25
   

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Arella Mae
 
  4  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 05:42 pm
I'm with you Osso and Brooke. I thumbed them down!
Below viewing threshold (view)
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 05:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
So yes, as of today a person can asked to be raped, a person can want sex that they ask for and for which if the recipient of that asking complies will provoke a rape. And unless the rape feminists are stopped the problem will become increasingly common.


The above statement, as well as the rest of your post, really reveals the thinking of the sexual predator. Your usefulness in this thread has been to furnish examples of how predators and rapists, particularly the type who deny or rationalize their actions, think about their actions and their victims. You are trying to pervert the concept of "consent" in order to make it easier to sexually assault someone without having it considered as "rape".

So, a 13 year old girl, someone you would consider a, "person who has been deprived of the right to consent by the state," might actually, "want sex that they ask for", from a 48 year old man such as yourself. Should one even ask how that child might have gotten into a situation like that where she was asking for sex from an adult male? Rolling Eyes And should we really believe that this child, who is not legally old enough to purchase a package of cigarettes, is really emotionally and socially mature and experienced enough to make a fully willing and informed decision about sexual activity with an adult male?

As I recall, you defended Roman Polanski's "right" to have sex with a child about that age and you did not want to consider him a rapist either, despite the obvious psychological coercion (as well as alcohol and a drug) that he used to manipulate his victim, as well as her feeling that she had been raped.

Quote:

That will of course make the rape feminists happy, because they need more victims made so that they can sell themselves as a needed resource.


What a self-serving crock of crap. You want more available vulnerable victims. She can be drunk as a skunk, unable to speak or think coherently or rationally, but if she hasn't yet slipped into unconsciousness, you'll claim "she wanted it" if you assault her. She can be severely mentally retarded, unable to consider the consequences of her actions, but you'll claim "she wanted it" if she allows you to penetrate her. She can be 12 years old, and intimidated or bribed by you, but you'll claim "she wanted it". She can be 85 years old and have Alzheimer's, but if she doesn't fight you off, you'll say "she wanted it". She can have a major mental illness, such as an acute manic state that would significantly impair her judgment, but, if she takes off her clothes, you'll claim "she wanted it".

The consent laws which designate certain individuals as unable to legally give consent exist for good reasons--to protect those vulnerable individuals from sexual assaults by people, such as you, who fail to see their inability to give meaningful informed consent, and who instead focus on their vulnerabilities as something you can take advantage of. And the obvious reason you want rape laws weakened or downgraded, and consent standards changed, is to increase the available population of potential vulnerable victims--people you could then sexually assault without being labeled a rapist.

People like you are the reason we need the sexual assault and rape laws.

I don't know who on earth the "rape feminists" are, but, if they are stopping people like you, and helping to limit the number of rapes, and protecting the vulnerable, thank heaven for them.

https://smartshop-lafasa.ewiseonline.com:8002/cw2/Assets/product_thumb/NoRape.JPG











Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 06:34 pm
Quote:

The rise of rape talk
Kira Cochrane
The Guardian,
Friday 10 September 2010

He was given every chance to apologise. But on the Today programme yesterday, the world heavyweight champion, David Haye, seemed unrepentant. On Tuesday, publicising his upcoming bout against Audley Harrison, he promised to "violate" his opponent, adding that the match would be as "one-sided as a gang rape". A wave of criticism crashed over him, and on Thursday, when asked by a Today presenter whether he would like to issue a mea culpa, and address his allusions to rape, Haye ducked the question and simply offered this strange explanation: "You'll have to wait and see the fight first," he said, "I'm talking about the one-sidedness of the fight." He wasn't actually going to gang rape Harrison, he added, which was certainly good to know.

By dodging an apology, Haye implied he hadn't said anything wrong, that there was no need to express regret; indeed, earlier this week he tweeted: "If I apologised for every stupid/ignorant thing I said, I wouldn't have time for anything else during the day!" And, in some ways, Haye's jovial, unapologetic response isn't surprising. After all, the use of the word "rape" to describe all kinds of bad experience – from getting beaten up in a boxing match, to having your hairdo completely ruined – has recently become usual, average, shruggable. Just as the word "gay" has been twisted by pop culture, used to refer to someone or something a bit uncool, the word "rape" is now regularly used where "nightmare" or an apt expletive would previously have been in order.

An example of so-called rape talk? Coming out of an exercise class recently, a guy turned to one of my friends, sweating and breathless, and heaved a sigh of satisfied exhaustion. "Wow, that was just like being raped, wasn't it?" he said. My friend stood motionless, blinking back at him. Another? In the July issue of UK Elle, the Twilight star Kristen Stewart talked about being trailed by the paparazzi, saying that when she sees the resulting photographs: "I feel like I'm looking at someone being raped." (Stewart later apologised for the comparison). Online, there has been a lot of talk about "Facebook rape": a term used to describe a third party getting access to someone's Facebook account and changing their details. Almost 1.3 million people are fans of the Facebook page "Thanks wind, you have totally raped my hair", where photos of windswept women are posted. And the rightwing US shock jocks, always ahead of the crowd with vile, vicious language, have been using rape talk for years. In separate discussions of healthcare reform last year, Rush Limbaugh warned his listeners, "get ready to get gang-raped again", while Glenn Beck compared himself and his viewers to "the young girl saying, 'No, no, help me,'" while "the government is Roman Polanski".

Another part of this phenomenon is the popularity of out-and-out rape jokes. I had an idea there was a taboo against these, but I realised how wrong I was last year when I attended an amateur comedy showcase that a friend was compering. There were about a dozen acts, and almost all included material making light of attacks on women. It's never a good sign when an evening ends with you and your friends bellowing, "No more rape jokes! No more rape jokes!" from the back of a bemused crowd. After the performance, my friend said the comedians had been amazed anyone would object. Everyone else they had delivered the material to had apparently found it absolutely hilarious, she said, a ribald delight.

It's not surprising those amateur comedians were nonplussed: rape talk is commonplace on the professional circuit. In his show at the Edinburgh festival last year, in the midst of some material about drink-driving, Ricky Gervais said: "I've done it once and I'm really ashamed of it. It was Christmas - I'd had a couple of drinks and I took the car out. But I learned my lesson. I nearly killed an old lady. In the end I didn't kill her. In the end, I just raped her." Geddit? (Me neither.) Russell Howard jokes about "yawn rape", someone sticking their finger into a yawning mouth – not as offensive as the Gervais joke, but still a strange use of the word, no? Then there's Jimmy Carr, who said in an interview in this paper last year: "I happen to think the construct of '99% of women kiss with their eyes closed, which is why it's so difficult to identify a rapist' is funny. It's not really about the act of serious sexual assault. You have to go out of your way to take offence over, 'I bought a rape alarm because I kept on forgetting when to rape people'".

Go to see a Richard Curtis film such as The Boat That Rocked, and don't be surprised to find yourself grim-faced during a scene where one character leaves his girlfriend in a pitch-black room and encourages one of his friends, a virgin, to go in and have sex with her, hoping she won't notice the swap. (As Richard Herring noted sarcastically on his website, it was thanks to this film he realised "all women are duplicitous whores and attempted rape is something to have a giggle about".)

Or how about Observe and Report, starring popular US actor Seth Rogen as a mall security guard called Ronnie Barnhardt. In one scene, Barnhardt goes out with the object of his affection, Brandi. She gets completely wasted on tequila and antidepressants, and proceeds to vomit heavily on the way home. She passes out in bed, there's vomit on her pillow, but this doesn't stop Barnhardt having sex with her. It looks like rape, it sounds like rape: it is rape. But some people described this scene as the biggest laugh of the film. Critics defended it on the basis that, some seconds into the assault, Barnhardt pauses, and Brandi stirs back into consciousness: "Why are you stopping, ************?"

It might be argued that the reason people makes jokes about rape, or use the word to describe something small and throwaway, is because they recognise it is among the worst things that can happen to a person, and therefore anticipate an exciting frisson of shock. To say that the wind "raped your hair" is to apply the incredibly serious to the incredibly trivial, and the comedy is meant to bubble up through that disjuncture, that mire of exaggeration.

That's the defence. The result, this writer would suggest, is simple: when you use rape in jokes, or as a glib aside about the terrible sandwich you ate at lunch, you're suggesting the crime just isn't very serious. As Sandy Brindley, national co-ordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland, says: "Rape is so particularly traumatic and so meaningful in so many ways, that there's something about using the word in other contexts that diminishes the reality of it, and the impact it has on women's lives. Rape is a powerful word, and it's powerful for a reason, because of that devastating impact."

Aside from suggesting rape isn't all that erious, these jokes also underplay its prevalence. Estimations of the number of women raped or sexually assualted in the UK every year are necessarily imprecise, but they range from 47,000 to 100,000. It is thought that around one in four women are victims of sexual violence in their lifetimes. In telling rape jokes, or throwing the word casually into conversation, there is an assumption that the person you are talking to won't have experienced this – or that, if they have, you just don't care about the memories you might provoke, the anxiety you might trigger. "I think people don't necessarily realise how common rape is," says Brindley, "and that when they're speaking to an audience there will definitely be people there who are rape survivors. On that basis, I think you have to have some recognition about the impact of what you're saying."

In my view, rape jokes feed a culture in which jurors either disbelieve rape complainants, or just don't think rape is that significant: I spoke to a juror once who said he didn't feel comfortable convicting a defendant of rape because the woman had only been violated orally. Haye might never apologise, but it's time to put an end to rape talk now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/10/the-rise-of-rape-talk
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 06:45 pm
@firefly,
It is like so many other things. Once taboo and now acceptable and humorous. I find it abhorrent! We, as a society, are becoming so hard-hearted. There was a time if you did not believe in God, you were crazy. Now? If you do believe, you are crazy. Sex has become a game to so many, marking their bedposts with notches for each conquest. I remember when the Guyanna Tragedy happened. It was the worse thing I had heard of since the holocaust. Now? So many people don't even know what the Guyanna Tragedy was and merely flip through channels from one disaster, murder, rape, kidnapping, etc., to another with not much emotion. We have been so innundated with disaster we are becoming almost immune to it. I say we because we are all part of the world. It's sad.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 06:54 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella, Closer to home, we had the Dividians who were unnecessarily burned to death in Waco.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 06:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There are so many atrocities CI. So many. You would think while we claim to have so much technology and so much knowledge that we would grow in compassion instead of it fading away.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 07:07 pm
@Arella Mae,
I've given up on that kind of ideal; we have too many who are prejudiced and hateful in this country. I'm glad to report, however, that in my world travels, I have come to meet many nice people, and some have become long time friends.

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 07:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am glad to hear that. Sometimes it gets kind of overwhelming, all the bad news, all the hate. I know there are still kind and loving people in this world. They are just a bit fewer and farther inbetween.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 07:51 pm
@Arella Mae,
I think it's important that we don't allow the word "rape" to be used lightly, and certainly not jokingly, and I'm sure you feel the same way. That's why I think Cochrane was saying something significant in that column.

If people overuse the word "rape" by misapplying it to all sorts of unrelated or inappropriate things, we do begin to blunt its emotional impact. Rape is a word that should retain its emotional power. I don't want that diluted. I don't want the real meaning lost. When someone says, "I was raped" I don't want it regarded as a trivial event--that statement should evoke an emotional reaction, a strong emotional reaction in the person that hears it. If people start using the word "rape" in everyday conversation, to refer to all sorts of things, it will eventually lose its impact, and that's not good.

Women already have enough difficulty getting the police to pay proper attention to rape complaints. I don't want cops to hear the word "rape" used so trivially, and so often, in daily conversation that they lose sight of its real meaning. Jurors may already be saturated with cultural rape myths which bias them against a victim, I certainly don't want them becoming emotionally numb to the word "rape" because they've heard it so often used to refer to trivial, or minor, or completely unrelated things.

I'm not sure what we can do about it, except to call people out on it when they use the word rape to refer to anything other than actual rape, and to discourage the use of the word rape as an adjective to describe something unrelated. And, of course, to discourage the telling of "rape jokes". And I hope some other people in the media write columns similar to the one by Cochrane to help raise awareness.

I think it's important to retain some shock and horror when people hear the word "rape".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, Arella Mae, I never realized that when you give a post a thumbs down it disappears from view. How wonderful! It is much, much easier to read through this thread without being distracted and slowed down by the garbage BillRM and Hawkeye post.


Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 07:57 pm
@firefly,
One thing we can do about it is to keep having conversations like we are having. Rape should never be a word used in a joking manner and it escapes me how anyone can make jokes about it.

Yeah, I love it. Thumbs down and they disappear!
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2010 09:02 pm
Finally, someone is recognizing that conflict rape is criminal behavior, and that the perpetrators should be hunted down and prosecuted. Bravo for Margot Wallström!
Quote:

The Nation
A New UN Voice Calls for Criminalizing Conflict Rape
Barbara Crossette | September 10, 2010

A decade after the United Nations Security Council demanded for the first time that sexual violence in conflict had to stop, a top UN peacekeeping official was in the council chamber this week trying to explain, again, how it was that hundreds of women, and children as young as 7, had been raped this summer within reach of peacekeeping troops in the lawless eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, now an epicenter of misery and abuse.

“Our actions were not adequate, resulting in unacceptable brutalization of the population of the villages in the area,” said Atul Khare, an assistant secretary-general in the UN's peacekeeping department, who had just returned from investigating the latest atrocities. “We must do better,” he said.

To which Margot Wallström would add, Not just do better, do more, and in path-breaking new ways. A Swedish politician and a vice president of the European Commission who was recently appointed a special representative of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to deal with sexual abuse in conflict, Wallström said in an interview last week, while Khare was on his Congo mission, that one necessary step is to treat the perpetrators of rape as dangerous criminals and pursue them to bring them to justice, as any mass rapist would be tracked down anywhere else in the world.

The UN has been focused on prevention, with obviously mixed results, but that's only part of the picture, Wallström said. Postmortems about where the UN went wrong are also fine, but equally limited in impact, apart from hammering the organization's reputation.

“We must go after the perpetrators, because if you think that we have only one spotlight, and you go after the UN system—were they slow, all those relevant questions—the spotlight turns on the UN,” she said.” Meanwhile, we allow the perpetrators to walk free. Where are they now? They go to the next village and continue to rape and loot and pillage.”

Wallström said that while it is necessary to look hard at how the UN system can do better at preventing abuse and protecting civilians, at the same time it must be prepared to respond, and respond quickly, since the abusers are usually long gone by the time peacekeepers get reports of the crimes—which they then rarely act on. “We have to prosecute the perpetrators, because otherwise the whole talk about ending impunity means nothing,” she said. “We have to start being serious about how we go after them.”

Unlike many in the UN who would rather hide peacekeepers' shortcomings, Wallström encourages NGOs, the media and others to report abuse, and argues that the UN needs better monitoring. She thinks that the numbers in the thousands of rapes and other acts of sexual abuse in Congo in recent years may well be just "the tip of the iceberg in some places." Because fear of stigma or reprisal keeps many women from reporting abuse, she said, true numbers may not be known "until we say it's OK to come forward, and we are asking the right questions."

Wallström says that it appears that sexual violence is now a premeditated, central tactic of guerrillas and other forces out of the reach of an effective army, which by wide agreement the forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo are not. The tactic has also entered political conflict, most recently in Guinea, Kenya and Kyrgyzstan, where sexual abuse was used to intimidate opposition groups. In Congo, there are economic overtones, as areas are cleared of villagers by terror tactics to make room for the often-illegal exploitations of valuable minerals.

She describes sexual abuse as a weapon of war, targeting not only women and girls but also men and boys, as planned and systematic, designed “to control the territory, to instill fear, to terrorize the population,” she said. "When this has happened, if you as a child have seen, maybe, your mother being raped in front of the whole village, do you ever feel safe again? This is often carried over from generation to generation, and this is why it is such an impediment to restoring peace and security in a country."

The peacekeeping operation in Congo—full title: United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or MONUSCO—is the largest such mission in the world, with nearly 20,000 troops, 760 military observers and more than 1,400 police officers. It is commanded by an Indian general, Chander Prakash. Overall supervision of the Congo mission, which includes both civilian and military components, is Roger A. Meece, and American diplomat with years of experience in Congo.

The Congo government, in the far off capital of Kinshasa, demanded early this year that the UN end its mission. The organization, fearing a calamitous result of a quick pullout, had begun to work on a phased exit strategy when a compromise was reached that allowed a re-formed peacekeeping operation to stay for another year, until mid-2011.

Virtually no one connected to the mission would say that the Congolese army is ready or willing to take over the UN role, such as it is. Indeed, Congolese troops and police—and some UN peacekeepers—have been involved in various forms of violence and corruption in an area rich in minerals. Also in the mix is a renegade Rwandan Hutu rebel group, which has been in eastern Congo since fleeing Rwanda after a predominantly Tutsi government came to power following the Hutu-led genocide of 1994.

It was thought that at least 240 recent rapes (in some cases with up to six men attacking one woman) had recently been confined to remote Pinga, Kibua and Walikale in North Kivu province, the UN reported. But Khare told the BBC that he is now hearing of more incidents in South Kivu, bringing the total closer to 500 so far. The entire eastern Congo region—bordering Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania—where the UN operation is concentrated, is largely inaccessible, without roads, electricity and telecommunications. People cannot run miles to report attacks instantly, even if they were not afraid to do so. In a region without the protection of law and justice, rebel armies or loosely formed armed gangs are free to carry out their campaigns of terror.

Rachel Gerber, program director for human protection at the Stanley Foundation, which follows trends in the United Nations closely, concurs with Wallström in analyzing sexual abuse in contemporary warfare. "Sexual violence in Congo has become so widespread, systematic and horrifically vivid that it has forced observers who would more typically dismiss rape as a natural byproduct of war to recognize it, at least in this case, as a deliberate and highly strategic tool to achieve defined military objectives," Gerber said in an e-mail.

“The reality, however, is that Congo is unique more in terms of scale than substance,” she said. "Sexual violence is a predictable manifestation of mass atrocity violence because it is an extremely efficient means of intimidating entire communities, destroying social structures and ultimately 'cleansing' areas then much more easily controlled by militias and/or exploited by elites. As the tool is found to be tactically effective, the scale of sexual violence increases."

Wallström concludes: "It has to be understood that this is a security problem, not just men behaving like men. It's not an inevitable consequence of war—it's something that is planned. It can either be commanded, condemned or condoned. We need to say that we can stop it. It's not inevitable."
Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/154624/new-un-voice-calls-criminalizing-conflict-rape


I cannot even imagine the horror of what life is like in that part of the world, particularly for women and children. Conditions are so primitive, and so lawless, it would not be possible for a woman or a child to have any sense of security, or any hope of rescue. They are just pawns in this brutal conflict. Their sense of dispair must be overwhelming. Why isn't the rest of the world screaming about this? The cable news media in the U.S. doesn't even mention it.
This statement really got to me
Quote:
Sexual violence in Congo has become so widespread, systematic and horrifically vivid that it has forced observers who would more typically dismiss rape as a natural byproduct of war to recognize it..

Why should rape ever be dismissed as a "natural byproduct of war"? Why should rape ever be dismissed and not be regarded as a horrific crime?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 11:16:43