25
   

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

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:24 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Dont change the subject. It is about consensual sex.
for her it is not a change of subject, once she granted the government the right to cancel consent with its magic wand thus turning one of the party into a rapist and the other a victim the separation between consentual sex and rape became paper thin. Staying on the right side requires keeping in the good graces of the government...IE in only engaging in government approved sexuality and relationship structures. The feminists hit pay dirt, they now have the government agents working to promote their agenda.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:34 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Question for Firefly which I fully expect her to not have the decency to answer.

Hypothetical: I want sex tonight, wife does not. After she says no I argue my case, I give a list of reasons why I think that she should agree to have sex with me tonight. If she then says yes, if only to shut me up, and we have this sex, does the state have any grounds to come after me for sexual misconduct? If so should the state do so? I am particularly envisioning the state claiming that the consent was never valid because coercion was applied.

Second case: I take a date out to a nice diner. After I put the moves on her.She says no sex for me. I say "I just put out for a nice dinner, I really need you to put out with sex so that I get what I want out of the evening". Date agrees. We have sex. Have I just committed sexual assault?


Besides the fact that you would be cheating on your wife, you would be making the date a prostitute.

In both cases, you are a despicable, cowardly creep.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:38 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
In both cases, you are a despicable, cowardly creep
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however,the question on the table is do these acts enable the agents of the collective to cancel my individual rights and exact retribution for my alleged bad behaviour? When do I lose the right to try to get my sexual needs/wants and desires met?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:40 am
An update on the pre-trial hearings in the Richmond High School gang rape. This was an acquaintance rape--or it started out that way.

The girl, who had just left a school dance, was offered alcohol by some classmates and rather quickly became drunk. There is no question this was a rape. This girl was brutally raped by a group of men while onlookers watched and took photographs. She was also physically hit, urinated on, penetrated with an object, and robbed of her jewelry. She was assaulted, debased, and dehumanized, not only by the males who actively participated, but by those who watched what was being done to her.

This girl did not ask to be raped, and there is absolutely no excuse for what was done to her. These defendants are claiming the sex was consensual, but their testimony clearly reveals otherwise. I don't see how they can go to trial, since there doesn't seem to be much of a defense that can be offered.

This is rape in all its ugliness. This is why we need rape laws.
Quote:

Detective: Richmond High rape suspect recalled victim crying 'no'
By Malaika Fraley
Contra Costa Times
11/22/2010

MARTINEZ -- Only one man tried to protect a 16-year-old Richmond High School student while as many as 20 people watched her being sexually assaulted on the campus last fall as she cried for help, according to court testimony Monday.

Former Detective Ken Greco testified that defendant Manuel Ortega told him this the day after officers found the girl partially nude and unconscious under a picnic table and arrested Ortega in the area.

"Salvador (Rodriguez) said, 'No, this is someone's sister, someone's daughter,' " Greco said, quoting Ortega. "He said that others said, 'Hey, you don't know (her).' "

Rodriguez, 22, of Richmond, was originally arrested -- then released without charges -- in connection with the Oct. 24, 2009, incident in which police said the girl was gang raped, beaten and robbed over two hours in a dark campus courtyard during a homecoming dance.

Greco, who retired from the Richmond police department in May, is the ninth witness to testify at an ongoing preliminary hearing for seven men and teen boys charged in the assault. The teen defendants are charged as adults. All but one could face life in prison.

The girl told Greco that she left the dance about 8 p.m. to call her father for a ride home and then joined defendant Cody Ray Smith, a biology classmate whom she knew since seventh grade, and three other males at the picnic table. While being questioned by Smith's attorney, David Headley, Greco testified that the two defendants he interviewed said that Smith, 16, of San Pablo, did not touch the girl and "left before anything bad happened."

The girl said she previously never drank alcohol, but was chugging brandy out of a bottle that night because she was depressed over the state of her parents' marriage.

"She said she was upset because her father was leaving her mother and moving out Nov. 1 and her mother didn't know," Greco said.

She told Greco that no one had made sexual advances toward her at the table, but if they had tried she would have said no. She said she remembers nothing after getting dizzy and collapsing.

Ortega, 20, of Richmond, told Greco that after the girl became sick, she was on the ground. People began pulling her dress up and fondling her. People were taking pictures of her on their cell phones. She was semiconscious, at times trying to kick and strike at her attackers.

"The victim was saying 'no, no,' as other individuals were on top of her, (having sex with) her," Greco testified as to Ortega's account.

"More and more people showed up because people were saying there's a drunk white (girl) over there," Greco testified that Ortega said. "He was thinking, 'Damn, it's getting out of control. It just started with us, and now it was something big.' "

The officer who arrested Ortega previously testified that a drunken Ortega said the girl wanted him to have sex with her. Ortega denied to Greco that he raped the girl, but admitted to physical contact. Ortega said the girl scratched his neck during a struggle over her necklace.

"(Ortega) said he backhanded her with his right hand to her face" more than once, Greco said.

"Did he tell you why he was hitting her?" deputy district attorney Dara Cashman asked.

"Because she wouldn't shut up "... she was whining, 'no, no,' " Greco said.

Defendant Ari Adallah Morales, 17, told Greco that Ortega was "torturing" and "abusing" the girl as Ortega tried unsuccessfully to get her to perform oral sex. Morales admitted to urinating on the victim and stealing her ring, which he later discarded because it was "cheap," Greco said.

Morales, a Richmond High student who said he was drunk that night, also confessed to penetrating the girl with a school-owned walkie-talkie, which he said he did "out of silliness," according to Greco. Police said they found confiscated condoms from Morales' San Pablo home that were of the same brand and lot number of those found at the scene.

Morales told Greco he told his former neighbor -- defendant Marcelles James Peter, 18, of Pinole -- that "they're like raping a little girl over there" and that Peter replied, "For reals? I got to check this out."

Defendant John Crane, 43, of Richmond, was linked to the crime by DNA testing, Greco said. When Greco showed the girl Crane's photo, she said she had never seen him before.

Greco said he also interviewed Raul Rubio, who was standing on a residential street near the campus with some friends that night when they were approached by three men.

Greco said the men told Rubio, "You want some ... ? She's back there all naked and stuff if you want to go (expletive) her."

Disturbed, Rubio went home and told his roommate what he had heard. That roommate, who has been previously identified as Margarita Vargas, was the first person to call 911.

The other defendants are Elvis Josue Torrentes, 23, and Jose Carlos Montano, 19, of Richmond. Greco said the victim remembered Torrentes as being present that night. Montano has not been named by any witness thus far, but he does match the physical description and has the same tattoo as the man that Morales and Ortega told police was the first person who had sex with the girl.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16686993


Intrepid
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:41 am
@hawkeye10,
If your behaviour contravenes the law - YES
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:45 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The girl, who had just left a school dance, was offered alcohol by some classmates and rather quickly became drunk
the reports that I saw said that this girl was drinking long before she walked outside, that she had expressed to her friends the desire to drink and drank a lot willingly. They guys outside offered her still more alcohol which she accepted. They however had nothing to do with her being drunk, as she showed up that way.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:48 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
If your behaviour contravenes the law - YES
the law is no longer handed down by God. We make the law. WE need to decide what the law should be. If the law is no good WE can and should change it.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 01:57 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the reports that I saw said that this girl was drinking long before she walked outside, that she had expressed to her friends the desire to drink and drank a lot willingly. They guys outside offered her still more alcohol which she accepted. They however had nothing to do with her being drunk, as she showed up that way.

Then the reports you saw were incorrect, or your memory of what you read is poor. The girl had just walked out of a high school dance--she had not been drinking before approaching this group.

Your initial reaction to the first article I posted about this rape was that it was "consensual rough sex".

Your ability to deny the actuality of rape is incredible.

This was a very brutal gang rape.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:09 am
@firefly,
Quote:
This was a very brutal gang rape.
very possibly, but that is for a jury to decide. Maybe she did not drink before she went outside, reports have been wrong in this case. I did however see a statement from her friend that the drinking started much earlier in the day.

My curiosity is around the time line. She left the dance @ 8pm to meet her dad, she was not found until about midnight.....where the heck was the dad? Why was he not looking for her? Reports have it that he called her cell and some boy told him that his daughter was a good ****...was he not concerned?

Then the story comes out that she wanted to drink because of some major stuff that was going down in her house between her parents. There is a lot of sadness and wrong in this story, even if there was an act that I would call rape and want punished there are a lot of other people who should be made to answer for what happened to this girl, to include the girl.

I dont hate men enough to focus all my attention on the males who had sex with her, under what ever consent or lack of consent arrangement that they had.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:34 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
even if there was an act that I would call rape and want punished there are a lot of other people who should be made to answer for what happened to this girl, to include the girl.

How much more evidence of forcible rape do you need to hear before it becomes an act you "would call rape"?

Why would you blame her father? He didn't rape her. He had been trying to call her for some time before one of the men finally answered her cell phone.

What does the girl have to answer for? She got drunk. That doesn't make her responsible for what happened to her. She didn't consent, she verbally said, "No", she apparently tried to fight back--she didn't ask to be gang raped, physically assaulted, robbed, and urinated on, while people watched and took photographs.

The only people responsible for the rape are the males who raped her.

The onlookers behaved reprehensibly, but there is no way of holding them legally responsible for not trying to stop the attack.

I don't think this will ever get to a jury. These males would be crazy not to take plea deals--their actions are not defensible--based on their own statements, and on witness statements, this was not consensual sex, and she was underage--this was forcible rape and rape in concert. If convicted by a jury, they face life in prison.
Quote:
I dont hate men enough to focus all my attention on the males who had sex with her, under what ever consent or lack of consent arrangement that they had.

This has nothing to do with "hating men"--it's about holding rapists responsible for their heinous acts.

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:39 am
@firefly,
Quote:
I don't think this will ever get to a jury. These males would be crazy not to take plea deals--their actions are not defensible--this was not consensual sex, and she was underage--this was forcible rape and rape in concert. If convicted by a jury, they face life in prison.

all these kids, to include the girl, are throw away kids. I am not so sure that they would not do better with a jury, as only with a jury do they have any chance of being judged by someone who might even consider rehabilitation and a second chance.

EDIT: what happened that night is about a lot more that is wrong with America than just your vindictive crusade against men and sex. I am not thrilled with your attempt to appropriate this misery for your cause. Why dont you pick on someone who at least had a shot at a decent life before they abused women, or let men abuse them??
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:59 am
@hawkeye10,
What leads you to conclude the girl was a "throw away kid"?

From what I've read, she comes from the faith based community. Other than that, the media has said nothing about her.

This was an outrageous crime. Jurors are instructed to follow the law in considering their verdict. They aren't expected to be bleeding hearts who will ignore the crime, and the law, to give rapists a "second chance".

Quote:
Why dont you pick on someone who at least had a shot at a decent life before they abused women

Their behavior speaks for itself. They destroyed their own chances for a decent shot at life by what they did to this girl. We are discussing the crime of rape. This isn't my "cause"--they committed a very real, very serious, very violent crime.

If you want to be a bleeding heart liberal, and consider everyone's social circumstances in evaluating their crimes, you'd probably have to let most murderers out of prison.

So, how would you propose "rehabilitating" these rapists--and the others that probably abuse women within their community? Why do you think they treat women in this manner?



Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 03:07 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
In both cases, you are a despicable, cowardly creep.
We do not live in a Theocracy. Whatever your opinion is of someone else's behaviour, it is only your opinion.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 03:09 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
When do I lose the right to try to get my sexual needs/wants and desires met?
When you disagree with the libbies and the religious aparently.....
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 03:12 am
@firefly,
Quote:
I don't think this will ever get to a jury. These males would be crazy not to take plea deals--their actions are not defensible--this was not consensual sex, and she was underage--this was forcible rape and rape in concert. If convicted by a jury, they face life in prison.

Juvies in my opinion should never be up for life, should rarely be put into the adult system, juvie sex offenders should not be put into the general population as they have special needs and should have their own program. Then you tell them that if they convince the key holder that they can function in the outside world without transgressing upon women that they have to opportunity at some point down the road to get out and give it a try.

EDIT: in california the juvie who abused my girls and 4 others that I know of (the court only was convinced about 2) was put into a juvie sex offenders program, which I was fine with. He did not cooperate for many years I hear, and made his stay longer than it needed to be, but that was his own fault,,,,and his parents who refused to believe that their kid had done what he did,
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 03:31 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
If your behaviour contravenes the law - YES
the law is no longer handed down by God. We make the law. WE need to decide what the law should be. If the law is no good WE can and should change it.


We? You have progressed from idiot to lawmaker? You are a joke.

Who decides which laws are good and which are bad? Idiots like you who think that it is their right to do with a woman as they wish and want the law to back them up?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 03:32 am
@firefly,
The idiot votes you down and I vote you up. Quite the game, huh?
Wink
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:12 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
The idiot votes you down and I vote you up. Quite the game, huh?


You nailed it, Intrepid. That's the only reason anyone should still be participating in this thread, which has been in an infinite loop for the last month or so. Hawkeye votes down his "rape feminists", and we vote down the obvious rape apologists.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 09:56 am
@Oylok,
Quote:
Hawkeye votes down his "rape feminists", and we vote down the obvious rape apologists.


That is an amusing claim as it was your side that begin the voting down nonsense and seem once more to be ready to restart this attack.

This is another try at the big lie method that your group is also a master of.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 11:11 am
@Oylok,
Quote:
Hawkeye votes down his "rape feminists",
for the record,I almost never vote, I am an conscientious objector to the popularity based "tools" found at a2k......I find them to be hostile to the search for truth.

If I were a believer in the popularity metric however I would point out that this thread is currently rated 40, which is almost the highest that this has been, in a thread that is half a year old with several thousands posts......all on a subject that the PC laws almost completely forbid the honest talking about in the real world or on most virtual meeting places. I think Robert should take some pride in this fact.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 08:00:20