25
   

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

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 09:30 am
Thank goodness some people are not apathetic to the distress of others. This man's quick actions led to the apprehension of the rapist in this acquaintance rape and may spared have the victim further harm. He deserves praise.
Quote:
Passer-by helps catch alleged rapist
December 28th, 2010

Abraham Toure could have stayed an extra 30 minutes with his friends Sunday night instead of setting out for home.

He could have asked for a ride instead of walking past Claybell Park in south Richland.

Sitting in his Richland home Monday, the 20-year-old listed at least seven choices that led him to the park.

But because he chose to leave when he did and because he chose to walk, John Ayala Magana is in the Benton County jail today accused of second-degree rape.

If Toure had done things differently, "I don't think things would have turned out well," he said.

He was walking past the park about 8:15 p.m. Sunday when he heard what sounded like a struggle in the brush.

"At first I thought it was kids pulling a prank," he said.

Then he heard a woman scream and the thud of fists.

He pulled out his cell phone and saw his battery was dying, so he quickly dialed 911 while running to nearby houses to ask someone else to call police.

He knocked on three doors before he found someone home. Toure hung up with police to conserve his battery while the homeowner called police and gave more information.

Toure said he ran back to the park and used his phone's light to illuminate the brush while he shouted and made noise. He couldn't see anyone, but he wanted to show that he knew someone was there.

He said he didn't want to believe a woman was being attacked, and when no one responded, he almost convinced himself maybe it was just a prank.

"I wasn't sure what was going on until I saw the girl running and I thought, 'Oh my god, it's really happening,' " Toure said.

When Richland police arrived, he showed officers where he had heard the noises and the girl came out wearing a jacket and carrying her pants, Toure said.

She had no shoes, so Toure picked her up and carried her to the nearby house where he had found someone home minutes earlier.

Her assailant had taken off in a car that Toure had seen parked nearby.

"I had a feeling it must belong to someone," he said.

Court documents said a police officer saw the car leave with its lights off. Police started a search and found the car skidded off the roadway at a nearby construction site with its engine running.

Magana was found nearby with his pants unbuttoned, his zipper down and scratches on his back that looked like defensive wounds from a fight, court documents said.

The victim reportedly told police that she and Magana were acquaintances, and she met him at a restaurant, where he asked her to sit in his car.

He then is alleged to have driven her to the park despite her objections.

Documents said the victim told police that once at the park, Magana took some cocaine and asked her to expose herself. She got out of the car and tried to walk away, but Magana allegedly grabbed her from behind and dragged her into a Russian olive thicket, where he removed her clothes and forced her to perform a sex act.

Richland police Capt. Mike Cobb said the victim had been punched and had scratches from Russian olive thorns.

Court documents said police found impressions in the dirt that indicated a violent struggle had taken place and found some of the victim's clothing.

Magana was arrested Sunday night, but charges had not been filed by Monday afternoon.

Deputy Prosecutor Terry Bloor said he would file second-degree rape charges today, and Magana likely would appear in court Thursday.

Toure said although some people have described his actions as courageous and heroic, he believes anyone would have done the same.

"That's just normal human behavior," he said. "I was thinking I could only imagine how scared this girl must be. I was just thinking, 'What can I do to help her?' "
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/28/1480412/passer-by-helps-catch-alleged.html
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 10:25 am
The trolls still talk about rape only in terms of the old stereotypes--strangers who use extreme force or weapons--the kind they consider "real rapes". This, of course, completely flies in the face of current reality. U.S. and U.K. sexual assault laws, including the definitions of rape contained in those laws, already hinge on "consent", or the lack of it, as a definitive aspect of a sexual assault. We now know that most victims are raped by someone known to them, and the current rape laws consequently recognize that sexual violence/violation/assault can occur without the use of extreme force. The essential factor, therefore, becomes whether the sexual contact was wanted or unwanted--whether "consent" for the act was given.
Quote:

The New York Times
December 28, 2010
Is It Rape? It Depends on Who Is Asking
By KATRIN BENNHOLD

PARIS — Is it rape when you have sex with someone who didn’t tell you it was O.K., but told you it was O.K. earlier that night?

The allegations of sexual assault by two Swedish women against Julian Assange, the founder of the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, have raised a series of questions, some silly (Is a broken condom a criminal offense?), some preposterous (Were the two women on the C.I.A. payroll?), but at least one worth mulling: What, today, constitutes sexual violence?

According to a leaked police report, Swedish prosecutors want to question Mr. Assange on allegations of rape in only one of the two cases: The woman in question, a WikiLeaks groupie, let him spend the night at her apartment and had consensual sex with him at least once (reportedly with a condom). She then testified to falling asleep and being woken later by him penetrating her (without a condom).

She only went to the police days afterward, when she discovered by talking to another woman with whom Mr. Assange had stayed that the second woman, too, felt violated after he was reluctant to use a condom and then allegedly “did something” to make it break. (The allegation here is sexual molestation.)

In recent conversations, reactions among my girlfriends — all in their 30s, and most in steady, heterosexual relationships — were forceful, and almost unanimous.

“It cheapens rape,” one said.

“Why get the police into the bedroom over something like this? Grow up,” said another.

“He sounds really sleazy,” said a third, “but not exactly like a rapist.”

When we think about rape, many of us still imagine a stranger jumping out from hiding and violating a woman with a severe degree of force.

Yet in most rape cases, the perpetrator is someone the victim knew, victim surveys in several countries indicate. A husband, an acquaintance, perhaps a guy the victim met in a bar or a club. (And yes, sometimes the victim is a man, but that is a whole other issue.)

“Rape happens in the messiness of everyday life, not in some other reality,” said Liz Kelly, director of the Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit at London Metropolitan University. “Rape is messy. It’s rarely straightforward.”

In Europe, most rape legislation still involves force as a defining element. But in 2003, the European Court of Human Rights set an important precedent for defining rape on the basis of nonconsent: The court found against the Bulgarian authorities who had dropped a rape case involving a young woman and two perpetrators because there was insufficient proof of physical force.

A few countries, like Britain, have already explicitly made nonconsent the basis of the law. Some, like Sweden, are somewhere in between, with force definitions that include situations in which the victim is unable to consent — say, because they are sleeping or intoxicated.

The Swedish law calls this “sexual exploitation,” the third and least severe category of rape, which carries a maximum prison sentence of four years. It is in connection with this possible charge that the Swedish police wish to question Mr. Assange.

So: Is it rape when you have sex with someone who didn’t tell you it was O.K., but told you it was O.K. earlier that night? Can you ever presume consent — just because you had sex with someone before, are married to someone, or even paid for sex?

In the view of Monica Burman, a Swedish rape expert at Umea University, “there is a sense of entitlement in certain contexts.”

“But there can be no mutuality,” she said, “about any form of sex if both parties do not consent.”

One reason this issue is so tricky is that it goes to the heart of how we define heterosexuality.

“There are still legacies of this idea that the male is the active pursuer and the female is the one who sets the limits,” said Ms. Kelly of London Metropolitan University.

In this world, as long as the woman is passive, she is consenting.

Ms. Kelly was asked by the European Commission to look at rape legislation across the European Union and suggest how law might be standardized. Her recommendation is to introduce nonconsent as the definition underpinning rape across the bloc.

“So in future we need a written contract every time before we close our bedroom doors?” an exasperated male journalist colleague of mine asked.

Not exactly. A Canadian researcher, Lois Pineau, talks about communicative sexuality. As Ms. Kelly said: “We need to learn how to talk about sex and, yes, during sex. Consent needs to be explicit.”

It would be tricky to standardize legislation, even across Europe. Some European countries, like Ireland and Portugal, still differentiate procedurally between rape within and outside of marriage. And altering rape legislation is no guarantee that prosecution rates will increase. A study in 11 European nations, overseen by Ms. Kelly’s unit, showed that while reporting rates increased in countries with stricter definitions, the difficulties prosecutors had were often identical.

“Prosecutors often have difficulties proving nonconsent if there isn’t evidence of some form of violence,” said Ms. Burman, the Swedish rape expert.

Take Britain, where the 2003 Sexual Offenses Act reclassified rape as the penetration of a person’s vagina, anus or mouth without consent, and defined consent in terms of that person’s freedom and capacity to consent.

After the law changed, reporting rates continued their steady climb of the past two decades, but conviction rates barely budged. According to Ms. Kelly, overhauling the definition of rape is only the first step; the next is to completely rethink how to build a rape case and how to collect evidence.

Because it has become inextricably linked to the controversy surrounding WikiLeaks, the Assange case offers few pointers for an honest debate about rape and how to prosecute it.

Taking a position on one issue is mostly presumed to be taking one on the other. In this sense there are parallels to Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and the infamous stained dress, a case that involved complicated ethical questions and was heavily used for political ends.

But the Assange case is a reminder that rape cases may not conform to old stereotypes.

“Sexual violence remains a taboo. It is disturbing to people,” Ms. Kelly said. “It’s a kind of fault line in issues of gender equality.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 10:35 am
@firefly,
Quote:
U.S. and U.K. sexual assault laws, including the definitions of rape contained in those laws, already hinge on "consent", or the lack of it, as a definitive aspect of a sexual assault


Playing games with the consent issue is one hell of a great way to get more and more men into the criminal justice system for at the very worst ungentlemanly behaviors.

Did he lied about being married, did he lied about his willingness to wear a condom, did he lied even about being Jewish or not then we have rape by fraud.

Did she or did she not have the power to grant consent at the time because of her own completely voluntary drinking and drugging? Then we have rape because of invalid consent.

The only problem is such game playing tend to degrade the crime of rape to the point it is almost a joke instead of a serous crime in people eyes and of course it ruin a lot of innocents men lives.

PS are you sure you are not gaining financially by this nonsense Firefly as part of the rape industry and not just a man hating asexual female instead?


0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 10:51 am
@firefly,
Thank God there are decent, moral, people out in the world that get it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 11:01 am
@firefly,
At least the UK the last I hear had pass or was about to pass a law that shield both parties good names from a rape charge until and unless there is a conviction.

No need in most cases to have any proof of rape as the leveling of a public charge is in most cases more then enough to ruin most men futures.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 11:07 am
I think there is a bit of "he doth protest too much" going on, don't you firefly?
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 11:16 am
Hawkeye have you taken notice that Firefly is back to calling us both trolls?

Wonder if she does not know the meaning of the term troll or if she is just once more being dishonest?

In fact some of the supporters of Firefly had fit that term meanings far more then you and I Hawkeye.

With special note of the attempts at censorship by creating false accounts and then voting down our posts or trying to get us ban from this site because of our opinions.

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 11:41 am
@firefly,
I have been wondering something. What do you suppose bill and hawkeye think should happen to someone that falsely accuses another person of rape? You think they would want to see that person be held accountable or do you think they'd want them to get a slap on the wrist and some counseling? My guess is they'd both want that "vengence" they claim rape victims want in seeing their rapist brought to justice.

I am guessing they would want that person prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because c'mon, that false accusation ruined a life and we all know that anyone being raped doesn't suffer longterm or dibilitating effects from merely being raped. Well, that is if they live through it.
Rolling Eyes
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 11:42 am
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
I think there is a bit of "he doth protest too much" going on, don't you firefly?


In what connection my dear emoting friend?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 11:50 am
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
I have been wondering something. What do you suppose bill and hawkeye think should happen to someone that falsely accuses another person of rape? You think they would want to see that person be held accountable or do you think they'd want them to get a slap on the wrist and some counseling? My guess is they'd both want that "vengence" they claim rape victims want in seeing their rapist brought to justice.

I am guessing they would want that person prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because c'mon, that false accusation ruined a life and we all know that anyone being raped doesn't suffer longterm or dibilitating effects from merely being raped. Well, that is if they live through it.


Come on you got to be kidding me as it now stand most women get little punishment or are allow to walk completely free for placing false rape charges.

Lord I can see you crying in outrage if a convicted rapist would be treated in the same way as women are for filing false rape reports.

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 12:08 pm
@BillRM,
Not one of us has ever said anyone that accuses someone falsely of rape should get off lightly. You and your ilk have said that is what we want.

I think anyone filing such false accusations is a criminal because it's breaking the law. I think they should be prosecuted and given a pretty stiff sentence. However, you and hawkeye have continually wanted to paint me and others as not giving a rat's patootie about such things when, in fact, we do, and we have made it clear, but the two of you unreasonable dolts ignore every word.

You fell for the bait just like I knew you would. You had the chance to be fair about all of this but, of course, that was a stupid thing to think might happen. Oh, and please, do not call me your dear friend. You would not be my friend in this lifetime nor any other.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 12:16 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
Not one of us has ever said anyone that accuses someone falsely of rape should get off lightly. You and your ilk have said that is what we want.


I am sure you do not give a rat rear end on the subject or you would had been crying and emoting on the issue on this thread long before.

Plenty of examples such as the Duke case where the "lady" was allow to walk after harming not only the three young men charge but their team mates and their coach.

As it stand now there is normally little to no punishment for such misdeeds and if the reverse would be the case you would be forming from the mouth.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 12:30 pm
AM you deleted your post after sending me to hell?

Footnote Oh please do not feel bad for sending me to hell that where all the interesting and bright people are likely to be if your fantasy god happen to be real.

In any case here is my response to your post.

Quote:
LOOK YOU STUPID TWIT! This is a thread about rape. NOT FALSE ACCUSATIONS! I have never told anyone this in my entire life Bill, but as far as I am concerned you can go you know where!


And it is your position AM that cases of proven false charges does not effect all rape cases true or false rape cases and therefore should not be address on this thread?
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 12:45 pm
@BillRM,
I did delete it because I was wrong in saying it. I didn't send you there, though. I said as far as I'm concerned it's where you can go.

How many times do we have to tell you we feel people who falsely accuse of rape must be held accountable? I have probably said it twenty times myself. Is that not good enough for you? This thread is about rape. It's not about false accusations of rape. There is a big difference, which obviously you do not seem to understand.

I really have to step back and look at something here and that is myself. How stupid and arrogant it is of me to think that I could ever get you to see anything differently than you do? Intresting and bright people? You mean like people that justify rape? People that justify adultery? People that justify lying? If that is what you call bright, I'd not want to know your definition of genius.

I seriously did try to see things your way at times and I acknowledged when you were right about something. However, I am not going to let myself get worked up again to the point that I tell you where you can go as far as I'm concerned again. I will not let you effect me again to the point that I would displease God in my response to you. I am not perfect. I am a human being and I have feelings and I get upset and say things I should not.

Oh, and isn't it strange? You would let a rapist get a slap on the wrist and don't think you should hold it against him but you copied what I posted, knowing that I thought better of it, and deleted it because I should't have posted it in the first place. You are really a fair man, aren't you bill?
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 01:12 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
You would let a rapist get a slap on the wrist and don't think you should hold it against him


You mean the case of sending an 82 years old man to prison for a rape that occur eleven years before?

Seem off had one hell of a waste of limited and costly resources that could be far better used to find and imprison people that are currently a danger to society.

Given unlimited resources there are nothing morally wrong with doing so but that is not the real world we live in.

Those police detectives for example times to build the case against the old man over a year period could had been used in a far better fashion finding younger offenders and getting them off the street as they just happen to be a few million time more likely to be doing ongoing rapes then this 82 years old man.

To sum up the cost/reward ratio in that case seem very one sided.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 02:09 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hawkeye have you taken notice that Firefly is back to calling us both trolls?

Wonder if she does not know the meaning of the term troll or if she is just once more being dishonest?
IDK, because I think both that she has righteous indignation at being made to suffer opposing opinion on this subject and I also often see her baldly attempting to manipulate the emotions of the readers of this thread. I suspect that she is so offended by our presence here to sort of believe that we are trolls, but that she also lays out the line in a calculated move to discourage any from voicing any agreement with our position. One thing that we know beyond doubt is that firefly believes in power, and believes in using power against others, and is not particularly hobbled by any moral reservations when it comes to assaulting those who get in her way.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 02:18 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The trolls still talk about rape only in terms of the old stereotypes--strangers who use extreme force or weapons--the kind they consider "real rapes". This, of course, completely flies in the face of current reality. U.S. and U.K. sexual assault laws, including the definitions of rape contained in those laws, already hinge on "consent", or the lack of it, as a definitive aspect of a sexual assault. We now know that most victims are raped by someone known to them, and the current rape laws consequently recognize that sexual violence/violation/assault can occur without the use of extreme force. The essential factor, therefore, becomes whether the sexual contact was wanted or unwanted--whether "consent" for the act was given.


Great....are you now willing to admit that you lied when you claimed that the sex laws have not changed? Are you willing to admit that all of those many pages in this thread where we have argued back and forth over whether the laws have changed, whether the definition of sexual assault has changed, was in fact a time wasting snow job on your part in the attempt to win an argument through dishonesty??
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 03:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Great....are you now willing to admit that you lied when you claimed that the sex laws have not changed


Great Hawkeye I missed her tripping over her own feet that time. Thank for catching her at it.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 03:30 pm
Can't you two even be honest at all? Firefly's position has not changed one iota since this thread started. I am willing to be proven wrong, that is, if you can post proof that she lied.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 03:39 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Great Hawkeye I missed her tripping over her own feet that time. Thank for catching her at it.
She would also be caught if she ever were to define consent, which is why she will never go there. I was reading in Seattle mag Jan 2011 page 55 were an anti circumcision doctor says "It's an elective surgery and shouldn't be done on anyone under the age of consent"....which is an absolute fair and honest deduction of where consent theory goes, and it is absolute bullshit. Consent theory sounds great until you start talking about the practice of it with any understanding at all of the human condition, and then it turns into a complicated mess that taken to its conclusion is inhumane because it denies humans the acting according to our natures.

If Firefly ever were to define consent everyone would quickly see that it is not the answer to the problem that she claims that it is, because it causes a whole lot of other problems, to include the lack of sex because it could rarely be practiced if it had to be fully in keeping with consent theory.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 05:52:21