25
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 09:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye you are correct her statement that she accept all fifty states laws and courts rulings on consent is indeed meaningless and does not address her stand on the consent issue in any meaningful ways.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 09:45 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hawkeye you are correct her statement that she accept all fifty states laws and courts rulings on consent is indeed meaningless and does not address her stand on the consent issue in any meaningful ways.
She might as well be saying that she agrees that the price of gas around the globe is a fair price, even though it changes day to day and is different from one corner to the next and from one country to the next. What she WANTS to say is that she thinks that she can twist all of the statutes as worded into supporting what she wants consent to be, but if she said that she would be right back to being forced to admit that she is avoiding stating what her position on what consent should be is. She has one, she has thought a lot about this and probably made up her mind long ago, but as usual she is lying to us because she thinks she has found a short cut to convincing you, me and everyone else to do what she wants us to do.

She has big ones, this one, this much we know.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 10:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
When you say that you agree with consent as currently decided by the states you are saying nothing, because there is no current static definition of consent in practice, even with-in a particular state


Really? That simply shows how ill informed you are regarding the sexual assault statutes of the state you live in--the state of Washington.

The state you live in has an explicit definition of the word "consent" to describe it's meaning in the sexual assault laws of your state.
Quote:
"Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.010


You can't stick to a discussion of actual current sexual assault laws, and the specific definitions used by states, because those laws really are not objectionable.

You just want to spout your half baked opinions about gender politics, your paranoid rants about the "feminist conspiracy", and your questionable views of male/female sexual relations--none of which is remotely related to the current actual sexual assault laws, and what constitutes violations of those laws. And other than your dimwitted sidekick, BillRM, no one posting in this thread has agreed with any of your views on those issues. And you regurgitate them so incessantly, you have simply become an off-topic, pretentious bore.

Quote:
You are a thug who has learned the ability to play words games well and who tries to pass yourself off as something that you are not

I'm a thug? Laughing Good grief, you really are off the wall. Laughing

I haven't tried to pass myself off as anything at all. I support the current sexual assault laws. And the fact that there is no great hew and cry from the general public to repeal these laws, or even significantly alter them, indicates that most people have no problem with these laws, or problem abiding by them. And these laws were not passed in the dead of night by some "feminist conspiracy", and hidden from the public, as you have suggested. They were passed into law by overwhelmingly male state legislators and they have been well publicized as part of an anti-rape initiative. So you really can't stereotype me, as you have repeatedly, and inaccurately, tried to do, simply because I support those laws--most people support them.

Quote:
you are not in fact that much smarter than the rest of us


Well, at least you realize that I am smarter than the rest of you--even if it's "not that much". Laughing


0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 11:03 pm
This man "friended" about 700 underage girls on Facebook. The daughter of the woman who alerted the Police was not one of those he became sexually involved with--he had merely been texting this girl and that arroused her mother's suspicions.
Quote:
"Facebook Rapist" David Bradt Pleads Guilty to Four Assaults in Upstate N.Y.
by Caroline Black
January 27, 2011

ALBANY, N.Y. (CBS/WRGB) A 24-year-old upstate New York man pleaded guilty Wednesday to four counts of felony rape, admitting that he used Facebook to connect with young girls and engage in sexual contact with them.

The Albany County District Attorney David Soares claims David Bradt, of Colonie, NY, used the social networking site over the course of the last year to meet and romance girls under the age of 17.

Investigators said Bradt started by "friending" one teenager on Facebook -- and then "friended" all of that girl's friends. The secret predator then continued to stockpile teenage friends in what police described as a pyramid-type scheme, reports The Albany Times Union.

Bradt developed the relationships with each of the young females by talking to them online and by text-messaging them, reports CBS affiliate WRGB.

After he gained their trust, Bradt asked the girls to meet him in person. He then supplied them with alcohol and marijuana before he sexually took advantage of them, said Soares.

Bradt was arrested Oct. 16, 2010 after the mother of a 16-year-old girl became concerned over the unusual text messages her daughter was receiving from an older man. She alerted police who conducted an investigation into Bradt's online undertakings, says The Albany Times Union.

According to WRGB, Bradt will get 12 to 13 years in prison. He will also undergo 10 years of post-release supervision and will have to register of a sex offender.

"This case illustrates that there are many predators using these sites to identify their targets," District Attorney David Soares stated in a news release. "Parents need to police their children's Internet activities. I would hate to think of how many more victims we would have in this case if not for the actions of one suspicious parent."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20029829-504083.html

BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 06:25 am
@firefly,
Quote:
"This case illustrates that there are many predators using these sites to identify their targets," District Attorney David Soares stated in a news release. "Parents need to police their children's Internet activities. I would hate to think of how many more victims we would have in this case if not for the actions of one suspicious parent."


Yes the internet is a wonderful tools for people to meet with similar desires but let get this straight he force them to meet him and then force both marijuana and alcohol down their throats and then force having intercourse on them? That without the evil internet and this predator they would have likely to had been virgins until they reach the legal age of consent in their state?

It took a mother complain seeing her daughter communications as none of the 700 girls had complain?

Now a few questions come to mind if the girls were looking for sexual hookups do you think Firefly that they had not likely found them off the net already? That local men and boys would not have been eager to provide them with alcohol and marijuana if that was the price they had demand in order to get lucky with them.

Yes, we do have cases of statute rapes here and we surely need to punish him, however he was zero threat to young women/girls who was not looking for sexual hookups in the first place.

Even sixteen years old girls or even 15 years old girls are not that dumb and in a numbers of states are at the legal age of consent.

Hell in Florida he was only one year too old to had been legally allow to have sex with 16 years old and would had been in more trouble for giving them alcohol and marijuana then having sex with them.

----------------------------------------------------------------

1)A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 06:32 am
@firefly,
http://lmk.girlscouts.org/Online-Safety-Topics/Online-Sexual--Predators/The-Facts/Stranger-Danger--The-Real-Risks.aspx


Stranger Danger: The Real Risks
If you and your parents believed everything that they heard on TV about internet sexual predators, you wouldn't even have a computer anymore! There has been so much fear and hype connected to sexual predators that most people don't really know how big (or small) a problem it is and what we have to do to stop it.

Here are a few of the reasons why people worry so much about internet predators...


You might have heard that “1 in 5 young people has received an unwanted sexual solicitation online.” But the truth is that only 3% of those teens who've reported a sexual solicitation were actually asked to meet someone offline, call them on the phone, or accept gifts. Most kids just ignored those unwanted emails or shrugged them off as unimportant or just annoying.

If you ask parents about the biggest risk online, most will say “Internet sexual predators.” This ties into what parents have been worried about for decades -- “stranger danger,” or a fear of abductions. However the number of cases where a stranger has abducted a child is often far lower than most people realize. It is usually under 400 cases a year.

Everyone thinks old men are the only ones trying to seduce you online. But most sexual solicitations come from someone your own age, or someone you know, not form someone looking to molest you.

Reporting sexual predators is big business for the media, and for companies selling products designed to protect children from sexual predators online. So we may hear about this far more than we need to.

The Internet and new technologies are foreign to most parents. People fear what they don’t understand.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 07:18 am
The to catch a sexual predator TV show with all the older men showing up for sex with a suppose thirteen years old is amusing and sad however I can not stop myself from wondering how many real thirteen years olds would be interested in having sex with, to them, an old man off the net.

From the readings of the chat logs on the show the men did not seem either smooth or possessing any skills of seduction to say the least.

But, for cops and volunteers I question if those men would had found anyone to chat with them less alone invited them to a home for sex.

0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 09:25 am
@firefly,
Even if a woman were to be walking down the street completely nude, it doesn't give any guy the right to have sex with her just because she is naked. Yet this doesn't' stop guys from trying to claim that the "woman was asking for it by how she was dressed."

There is never a case where the woman was asking to get raped unless she was actually verbally asking, but even if she was, the person responding to her request I would still have to question. Unless it was playful banter on both of them, there is never a case where "she was asking to get raped."

Just my two cents.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 09:33 am
@Krumple,
your 2 Cents makes sense.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 11:03 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Even if a woman were to be walking down the street completely nude, it doesn't give any guy the right to have sex with her just because she is naked. Yet this doesn't' stop guys from trying to claim that the "woman was asking for it by how she was dressed."


Tell me where guys are claiming that women are asking for it by being dress one way or another at least in the Western world.

That claim is a 99.999999999 percents an anti-male myth and nothing more.

Krumple the title of this thread is just a strawman or strawwoman title to allow Firefly to start selling her positions on sex laws beginning with the emotional high ground.

No one had stated at any time on this thread that a woman should not be able in an ideal world to get high and pass our naked in a crack house without having sex act performs on her.

No one had stated either on this thread that a woman naked on the public street can be force to have sex as a results either and once more the whole damn title is a meaningless propaganda title.

Now a woman surely can ask to have sex not to be rape and even do so in a nonverbal manner.

As in jumping into a sleeping man bed and beginning sexual activities with him.

In one case of a lady jumping into a sleeping man bed she later turned around and charge the man with rape under the theory that she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse and that where the problem lied in this thread.

So why do you not read some of this thread and see what we all are in fact talking about. Hint it is the consent issue and when and if a rape had or had not occur not if a woman is asking to be rape or not.



Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 11:13 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Even if a woman were to be walking down the street completely nude, it doesn't give any guy the right to have sex with her just because she is naked. Yet this doesn't' stop guys from trying to claim that the "woman was asking for it by how she was dressed."


Tell me where guys are claiming that women are asking for it by being dress one way or another at least in the Western world.

That claim is a 99.999999999 percents an anti-male myth and nothing more.

Krumple the title of this thread is just a strawman or strawwoman title to allow Firefly to start selling her positions on sex laws beginning with the emotional high ground.

No one had stated at any time on this thread that a woman should not be able in an ideal world to get high and pass our naked in a crack house without having sex act performs on her.

No one had stated either on this thread that a woman naked on the public street can be force to have sex as a results either and once more the whole damn title is a meaningless propaganda title.

Now a woman surely can ask to have sex not to be rape and even do so in a nonverbal manner.

As in jumping into a sleeping man bed and beginning sexual activities with him.

In the above case the lady then did turned around and charge the man with rape under the theory that she was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse and that where the problem lied in this thread.

So why do you not read some of this thread and see what we all are in fact talking about. Hint it is the consent issue and when and if a rape had or had not occur not if a woman is asking to be rape or not.






I thought I was pretty clear on where I stood on consent. I understand that even after consent has been given there are still cases where the woman felt the need to prosecute for it. I am not condoning it or giving women a free ride any time they want to play the rape card. However; that doesn't justify it that women need be covered head to toe just so a guy won't get sexually aroused and want to jump on her.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 11:19 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Now a few questions come to mind if the girls were looking for sexual hookups do you think Firefly that they had not likely found them off the net already?

What on earth makes you think these girls were looking for sexual hookups?

This man was a sexual predator. And he faces 12-13 years in jail. Felonies are serious crimes.

Again, you blame the victims. They were "looking for it".

It's really about time that you started placing blame, and responsibility, for a rape--any type of rape--on the individual who commits the act of rape--the rapist.

BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 11:55 am
@firefly,
Sorry once more I had more respect for the intelligent of a 16 or 17 years old then you do. The girls who took him up on this offer to meet was likely to be the ones who was looking for a sexual encounter ahead of time or at least open to such and the 99.4 percent who did not do so was not looking for a sexual encounter.

Labeling someone a sexual predator in any case does not in fact grant him some magical powers to seduce even young women over the net.

He had contacts with 700 young women on Facebook and all of 0.6 percents of them then agree to meet him and have sex with him?

The percents of 15 years olds females who are sexual involve had gone down at the same time that the social networks had came into being.

In 1995, the percent of all such girls/women who had have full intercourse was 19 percents in 1995 and in 2008; it is down to 11 percent.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

The army of online sexual predators seems not to affecting the numbers of young non-virgins in any case.

Just as reported rapes are going down to a thirty year low so young girls having sex at 15 or younger is going down also.



firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:04 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Tell me where guys are claiming that women are asking for it by being dress one way or another at least in the Western world.

That claim is a 99.999999999 percents an anti-male myth and nothing more.

Your dear friend Hawkeye has made such a claim--he has refereed to women who wear "slutty clothing" as signaling they are "asking for it".

No matter what a woman wears, it is not an invitation to be raped.

You and Hawkeye have both referred to some females as "acting like whores" or "loose women"--again, trying to justify the rapes of such women. No matter how many sex partners a woman has had, or how flirtatiously she acts, that is not an invitation to rape her--and it does not justify raping her.

The two of you have an appalling double standard--you see it as fine, and perfectly acceptable, for a male to have many sexual encounters, but you demean and degrade a female for enjoying similar sexual freedom. In fact, you both have voiced opinions that such women are trash, and "asking to raped", and therefore their claims of rape should be discounted.

The two of you consistently blame rape victims for their rape and rationalize and excuse the behavior of rapists.
Quote:

Krumple the title of this thread is just a strawman or strawwoman title to allow Firefly to start selling her positions on sex laws beginning with the emotional high ground.


I'm not selling "any positions on sex laws"--the title of this thread was to start discussion on the victim blame that people like you and Hawkeye engage in to excuse the behavior of rapists. I don't have to "sell" the sex laws--these laws are already in effect and are accepted, and obeyed, by the overwhelming majority of people--in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and on and on.

Not just "the emotional high ground", but, more importantly, the moral high ground, is behind laws designed to deter, and prevent, and punish, the crime of rape. Rape, any type of rape, is a despicable crime in the minds of most people. The problem is that neither you nor Hawkeye view rape as a big deal. You both convey the attitude, "She'll get over it" while you moan over the "poor man" who is convicted of her rape.
Quote:
Hint it is the consent issue and when and if a rape had or had not occur not if a woman is asking to be rape or not.

Your thinking is overly simplistic and it is intended to be deliberately deceptive. Victim blame--what she was wearing, the fact she was drinking, the fact she was flirting, etc.--are excuses made to imply that these things indicated consent for sexual intercourse--and that is just not true, those things do not indicate consent for sexual penetration. There is a definite connection between the title of this thread and whether the legal requirement for consent to a specific sexual act was actually given--whether explicit consent for sexual intercourse was given by the woman.





BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:18 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You and Hawkeye have both referred to some females as "acting like whores" or "loose women"--again, trying to justify the rapes of such women. No matter how many sex partners a woman has had, or how flirtatiously she acts, that is not an invitation to rape her--and it does not justify raping her.


BULLSHIT as far as I am concern and I would like to see Hawkeye postings to back up your claims about him.

And are you calling being flirtatious jumping into a sleeping man bed and starting sexual activity with him?

In that case, most men would assume that is an non-verbal require for sex and not a rape.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:20 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Sorry once more I had more respect for the intelligent of a 16 or 17 years old then you do. The girls who took him up on this offer to meet was likely to be the ones who was looking for a sexual encounter ahead of time or at least open to such and the 99.4 percent who did not do so was not looking for a sexual encounter.

No, there is no indication that these girls--most of whom were about 15--were looking for a sexual encounter with this man. And there is nothing in that news story to imply that was the case. These are your fantasies about this case--based on your views of females. This man developed an elaborate scheme to make himself appear to be a friend--that suggests he was not at all up front about his sexual motives.

But, it is clear that statutory rape doesn't matter to you if the underage female is a "loose woman" in your mind--if she seeks sex contact. It's nice to know that you approve of adult men preying on underage females. You probably are sorry to see this man go to prison.

You are also overlooking the fact that, once he met with them, this man plied these girls with pot and booze to make them even more vulnerable and sexually available. Obviously, you must also approve of adult men doing that with underage females.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:29 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The problem is that neither you nor Hawkeye view rape as a big deal. You both convey the attitude, "She'll get over it" while you moan over the "poor man" who is convicted of her rape.


Real rapes I have no problem with punishing with decades behind bar and I also would like to see a similar levels of punishments for proven false charges of rape on the other side instead at worst a slap on the wrist.

The act of a couple having drunken sex together should however not placed the man future in the hands of the his female partner and whether she happen to had regrets or not the next day or the next month.

Nor should playing games with the consent issue allow such so call crimes of rape by fraud to come into being.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:42 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
This man developed an elaborate scheme to make himself appear to be a friend--that suggests he was not at all up front about his sexual motives.

But, it is clear that statutory rape doesn't matter to you if the underage female is a "loose woman" in your mind--if she seeks sex contact. It's nice to know that you approve of adult men preying on underage females. You probably are sorry to see this man go to prison.

You are also overlooking the fact that, once he met with them, this man plied these girls with pot and booze to make them even more vulnerable and sexually available. Obviously, you must also approve of adult men doing that with underage females.


Four girls out of 700 hundreds that is some elaborate scheme indeed.

And if you look at my first posting on the subject I clearly stated that he should be punish for statute rape.

In fact here is my comment for all to see.

Quote:
Yes, we do have cases of statute rapes here and we surely need to punish him, however he was zero threat to young women/girls who was not looking for sexual hookups in the first place.


As far as plying with drugs and alcohol I must had missed the part where he tied them up and pour the alcohol down their throats.

He should be punish as he knew that they was underage and therefore it does not matter if my opinion that they was likely eager for a sexual encounter or not is correct.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:50 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Even if a woman were to be walking down the street completely nude, it doesn't give any guy the right to have sex with her just because she is naked. Yet this doesn't' stop guys from trying to claim that the "woman was asking for it by how she was dressed."

I agree.

But, did you notice that BillRM accused you of making an "anti-male" statement? It's not "anti-male" to honestly acknowledge that is the sort of victim blame that many men use in an attempt to justify and excuse their own behavior--behavior which is legally rape. Hopefully, that victim blame is an attitude that can be changed--both to help prevent rapes, and to help men avoid the consequences of having to deal with rape charges.

BillRM (and Hawkeye) would like everyone to pretend that rape is an insignificant crime and that rape laws were designed by a man-hating coven of "feminists" to ensnare totally innocent men and toss them in prison. Their misogynistic views, several hundred pages worth, have been put forth by them as reasons to have the rape laws abolished. They favor decriminalizing rape unless extreme force is used and the victim is beaten to a bloody pulp to demonstrate her resistance. Unfortunately, most females are raped by someone known to them, and most of these rapes do not require extreme force--so BillRM and Hawkeye would like these victims to be considered fair, and legal, prey for rapists. In a thread about rape, they have been pro-rape advocates.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 12:54 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
However; that doesn't justify it that women need be covered head to toe just so a guy won't get sexually aroused and want to jump on her.


And who once more in the Western world in taking that position?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/05/2025 at 11:42:05