and later sue for child support and win it).  Nah, those would get in the way of the feminazi theories.  And ideology, to them, is WAY more important then those victims it ignores.

   c) The "Wage Gap" myth.  It's taken such a beating lately that even Patricia Ireland got herself verbally humiliated on T.V. in a debate over it.  Seems that a few factors never get mentioned in the "wage gap" discussions:  Taking time off for having kids, differences in JOBS (it boggles the mind on that one), alimony and "child support" (the guy who pays it still has it count for HIS income - amazing), hours worked (guys do over 80% of the overtime in this country) .... nope, NONE of that is factored in.  They simply take [X] amount of men, and [X] amount of women, add up their pay and compare the differences.  Oh, and some of the women who are "stay at home moms" ... you guessed it, they counted them in the "wage gap" studies too.  Did anyone ever TELL you that?

3) Men have TRIED to get "Men's Centers" and "Men's Departments" in these colleges.  Guess what happened when they were proposed?  PC Feminists slammed them as "women haters" immediately.


And gee, doesn't THAT reflect a want or need for Men's Centers?  That men who try to express their opinions CAN'T get a forum?


And ...... WHO's the "oppressed" again?


Next part of Gina's spoon fed "wisdom":

Quote from: "Gina"
"I have never heard a rape victim say she had TOO MANY places to turn for help and I have never heard a man say that he had too few."


Gee Gina.  Read my post as to the ALLOCATION of FUNDS for rape centers in relation to NEED versus indoctrination/visability.  Women in the inner city NEED them as they are more likely to BE raped, but the pampered elite-to-be feminsts in colleges have the lion's share of the resources.  


And ... Men don't have too few?  Are you kidding me?  What "rape advocates" or "men's shelters for DV"???!??!?!?  NAME ONE!

Because, we can't seem to get the police to even take a REPORT when we claim sexual assault, the "rape advocates" often try to dissuade men from pressing charges, blame the man as the perpetrator, or tell them "we're for women only" which is ILLEGAL if they receive federal funding.  Tell me Gina, do YOUR centers openly, warmly, and with loving support help men who have been traumatized by being sexually assaulted?  I highly doubt it considering the PC "facts" you seem to "know" about rape.


Gina's next Great Thought:

Quote from: "Gina"
"I also have never heard of a woman seeking help from such a program when she did not actually need it."


Sure you have.  Any woman who lied about BEING raped and talked to a counselor is in that catagory.  And, while we may disagree on the numbers, you have never met ONE :shock:  woman who lied about rape?


I think that would be a falsely formed opinion that defies statistical chance, the facts I have already presented, and just plain common sense.  But, that's on you.


Gina's attempt to shame me to silence due to my male ignorance:

Quote from: "Gina"
"If you have never counseled a rape victim perhaps you are unaware of the trauma that results. After such a trauma, isn't it natural to seek support and education about how it happened, why it happened, how to keep it from happening again? Why do you find it contemptable for us to do that? "


Ummm, Gina.  I HAVE counseled women who have been raped.  Is that shock  :shock: , disdain  :evil: , or a prejudiced look  :?  on your face?  I have also counseled MEN who have been raped in a gay relationship (informally).  I have talked to WOMEN who were taken advantage of by OTHER women when they were passed out.  And I have talked to both genders and sexual orientations about how they were molested.


See, notice in YOUR post that "Women = Victims" ONLY.  But in MINE, well, I look at the PERSON.

So, your attempt with: "Why do you find it contemptable for us to do that? "

Is shameless in it's point to make me look like I don't care about educating PEOPLE about rape, offering empathy after it has happened, or that I just think it's "contemptable" to do so.


And .... you got that WHERE in my posts ???  Be specific .... use quotes .... take your time ..... if I go too fast, stomp once if you need more time.


I'm wondering .... How many MEN have you counseled who were raped Gina?  


Boy, did THAT attempt at the "victim's trump card" backfire.


MRAs are the ones fighting for equality.  You're still trying to put out false stats, reinforce sterotypes while ignoring victims due to gender, and in your mind ... well, that's perfectly ok.


Tell you what.  I'll keep helping PEOPLE regardless of gender, color, or orientation .. you keep telling yourself "that's different' and listening to those who feed you false info or half truths.


The PC 90's are OVER.  How come you don't get that?


Steven


And, yes, I enjoyed writing it.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Gabriel on Jul 02, 2004, 09:03 PM
Quote
The PC 90's are OVER


And you know who I believe beat the hell of PC - Jerry Senfield. His humor and illustrating some ridiculous things about PC over and over again in funny context woke people up to silliness of it all.

For example
Jerry: I like Asian women
Elaine:  Isn't that racists?
Jerry: How can that be racists if I like their race?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jul 03, 2004, 09:17 PM
First, let me congratulate LsBeene on his response to Gina.



Quote from: "Bagu"
From an abosolute standpoint a few pages before (Men always rape, women never), you are now moving to a relative one. Which is more realistic. True, men are more likely to rape a woman than vice versa due to generally more physical strength, but the law has taken this probability and generalized it, put it in absolute terms just like you did and now there are no penalties for women who rape. The law is saying, 'Since men are more likely to rape, men ALWAYS rape, and since women are less likely to rape, they NEVER'.



I have been addressing the issue from a sociological perspective rather  than a legal one.  I agree that the law should be evenhanded including applying the rape sheild law to male victims (although, best would be to repeal the rape shield law).


We seem to have discovered some common ground on this issue.  It is still my understanding, however, that men rape women for reasons that are qualitatively different than the reasons that women might rape men, and that men experience rape in a way that is qualitatively different from the way in which women experience it.  Particularly, I don't believe that men experience what women who have been raped and women who imagine what it might be like to be raped consistantly describe as a 'profound and lasting sense of grief'.  I have come to realize that men who are raped by women can experience profound distress in other ways.

A man who rapes a woman is usually a sociopath who is intending to gain release of sexual tension.  He can do so because as a sociopath he lacks the capability to experience guilt, to empathize with the pain of others, or to consider the ultimate consequenses of his actions.  Men who gang rape women are usually carrying out the same intent in a context of sociopatiic revalry.  In the cases of women gang raping men that were described in previous posts on this thread, it seems to me that the women were driven by assaultive or murderous rage rather than sexual tension.

This:
Quote from: "Bagu"
...a faithful church-goer, a bit on the small side, one night some girl he dated raped him and he didn't take it too well, and didn't find it amusing to say the least. What made it worse was the law doesn't offer him any protection.

Women have sexual urges too, that girl that raped my friend probably dated him expecting a one night stand and when it looked like he wasn't going to give it, she couldn't handle the rejection. Doesn't 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'?  It's definitely no justification for women to rape, just shows that they do lose control over their sexual urges.
...represents the only instance I have ever heard of where an individual woman raped a man and it seems as if she may have been seeking release of sexual tension.  Intriguing, but not yet enough to turn my point of view.


I was suprised to discover the number of men who profess not to share my own cavalier attitude towards the prospect of being raped by a woman and would guess that I must be on an extreme end of a continuum of responses.




Quote
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"


Sometimes people have conversations in which they discuss how they might proffer uninvited sexual attention and have it received positively.  Would the people discussing this issue tend to be members of one particular sex?


Quote from: "Bagu"
'Proffer uninvited' sounds paradoxical.
I'm not sure I understand what's wrong; here is a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary - Second College Edition: proffer v.  To offer.  The sentence works best if you view the words, 'uninvited sexual attention'  as a noun phrase.

Quote
...But if I get what you mean, let me rephrase it. Which sex dresses to attract attention? Which sex is more likely to have rape fantasies?


I'd be careful about fantasies.  In fantasy you have absolute control over everything, including the actions and thoughts of the 'rapist'.

It occurs to me that male sexual tension has value to women because it con be used by women to get things from men.  The greater the tension the higher the value.  Likely when women dress to 'attract' men their aim is to increase male sexual tension, not to instigate a sexual encounter.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jul 04, 2004, 05:24 AM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"


Quote from: "Bagu"
'Proffer uninvited' sounds paradoxical.
I'm not sure I understand what's wrong; here is a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary - Second College Edition: proffer v.  To offer.  The sentence works best if you view the words, 'uninvited sexual attention'  as a noun phrase.


Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"

Likely when women dress to 'attract' men their aim is to increase male sexual tension, not to instigate a sexual encounter.


So if people deliberately do things to attract others for anything, then I wouldn't call it 'uninvited'. It's logically impossible to proffer (similar to 'invite') something uninvited.

Anyway, cheers to LSBeene. I hope it will stop other Ginas from flaming men with serious problems.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 04, 2004, 02:18 PM
We could debate all day what the mindset of the rapists is, but we're overlooking something.

I don't think that a rape victim (malr or female) gives a hoot in hell as to the "mindset", gender, or sexual orientation of their violator.  

I imagine that to the victim that's all secondary.  

It's important so we can stop it and learn about the abnormal phchology of the rapist.

Men who are raped by other men or men who are sexually assaulted by women probably want to see their attacker get punished first, and let the analysis come second.

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jul 05, 2004, 04:23 PM
Not only is the stats questionable but what is required to get the stats questionable.

That '1 in 4' myth as I have pointed out was done in reverse ie the studies were done asking men this time.

Wanna guess what the numbers were?  Believe it or not men were victimes just as women were 1 in 4.  And the women who did the study has feminist credentials up the yinyang however she happens to be on the american research ethics committy and she was the head researcher for sexual assault at her university.  She doubet the claim saying "If 25% of the female population was getting raped wouldn't we know about it or know someone first hand?"    True rape is more around 1 in a 100 000, it is a very rare incident rate in our culture.  However with the fembots 'self fullfilling prophesy tactics we will be living in a rape culture before to long.

Not to mention that feminism has done more to take away women's rights than they have to fullfill them.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 05, 2004, 04:39 PM
Dan,

I would LOVe to get my hands on that male rape study.  Plz plz tell me you have a link??

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jul 05, 2004, 04:45 PM
I also forgot to mention that web site called "When girls do it".  It details female sex assault on minors.  Unfortunately I can't get to it from this computer so if someone has the inclination to see it. etc..

I wonder if Phebe or even others will realize that 'feminism' in and of it self is a destructive force designed to destroy the rights of women just as much as the rights of men.
Attack the rights of men first then the rights of women as time goes on.

For instance feminists fought for women to have the right to be in the work place (a right that was never really denied).  So women believing their rights were violated demanded that they be employed.  The real reason was so that they could become tax slaves and pay on the national debt not for women's rights.  Now, years later women are unable to stay at home and raise their children because it is to costly.  They are now losing the rights to be mothers to stay at home or to at least choose.  

I have found this in a variety of other areas as well.  One for example is getting women to smoke at the turn of the century.  Basically culturally unacceptable for women to do so (but not nessesarly because men refused them) so the marketting was designed to get women to "come a long way baby", right into the clutchess of addiction and poor health.  Convincing women their rights were at issue to ahem "motivate them".

Maybe I should design a marketting ad that tells women they will lose the right to pamper me with back massages and foot rubs.   :wink:

Everyday we log on and discuss this we learn more.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jul 05, 2004, 04:50 PM
Quote from: "LSBeene"
Dan,

I would LOVe to get my hands on that male rape study.  Plz plz tell me you have a link??

Steven



I've posted it several times, unfortunately I can't get the stuff from this computer.  I mentioned the women's name in my speech on Erin Pizzy on the site 'Fathers for life'.  

YOu can find the researchers name in a book called 'Lip Service'.

There is something wrong with my explorer on this com so I can not do any searches at present.  Sorry.  

But there is a book devoted to the stuff.   It just doesn't get the same publicity that anti-male stats get.  Which is really what all that other stuff simply is male bashing propaganda.  Kind of sad that that same nazi like ideology swims around in our world even to this day.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jul 05, 2004, 05:12 PM
I was able to find my speech from here. This is the section.
Quote
Even Mary Koss's research that was highly publicized in Ms. Magazine states that college women were raped at a ratio of 1 in 4. Another woman who is well recognized in the field of sexual assault took it upon herself to do the research in reverse. She asked the 'guys' using the same research model. Just like Mary Koss did for the girls, she too found that men (under those guiding principles) were raped at a ratio of 1 in 4. Kate Fillion cites the work in her book Lip Service.[6] She also points out how Mary Koss, who stated she wanted to do the research to find the unknown amounts of rapes from people who don't talk about it. Mary Koss claimed that she didn't survey men because 'they don't talk about it'. Sort of ironic. But those who did ask the 'guys' like Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard or Mary Craig, co-authors of Sexually Agressive Women,[7] found basically the same outcome for the guys as they did for the girls. Simply put, in my opinion, translating an unwanted attempt at a kiss into a sexual assault stat doesn't serve the truth about rape statistics.


Charlene Muehlenhard is the women to look for.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 05, 2004, 07:04 PM
Excellent.

You should have shared this earlier Dan.  

Much appreciated man!

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jul 06, 2004, 11:37 AM
Quote from: "Bagu"
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"

Likely when women dress to 'attract' men their aim is to increase male sexual tension, not to instigate a sexual encounter.


So if people deliberately do things to attract others for anything, then I wouldn't call it 'uninvited'.
If a restauranteer lays a sample banquet in his storefront window he is not inviting anyone to eat that meal or to take a sample.  The purpose of the display is to increase the general culinary tension among passers by, thereby tempting those who can afford it to enter the restaurant willing to pay a higher price to relieve the greater tension.

Quote
It's logically impossible to proffer (similar to 'invite') something uninvited.
Both my Webster's and my American Heritage dictionaries list the word 'offer' as a synonym for 'proffer'.  The American Heritage also lists 'proffer' as a synonym for 'offer'.  My Roget's Thesaurus lists 'offer' and 'proffer' as mutual synomyms.  Only the thesaurus lists 'invite' as a synonym for either word.

Is there an English teacher who can proffer some advice on this matter?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 06, 2004, 12:05 PM
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Quote from: "Bagu"


It's logically impossible to proffer (similar to 'invite') something uninvited.
Both my Webster's and my American Heritage dictionaries list the word 'offer' as a synonym for 'proffer'.  The American Heritage also lists 'proffer' as a synonym for 'offer'.  My Roget's Thesaurus lists 'offer' and 'proffer' as mutual synomyms.  Only the thesaurus lists 'invite' as a synonym for either word.

Is there an English teacher who can proffer some advice on this matter?


How about a logic teacher?  Bagu seems to be saying you can't offer the univited (which is quite true).  In this case it matters not whether you use proffer or offer, because his point is not full of linguistic semantics.  You seem to have missed his prior sentence regarding women and provocative dress, to wit, "So if people deliberately do things to attract others for anything, then I wouldn't call it [sexual attention] 'uninvited'."
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jul 06, 2004, 03:12 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Quote from: "Bagu"


It's logically impossible to proffer (similar to 'invite') something uninvited.
Both my Webster's and my American Heritage dictionaries list the word 'offer' as a synonym for 'proffer'.  The American Heritage also lists 'proffer' as a synonym for 'offer'.  My Roget's Thesaurus lists 'offer' and 'proffer' as mutual synomyms.  Only the thesaurus lists 'invite' as a synonym for either word.

Is there an English teacher who can proffer some advice on this matter?


How about a logic teacher?  Bagu seems to be saying you can't offer the univited (which is quite true).  In this case it matters not whether you use proffer or offer, because his point is not full of linguistic semantics.


I'd like to offer you my opinion on this matter.  But, you did not invite me to offer my opinion.  Therefore, I would be offering an univited opinion which, as we all know, is logically impossible.

In the interest of refocussing attention on the meaning rather than the wording I have edited the offending text.




Quote
You seem to have missed his prior sentence regarding women and provocative dress, to wit, "So if people deliberately do things to attract others for anything, then I wouldn't call it [sexual attention] 'uninvited'."


I responded to the prior sentence, to wit:



Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Quote from: "Bagu"
Quote from: "Pat Kibbon"
Likely when women dress to 'attract' men their aim is to increase male sexual tension, not to instigate a sexual encounter.



So if people deliberately do things to attract others for anything, then I wouldn't call it 'uninvited'.

If a restauranteer lays a sample banquet in his storefront window he is not inviting anyone to eat that meal or to take a sample. The purpose of the display is to increase the general culinary tension among passers by, thereby tempting those who can afford it to enter the restaurant willing to pay a higher price to relieve the greater tension.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 06, 2004, 04:24 PM
Quote
I'd like to offer you my opinion on this matter. But, you did not invite me to offer my opinion. Therefore, I would be offering an univited opinion which, as we all know, is logically impossible.


In simple language, the act of individual 'A' offering something to individual 'B' precludes any pretense on individual 'A's' part that the action was uninvited.

Also, your example doesn't relate to this principle.  This is an internet BB, therefore you are free to offer your opinion even though I did not ask for it.  So simply by being here I must accept that you will offer your opinion, and thus I give implied consent as to the invitation.

As to your other example: "If a restauranteer lays a sample banquet in his storefront window he is not inviting anyone to eat that meal or to take a sample. The purpose of the display is to increase the general culinary tension among passers by, thereby tempting those who can afford it to enter the restaurant willing to pay a higher price to relieve the greater tension."  

I must agree the restauranteur is not offering anyone free food, as the banquet is behind glass.  If, however,  the restauranteur was to place it outside his restaurant, in the street without a watchman, he may find himself a little short of food, as nimble fingers of passersby treat themselves to what appears to be free food.

As an aside, this analogy disturbs me, because you seem to be saying that women who dress provocatively are in all actuality whoring themselves by attempting to drive the price (and simply by expecting a 'price') of their sexuality up.  By saying this, you are assuming that all women who dress well expect payment for their sexuality.  Is this the case?  Are those women whores as you imply?
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Bagu on Jul 06, 2004, 06:24 PM
I get what you're saying now, Pat. 'Offer' and 'invite' are slightly different, and that makes the difference. An offer can only be made to one person. If we use the term 'invite' then that would just lead us back to Page 2 of this thread....
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 06, 2004, 06:44 PM
Guys ....

semantics are getting in the way of a good debate......

breathe ... let it go  ....

:D

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jul 06, 2004, 07:12 PM
Quote from: "Bagu"
I get what you're saying now, Pat. 'Offer' and 'invite' are slightly different, and that makes the difference. An offer can only be made to one person. If we use the term 'invite' then that would just lead us back to Page 2 of this thread....


Actually an offer can be made to more than one person! If I am Sony and I offer free CD's, well that is to more than one person.   Likewise when a women dresses provocatively she may think she is increasing her value, but what could really be happening is that the 3 million other women who dress just like her are in fact devaluing the collective value of their sexuality, by placing it on display for public consumption.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jul 06, 2004, 07:56 PM
To relate the topic of this thread with what is on another one.....

I would much rather be raped once than be locked in a cage from the time I was a little boy and have to eat my own shit.

I've had to do a lot of thinking since this thread started and I have come to the conclusion that there are lots of things in this nasty world that are  much worse than vaginal rape.

There are only a few ways to physically rape someone - there are apparantly limitless ways to rape a person's soul.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jul 06, 2004, 08:37 PM
I've already changed the wording that has been at issue in that message, whether or not it is technically correct, the fact that it has been misunderstood makes it an example of poor communication.



Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
...As to your other example: "If a restauranteer lays a sample banquet in his storefront window he is not inviting anyone to eat that meal or to take a sample. The purpose of the display is to increase the general culinary tension among passers by, thereby tempting those who can afford it to enter the restaurant willing to pay a higher price to relieve the greater tension."  

I must agree the restauranteur is not offering anyone free food, as the banquet is behind glass.  If, however,  the restauranteur was to place it outside his restaurant, in the street without a watchman, he may find himself a little short of food, as nimble fingers of passersby treat themselves to what appears to be free food.
That is indeed likely since, even if it is made clear that the food is not intended to be free, the potential consequences for nibbling food are much lighter than those imposed for nibbling provocatively dressed women.



Quote
As an aside, this analogy disturbs me, because you seem to be saying that women who dress provocatively are in all actuality whoring themselves by attempting to drive the price (and simply by expecting a 'price') of their sexuality up.  By saying this, you are assuming that all women who dress well expect payment for their sexuality.  Is this the case?  Are those women whores as you imply?
Women know, at a primal level, that in general, a high level of male sexual tension can be used to their advantage.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Phebe on Jul 06, 2004, 10:12 PM
Women know, at a primal level, that in general, a high level of male sexual tension can be used to their advantage.

Wonderful argument. I agree, though of course from our point of view it's a double-edged sword, because with the wrong men or in the wrong environment it can be dangerous ---- rape.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: LSBeene on Jul 06, 2004, 11:18 PM
(OMG - it's actually gonna happen)

Ummmm,  :oops:  I agree with Phebe on this one.

(plz don't tell anyone  :twisted: )

Steven
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Pat Kibbon on Jul 07, 2004, 06:36 AM
Me too.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Jul 07, 2004, 09:41 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Women know, at a primal level, that in general, a high level of male sexual tension can be used to their advantage.

Wonderful argument. I agree, though of course from our point of view it's a double-edged sword, because with the wrong men or in the wrong environment it can be dangerous ---- rape.


This is nothing exclusive to women..the rape part, I mean.
Title: Is rape that big a deal?
Post by: D on Jul 10, 2004, 09:13 AM
Quote from: "Phebe"
Women know, at a primal level, that in general, a high level of male sexual tension can be used to their advantage.

Wonderful argument. I agree, though of course from our point of view it's a double-edged sword, because with the wrong men or in the wrong environment it can be dangerous ---- rape.



Yawn.


Men are victims of violence 10 times over from women.  I'm getting tired of every news paper re-capping months old stories of lost, missing or dead women when five guys were shot friday night, all faceless, all nameless.

It's all just marketting and rape is just a trigger for women just like bulimia and anorexia.  See the latest issue of People?

Rape is just another way to herd women into conformity.