25
   

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

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 11:39 am
The basic circumstances of the high school gang rape are not all that different than the many instances of college men raping semi-conscious, or unconscious, intoxicated females after a frat party. In both instances, the passive vulnerable female is seen as available and defenseless, and her rape is an opportunistic crime.

While the high school girl was subjected to a much more brutal ordeal and more rapists were involved, than in the typical college date/acquaintance rape, the basic dynamics of these situations are the same--the extremely intoxicated female is regarded as legitimate prey, issues of consent are ignored, and she is sexually assaulted with impunity, and without apparent guilt, by her attacker. In both situations, the female is so dehumanized that she is regarded as little more than an available object to provide sexual gratification for the male.

While the gang rape has provoked understandable public outrage over such a horrific act, and the potential criminal punishments faced by the rapists are extremely harsh, the many college and date rapes that occur under basically similar circumstance tend to be dealt with in an ineffectual manner by academic judicial review boards, considerable blame is placed on the victim, and little in the way of "punishment" is generally given to the rapists, even when their culpability has been established. There seems to be enormous denial that "nice", middle class college men are capable of committing rapes and about labeling and treating them as rapists. But is there really all that much difference between these more privileged college men, who rape a barely conscious female in the bedroom of a frat house, and the considerably more socially disadvantaged group that raped the drunk teen on the grounds of her high school? Is there any essential difference in their crimes?

Are the rapes of college women by college men really more socially "acceptable" than the rapes of young women that occur in the bedrooms, and playgrounds, and school grounds in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods? Is there any essential difference in the attitudes toward women that motivate these opportunistic rapes of vulnerable, defenseless, incapacitated females?





hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 11:56 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Are the rapes of college women by college men really more socially "acceptable" than the rapes of young women that occur in the bedrooms, and playgrounds, and school grounds in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods? Is there any essential difference in the attitudes toward women that motivate these opportunistic rapes of vulnerable, defenseless, incapacitated females?

Of course, it is correctly assumed that a female smart enough to get into college should be smart enough to keep herself out of sexual situations that she does not want to be in. Acting like she can do what ever she wants, drink as much as she wants, dress as slutty as she wants, be as coy and dishonest with guys as she wants to be because she by God is having her fun,hang out with who ever she wants and claiming that nobody has the right to say word one against her doing what she wants but then coming whining afterwards about how she is a victim when things dont go the way she had imagined they would does not set too well with some people. There is a concept called personal responsibility, and there is a cost that tends to come to those who refuse to practice it, which is called harm. In this case harm is a potential tool for teaching personal responsibility, and sometimes it is in the long term best interest of everyone that this leason be given a chance to do its work.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
There is a concept called personal responsibility, and there is a cost that tends to come to those who refuse to practice it,


Exactly--which is why rapists are responsible for the rapes they commit and the punishments they receive. Which is why prison time for rape is "a potential tool for teaching personal responsibility, and sometimes it is in the long term best interest of everyone that this leason be given a chance to do its work"--just as you've pointed out.

Because no matter how she dressed, or how much she drank, or how much she flirted, the responsibility for the rape is on the rapist. That is called personal responsibility for the act of rape. Responsibility for the act is on the one who commits the act.

If you were drunk and sleeping on your couch in your underwear, and a burglar broke a window and entered your home, and then left with your property, who would be held responsible for the crime of theft that was committed? Would the police doubt you were robbed because you had been drunk? Would they say you invited it because you were in your underwear? Would they say it was your fault for passing out and not guarding your home?

You must feel that most men are potential rapists, since you imply that the female's behavior or appearance somehow motivated the rape and that most men would similarly respond to such cues by also raping a vulnerable, defenseless, incapacitated female if the opportunity presented itself. Isn't that what men do? Isn't rape normal male behavior under such circumstances? You certainly seem to have a low opinion of most men. You must think they are all ethically challenged opportunists with little regard for the feelings and welfare of others if that gets in the way of gratifying their own needs--just the way you describe yourself as being. Perhaps thinking that way gives you the feeling of being "normal"--that most men, just like you, would commit rape if the opportunity presented itself. But, unlike you, most men have a conscience. Most men do not regard women as objects of prey. Most men do not have such low self esteem that they need to seek defenseless unwilling sex partners who are unable to reject them. Most men do not rape.

Your posts consistently provide excellent examples of rape denial and the types of myths and excuses that make apologies for the actions of rapists. You've made a major contribution to this thread by providing such examples. You've let everyone know the attitudes that motivate rapists. All they have to do is read your posts.



hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 02:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Exactly--which is why rapists are responsible for the rapes they commit and the punishments they receive
both parties are responsible for what they do as individuals. Both are partly responsible for what develops between them, I have always believed that in intimate relationship there are three entities, both individuals as well as the union. Neither are firmly in control of the union, though they do influence it a great deal. When sex or other intimacy goes bad I dont have a great interest in punishing the individuals, I would rather put my energy into helping them to do better in the future. But you are right, the guys who violate women sexually need to be made aware that this is not ok, and if they refuse to learn this or carry on anyways then the screws of the justice system should be applied.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 05:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
Again, your post is an excellent example of rape denial.

Rape is not an "intimate relationship".

Rape is not "intimacy gone bad".

Rape is non consensual sexual intercourse.

Only the person who commits the rape is responsible for the rape.

Quote:
the guys who violate women sexually need to be made aware that this is not ok, and if they refuse to learn this or carry on anyways then the screws of the justice system should be applied


So, what are you saying--the first one or two rapes should be "free" and if the rapist doesn't learn it's not okay, then we punish him for subsequent rapes?

How about helping him learn that rape is not okay by applying "the screws of the justice system" after the first rape.

Everyone should know that rape is not "okay" before they seek contact with another person.

Why would anyone have the idea that rape is "okay"? From viewing violent pornography? From reading your posts?

hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 06:31 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Rape is not an "intimate relationship
a great deal of what we currently call rape is in fact intimate relationship consent confusion.

Quote:
Rape is non consensual sexual intercourse.

yes, you have said that gobbledygook a few hundred times in this thread. It would be nice if you would ever get around to defining rape, but so long as you pin the rape definition completely on consent and refuse to talk about what consent is you will never get there.

Quote:
Only the person who commits the rape is responsible for the rape
Bullshit, the communication of consent is two person process. Now that a great many of what we call rape are not the forceful violation of another person but are rather cases of confused consent you can no longer claim that rape is all the fault of one person. Sometimes it is, but now that the rape definition is so large much of what it used to mean is now gone, to include that one person is at fault for violating another. Now sometimes it is the situation,sometimes it is not. We need to do a full blown evaluation of the case to find out now.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 07:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
...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.

Absolute nonsense.
However
I agree with you: this has been a meaningful thread and as much as I disagree with your stance, I wouldn't be able to grasp Firefly's sense of urgency without your contributing debate.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 07:30 pm
@panzade,
Quote:

Absolute nonsense.
really? Where have you heard rape discussed where those who disagree with the claim that there is a rape crisis have been allowed to speak? Those who disagree with the claim are first told they are ignorant, then are shushed, and if they refuse are shown the door. Happens all the time, everywhere.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 07:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Those who disagree with the claim are first told they are ignorant, then are shushed, and if they refuse are shown the door.


This might be a delusion of yours to bolster your love of playing the Underdog. I haven't noticed a muzzling of "Those Who Disagree" in the media; probably because " TWD" also subscribe to The Protocols Of Zion and aren't given much credence.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 07:42 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
This might be a delusion of yours to bolster your love of playing the Underdog. I haven't noticed a muzzling of "Those Who Disagree" in the media; probably because " TWD" also subscribe to The Protocols Of Zion and aren't given much credence.
so then why are you evading the question?

Besides, our experiment here at a2k has shown your theory to be false.....when the opposing argument is allowed to be presented it is taken seriously...because we have a good argument. If we did not this thread would have died over 5000 posts and 5 months ago.

You get one point for a well executed "piss in the ear and say it is raining" move....
BillRM
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 07:49 pm
@firefly,
You know there seem to be some confusion that Firefly love to promote over a woman who gets voluntary drunk having no responsibilities for bad outcomes due to that state be those outcomes sexual or otherwise.

First no one should assume that the world need or can to drunk proof for their benefits.

A man who got drunk at my former University and did a dive into an empty swimming pool as a result did not generate a lot of symptom from me or others.

A person who freezes to death because they pass out in cold weather due to being intoxicated is totally responsible for his or her death.

A woman who voluntary cloud her own judgment and consent to sex with someone she would otherwise not had taken as a sexual partner is also totally responsible for her own actions. Her sexual partner having zero duty to protect her from herself just as I would have no legal duty to stop the fool from diving into an empty swimming pool.

The law until recently had always been that in the case of a woman who is voluntary under the influence unless she is completely out of it she is the one responsible for the outcome and if she does not care for the outcome she should damn well control her own damn drinking in the future.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Now that a great many of what we call rape are not the forceful violation of another person but are rather cases of confused consent you can no longer claim that rape is all the fault of one person.


Confused consent?

What's confusing about the word, "No"?

What's confusing about the word, "Yes"?

If the male is confused about whether he has consent, all he has to do is ask her what she would and would not like. Don't you believe that allegedly "intimate relationships" should include communication?

You just don't want to accept, "No" for an answer. You take that as a challenge to try to wear down her resistance and see how far you can push her. But, if she really meant, "No" you may push things right over the line to rape. That would not be "confused communication".

Only one of the two people will be held legally responsible for a rape, therefore, that person better make sure he has consent--unequivocal consent.

If you go through a Stop sign and a cop pulls you over, what would your excuse be--I wasn't sure it really meant, "Stop"?


panzade
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
so then why are you evading the question?

I'm not dumb enough to fall for the old trick of trying to prove a negative.
Bolster your argument. Show me where "TWD" about rape and its definition and prevalence are abused by the media and subjected to ridicule.

I gave you points for helping this thread achieve relevance. Has no one ever shown you how to accept a compliment?
BillRM
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:30 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Only one of the two people will be held legally responsible for a rape, therefore, that person better make sure he has consent--unequivocal consent.


Not true any longer as there is a news story where a young lady charge two young men with raping her and then recanted the charges.

Now the DA is charging all three of them the two boys and the girl with having sex with an underage partner. IE charging the boys with having sex with the underage girl and charging the girl with having underage sex with the two underage boys.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/18/south-african-girl-15-cha_n_785602.html

Crazy rapes laws can indeed bit women in the rear-end as well as men.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:35 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Confused consent?

What's confusing about the word, "No"?

What's confusing about the word, "Yes"?
The law that I live under requires no words either way.

Quote:
If the male is confused about whether he has consent, all he has to do is ask her what she would and would not like. Don't you believe that allegedly "intimate relationships" should include communication?

Only true rapists go on in spite of not thinking that they know the girl wants it, what normally happens is that the guy is sure that she was wanting, the girl latter claims that she is either not sure what she indicated not sure what she wanted but she never said the words yes or no...the communication broke down, the consent was confused, though the guy did not feel confused. The only way this gets solved is if the guy asks for permission for each new step, which I have already gone on record saying is an onerous burden so the government does not have the right to demand it.

A lot of this gets cleared up if women would start to be clear and honest about what they want. To do this they are going to have to do a lot of work on themselves, are going to have to stop being so confused and conflict and sometimes ashamed of their sexual desires.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:39 pm
There was no "confused consent" in these rapes. And he pleaded guilty.
Quote:
Maximum sentence sought for child rapist
By Raymond Drumsta
November 24, 2010

ITHACA -- Prosecutors are recommending the maximum sentence for an Enfield man convicted of raping a girl who was less than 13 years old.

Joseph D. Lilly, 34, pleaded guilty to first-degree rape and first-degree course of sexual conduct against a child, both B felonies, Tuesday in Tompkins County Court. Prosecutors recommended Lilly be sentenced to 25 years in prison on each count, to be served concurrently.

Lilly was drunk on beer when he first raped her in the summer of 2008, the victim said in court papers. When she told him to stop, he replied "No, I have to do this," she said. The next day, Lilly told the victim that she "couldn't tell anyone or he would go to jail and we would get in a lot of trouble," she said.

The following summer, Lilly gave the victim about five whiskey sours without telling her they contained alcohol, got her drunk and raped her again, she said in court papers.

Lilly raped the victim a third time in July and when she told him to stop, Lilly told her to shut up, the victim said. She later told her mother, who took her to a hospital, court papers said.

That hospital contacted county Child Protective Services, who then contacted investigators, Tompkins County sheriff's officials said. Deputies arrested Lilly on Aug. 23. He was charged with first-degree rape in connection with the most recent incident and first-degree course of sexual conduct against a child for the incidents that began in 2008, court papers said.

Lilly is being held without bail at Tompkins County Jail and is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 5.
http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20101124/NEWS01/11240372/Maximum+sentence+sought+for+child+rapist
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 08:41 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
I'm not dumb enough to fall for the old trick of trying to prove a negative.
Asking you where you have heard on full blown debate on rape, with the rape crisis deniers such as me allowed to present our argument,is not a trick question.

Quote:
Show me where "TWD" about rape and its definition and prevalence are abused by the media and subjected to ridicule
Where to start??....OK, every time a study comes out stating that a large number of people think that female behaviour is partly responsible for the rape of females. This information is either ignored, or ridiculed, or used as evidence of how much work needs to be done (IE how stupid the people are). I have never once heard ANYONE ever opine that there is the most remote of chances that the many people who have this "unsavory" opinion might be either justified or right.

I have shown mine, your turn....kindly answer my ******* question or else admitt that you were blowing smoke up my ass.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 09:00 pm
Were these female victims responsible for their own rapes? Rolling Eyes
Quote:
Rape PC Faces Life In Jail
By MYRA PHILP
November 24, 2010

A sex beast cop found guilty of raping and assaulting a string of vulnerable women while on duty was last night facing life behind bars.
Twisted PC Stephen Mitchell, 42, of Glasgow, demanded sexual favours from victims in return for letting them go after they were arrested.

When they refused, the fiend forced them - handcuffing one woman as he raped her. Bosses at Northumbria Police now face a huge compensation claim after it emerged they ignored warnings about his behaviour.

He was convicted of assaulting seven women - including two who were raped - but it is feared the real number could be even higher, as cops suspect he attacked at least 14 more.

Last night Jim Campbell, the force's temporary chief constable, said: "He is an evil individual who should not have got into the police in the first place. The fact that he did, we apologise for.

"This investigation has highlighted some failings at our recruitment stage and in subsequent investigations.

"I would like to offer an apology to anyone subjected to criminal or inappropriate behaviour by Mitchell."

Warped Mitchell was originally charged with five rapes, six indecent assaults and 15 offences of misconduct against 16 women.

A jury at Newcastle Crown Court found the fiend guilty of ten charges yesterday - including two rapes - stretching back to 1999.

Mitchell targeted vulnerable women such as teenage drug addicts then let them off minor offences in return for sexual favours.

He abused them at the police station, as well as in his patrol cars.

And he forced the terrified women to keep quiet, telling one victim: "No one's going to believe a thief."

Callous Mitchell even encouraged his victims to remain on drugs, picking up an addict from a rehab clinic then driving her to a dealer in an unmarked cop car. Prosecutor Paul Sloan QC told the court: "He employed specific tactics to exploit their vulnerability, whether by flattering them, pretending to help them or by blackmailing them.

"He was confident none of the women would report him because who would believe the word of a thief and a drug addict against a serving police officer?"

Mitchell was sacked three years ago for going to a woman's house for sex after taking her home when she was drunk. But he was reinstated on a technicality - despite his ex-wife warning bosses three years earlier that he was a dangerous pervert.

Trial judge Mr Justice Wilkie deferred sentencing Mitchell until January 11 for reports. He praised the police for the "patient and professional way they coaxed these very damaged women to give their evidence in court".

The Crown Prosecution Service also paid tribute to Mitchell's victims. Spokesman Kingsley Hyland said: "Mitchell was a sexual predator who abused his position to target vulnerable women for his own sexual gratification.

"I would like to pay tribute to Mitchell's victims, without whose courage in coming forward to relive experiences they've tried hard to put behind them this case could not have been brought."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3245208/Rape-PC-Stephen-Mitchell-faces-life-in-jail.html

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 09:22 pm
@panzade,
You are aware the media has a strong preference for what people want to hear, right ?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Nov, 2010 09:28 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
You are aware the media has a strong preference for what people want to hear, right ?
and being corporate entities are highly susceptible when well connected people come calling to threaten/twist arms making it clear that the money and connections will dry up if "inappropriate content" is produced.....you are not so slow that you think corporate media is an unbiased independent source for truth, are you?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 03:21:25