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

My statement stands. Idiot.

What they both fail to understand is that my interest here are the same as everyone else's interest, which is to protect the sovereignty of myself from the attack upon it which comes from the team of the Feminists and the State

He grossly distorts reality. And that makes him an obvious mental case

but feel free to pick something and challange me on it, not that you are actually interested in trading in facts and reality mind you, but I am.

The female who was raped by William Nottingham Beebe was not an "adult", she was 17 at the time. She was also unconscious on a bed in a frat house when Beebe found her and raped her. He admitted she, "was in no condition to consent". Witnesses saw him on top of her. Witnesses saw him leaving the room with blood on his pants.

If I was sending a daughter away to college other then drumming it into her not to go to wild parties/frat houses or get drunk I would try to get her to go to Utah with a population of non drinking Mormons.

Still colleges from the real numbers seem fairly safe and that is even more so for the women who used just a little bit of commonsense as far as alcohol is concern.

And if you actually have a daughter, I'm just oh so sure that if she ever found herself in the situation of having been raped while drunk and unconscious, your reaction would be "Oh well, shouldn't have been drunk in a frat house."

These two would never be allowed near me or my home. Now, they will not even be allowed into my home via the computer. I highly suspect Bateye has used this thread for his own personal gratification and quite seriously, I feel like I have been raped..................so I will do as they think women should do..............take responsibility and get away from them and their filth.

Not an easy case to make with all of the documentation that I have provided to support my opinions, to include numbers and expert opinion.

Once, feminist reformers rightly fought against laws that required a rape victim to fight her attacker "to the utmost." But removing any element of actual or threatened force from the crime of rape makes it too easy to criminalize miscommunications and morning-after regrets. Should non-consent require a firm "Stop!" or does it cover a hesitant or coy "Maybe we should stop"—perhaps accompanied by actions that contradict the words? Is the man guilty of rape if the woman says early in the evening that she does not want to have sex, but does not rebuff his overtures later? Is the woman a rapist if the roles are reversed? Writing the "forcible" part out of the definition of rape makes it much more of a two-way street.

Valenti laments that U.S. law is "ill-equipped to actually protect women in realistic scenarios." But, in realistic scenarios, sexual relationships are complicated and messy; it is an area where people often don't think rationally, and context is everything. When a man initiates intercourse with a woman who is asleep—one of the accusations against Assange—the existence of a prior sexual relationship is hardly irrelevant. Perhaps that is why Valenti has to concede that, under Sweden's admirably progressive sex crime laws, only 20 percent of rape complaints ever go to trial and only half of those result in a conviction. British author Joan Smith, who has expressed concern over the wave of support for Assange, has noted approvingly that "sexual manners and sexual conduct come in for careful consideration in Sweden." But when rape law is used to regulate "sexual manners" rather than sexual violence, it has seriously strayed from its purpose.

Earlier generations of feminists argued that rape should be treated the same as any other violent crime: The victim should not be subjected to special standards of resistance or chastity. These days, the demand for special treatment is so blatant that some activists openly support abolishing the presumption of innocence for rape cases and requiring the accused to prove consent (a proposal Valenti cites with obvious approval). In an ironic twist, these activists actually seem to hold women in very little esteem: in their world, women are too timid to push a man away if he won't take no for an answer and too addled to know that they have been raped.

The Julian Assange who emerges from the legal documents in the case is not a sympathetic man. He comes across as a narcissistic cad and a user, not unlike some men of the 1960s Left who saw the women in the movement as servants and sex toys rather than comrades. And yet his tribulations may well become a "teachable moment" that will help draw attention to the dangers of ever-expanding definitions of rape and overzealous prosecutions. In that case, as with the WikiLeaks saga itself, Assange will have done some good no matter how dubious his motives.

Rape should not be a controversial issue. Rape is wrong, it is not excusable, and it must stop

All true except when you redefine rape to cover actions and behaviors that in the history of the human race have never been consider rape.

neither men nor women will think very highly of the feminists when this debate is over.

Hawkeye what is so very annoying to me is that women like Firefly had hijack the name/title Feminist and turn it from it first meaning of fighters for equal rights and respects for women into a movement to destroy the relationship between men and women and into a title of shame.

A movement that wishes to take adult’s rights/responsibility always from women in the name of protecting them from us evil predatory males

In the section on rape Farrell takes on a number of “myths” about rape — that rape is a manifestation of male power, that rape is about violence rather than sexual attraction, and that false accusations of rape are rare. He demonstrates that the very concept of “rape” has become so muddled and mystified that college students and administrators are no longer sure what the term means. If both partners have a few drinks before sex, does this mean that the male has committed rape? If the female decides afterwards that she really didn't want to have sex, was she raped? One survey found that a much greater proportion of men (63 percent) than women (46 percent) said that they had “experienced unwanted intercourse” (pp. 43-44). These might seem like frivolous questions, but they are not: at this very moment college administrators are in a quandary trying to deal with them. The same point has been made cogently by feminist Camille Paglia: “The area where contemporary feminism has suffered the most self-inflicted damage is rape. What began as a useful sensitization of police officers, prosecutors, and judges to the claims of authentic rape victims turned into a hallucinatory overextension of the definition of rape to cover every unpleasant or embarrassing sexual encounter.”[6]

Farrell neglects to discuss Susan Brownmiller's seminal book, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975). This book, replete with disinformation, did much to create an atmosphere of sexual hysteria and irrationality, which led to censorship and assaults on civil liberties. In a 1976 review I described Against Our Will as “a shoddy piece of work from start to finish: ludicrously inaccurate, reactionary, dishonest, and vulgarly written.” [7] Re-reading my review, I find nothing to retract.

Farrell puts forward a concept of “date fraud” — when “a woman says 'no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language” — and suggests that the purpose of “date fraud” is “To have sexual pleasure without sexual responsibility, and therefore without guilt or shame; to reinforce the belief that he is getting a sexual favor while she is giving a sexual favor, and thus that he ‘owes’ her the Five Ds [Drinks, Dinner, Driving, Dating, and Diamond] before sex or some measure of commitment, protection, or respect after sex” (p. 41).

He also inveighs against the “double standard of ‘rape-shield’ laws” (pp. 45-46). These are a direct product of feminism; they “shield a woman's sexual past from being used against her in court. No law shields a man's sexual past from being used against him in court” (p. 45). Regardless of the intention of these laws, they violate due process and thus prevent a man from receiving a fair trial.

Farrell cites an Air Force study to argue that false accusations of rape are not rare. Sterba in turn argues that false accusations are indeed rare, using the same study. However, this study is only one among many, and neither Farrell nor Sterba is a qualified survey research analyst. That false accusations of rape are by no means uncommon was well established by John MacDonald more than a third of a century ago, but his work is not listed in the bibliography.[8]

The section on the criminal justice system makes a strong case that men are treated far more severely. Men receive much longer sentences for the same crimes, and are “twenty times more likely than a woman convicted of murder to receive the death penalty” (p. 49). Farrell's “items” highlight many instances of glaring injustice to males, but at least one of them is inadequate: “ITEM”, he writes, “Andrea Yates murdered her five children. She was found not guilty in 2006 by reason of insanity and was given treatment rather than punishment” (p. 49). I agree that Andrea Yates was guilty and should have been punished, but an important factor in this case, and one covered up by public relations firms, was that she was taking medication for depression, a “selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor” (SSRI) drug. Suicide and murder are recognized as possible (if rare) consequences of SSRI consumption.[9]

Farrell believes that the very real gender injustices of the criminal justice system are a consequence of feminism: “For nearly four decades now, we have become increasingly protective of women and decreasingly protective of men” (p. 50). It has become almost commonplace that a woman can commit premeditated murder and then be acquitted under the “learned helplessness defense” — claiming that the man had battered her and she was helpless to leave him — even in cases where friends and family of the murdered man testify that no battering or other form of abuse ever took place.

But what is sauce for the gander is not necessarily sauce for the goose: “The feminists often say, ‘There's never an excuse for violence against a woman.’ When it comes to female violence against men, though, there's always an excuse.” (p. 54

For each issue Farrell finds evidence of anti-male discrimination, and Sterba in turn minimizes it. Obviously, it would be beyond the scope of this review to go into all of these, so I'll concentrate on four issues where Farrell's case is strongest: health, domestic violence, rape, and the criminal justice system.
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/FARRELL.HTM