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

New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics figures show that over the past eight years, the number of women charged with domestic abuse has rocketed by 159 per cent.

In 2007, 2,336 women fronted court on domestic violence charges, compared to around 800 in 1999.

Preconceived ideas of gender roles have led a lot of people to believe it would be virtually impossible for a women to physically abuse a man.

But co-director of Men's Rights Agency Sue Price says it is exactly this stereotype that leads to battered men hiding in shame, fearful of being ridiculed, or even prosecuted.

"I've had SAS soldiers in tears because the wife is a black belt karate expert and yet they know that if they even try to restrain her he might be charged with assault and domestic violence," she said.

"It's much harder for a man to actually admit that his wife is beating him up. They seem to regard it as a shameful issue and a lot of police actually say to men 'What did you do to make your wife hit you?' or 'Can't you handle your missus?'

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 as a payoff to the radical feminists for helping to elect Bill Clinton President in 1992. Personal sponsorship of this law was taken over by then-Senator Joe Biden.

VAWA shows the hypocrisy of noisy feminist demands that we kowtow to their ideology of gender neutrality, to their claim that there is no difference between male and female, and to their opposition to stereotyping and gender profiling. There is nothing sex neutral about VAWA. It is based on the proposition that there are, indeed, innate gender differences: men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. VAWA is not designed to eliminate or punish violence, but to punish only alleged violence against women. Most of the shelters financed by VAWA do not accept men as victims.

VAWA has been known from the getgo as “feminist pork” because it puts $1 Billion a year of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the hands of the radical feminists. They have set up shop in domestic violence shelters where they promote divorce, marriage breakup, hatred of men, and false accusations, while rejecting marriage counseling, reconciliation, drug-abuse treatment, and evidence of mutual-partner abuse. There is no investigation or accountability for the taxpayers’ money spent in these shelters.

VAWA makes taxpayers’ money available to the feminists to lobby state legislators to pass feminist laws, to train law enforcement personnel and judges in using the laws, and to fund enforcement.

VAWA provides the woman with free legal counsel to pursue her allegations, but not the man to defend himself. He is on his own to find and pay a lawyer — or struggle without one.

Feminists have changed state laws in order to get family courts to operate on a loosey-goosey definition of family violence. It doesn’t have to be violent. It can simply be what a man says or how he looks at a woman. It can even be what a woman thinks he might do or say. Definitions of violence include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” claiming to be “fearful,” or just not doing what your partner wants.

Feminists have persuaded most states to adopt mandatory arrest laws. That means, when the police arrive at a disturbance and lack good information on who is to blame, they are nevertheless legally bound to arrest somebody. Three guesses who is usually arrested.

Feminists have lobbied most states into passing no-drop prosecution laws. Those laws make the prosecutor legally bound to go forward with prosecution even if the woman recants her charges or wants to drop them. Studies show that women do recant or ask to drop the charges in 60% of criminal allegations, but the law requires prosecution against the man to proceed regardless. Along with the loss of other constitutional rights, the man thus loses his right to confront and cross-examine his accuser.

VAWA has a built-in incentive for the woman to make false charges of domestic violence because she knows she will never be prosecuted for perjury. Charging domestic violence practically guarantees she will get custody of the children and sever forever the father’s relationship with his children even though the alleged violence had nothing whatever to do with any abuse of the children. Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse was ever presented.

I think you honestly don't know what a true scientific study is - which is documented and investigated by a reputable source of which none of yours
are.

In my opinion the feminists used this government money to attack men....

It is true that the statute is entitled the Violence Against Women Act, but other provisions of the Act make clear it applies to conduct perpetrated against male, as well as female, victims,...“[n]othing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this subchapter”), and courts have so held,.... (“While Congress was particularly concerned with those crimes that ‘disproportionately burden women,’ ... [VAWA’s] criminal provisions are gender-neutral, and enforcement has been gender-neutral as well.”). Courts have also held that sections 2261A and 2262 apply when the offender and victim are the same sex,

Quote:

Consider the offenses of rape, kidnapping, theft, and trespass,
to name just a few. In all of them, the act itself does not violate a
prohibitory norm. Having sex, transporting someone to a different
location, taking other people’s property, or entering someone’s home
is not bad per se. The act becomes bad only due to the attendant
circumstance, namely, the lack of consent; unless consent is missing,
the conduct is outside the boundaries of criminal law..

It would benefit both men and women if we try to be as fair as possible when we write our sexual assaults laws and used commonsense when we apply them instead of being completely and insanely one sided.

Quote:

It would benefit both men and women if we try to be as fair as possible when we write our sexual assaults laws and used commonsense when we apply them instead of being completely and insanely one sided.

that is not going to happen till people start to demand facts and evidence from the feminists and the saviors. For a long time now they have been able to make **** up with impunity.

You should start your own feminist thread and see how you are torn apart there.

The "idiot mob" of which you speak. Would that be the "collective" to which you reference so often?

Hawkeye you do walk a path alone having feelings for outright rapists.

.....a controversial and very high-profile police investigation into the
activities of a group of men involved in consensual sadomasochism.
The investigation ended in a criminal prosecution and conviction of
the defendants. The case, R v. Brown, was appealed.....

....we are indeed living through a dark age.

In late 2000, Armin Meiwes, a forty-two-year-old German computer
technician, posted a message in an Internet chat room devoted
to cannibalism: “[S]eeking well-built man, 18-30 years old, for slaughter.”
A few months later, Bernd Juergen Brandes, a forty-three-yearold
German microchip engineer, replied: “I offer myself to you and
will let you dine from my live body. Not butchery, dining!!”
The two men exchanged numerous e-mails, discussing details of
the prospective killing and dining. Brandes even joked about their
both being smokers: “Good, smoked meat lasts longer.” On March 9,
2001, Brandes arrived at Meiwes’s place.
Brandes swallowed twenty sleeping tablets and half a bottle of
schnapps. Then Meiwes cut off part of Brandes’s body and fried it as
a snack for them both. Brandes was bleeding to death, but still not
dead, when Meiwes stabbed him in the neck after a good-bye kiss.
Then Meiwes butchered him and froze the flesh.

Would you agree that libertarianism supports leaving these 2 guys (neither of whom was insane) free to cut up and eat each other? If not, why not?

Hawkeye you do walk a path alone having feelings for outright rapists.

Hunger made German women more “available," but despite this, rape was prevalent and often accompanied by additional violence. In particular I remember an eighteen-year old woman who had the side of her faced smashed with a rifle butt, and was then raped by two G.I.s. Even the French complained that the rapes, looting and drunken destructiveness on the part of our troops was excessive. In Le Havre, we’d been given booklets warning us that the German soldiers had maintained a high standard of behavior with French civilians who were peaceful, and that we should do the same. In this we failed miserably.

“So what?” some would say. “The enemy's atrocities were worse than ours.” It is true that I experienced only the end of the war, when we were already the victors. The German opportunity for atrocities had faded, while ours was at hand. But two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than copying our enemy's crimes, we should aim once and for all to break the cycle of hatred and vengeance that has plagued and distorted human history. This is why I am speaking out now, 45 years after the crime. We can never prevent individual war crimes, but we can, if enough of us speak out, influence government policy. We can reject government propaganda that depicts our enemies as subhuman and encourages the kind of outrages I witnessed. We can protest the bombing of civilian targets, which still goes on today. And we can refuse ever to condone our government’s murder of unarmed and defeated prisoners of war.

I realize it’s difficult for the average citizen to admit witnessing a crime of this magnitude, especially if implicated himself. Even G.I.s sympathetic to the victims were afraid to complain and get into trouble, they told me. And the danger has not ceased. Since I spoke out a few weeks ago, I have received threatening calls and had my mailbox smashed. But its been worth it. Writing about these atrocities has been a catharsis of feelings suppressed too long, a liberation, that perhaps will remind other witnesses that “the truth will make us free, have no fear.” We may even learn a supreme lesson from all this: only love can conquer all.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p161_Brech.html

Bases by Another Name: U.S. Military Access in the Philippines
by Stephen R. Shalom

...

In the fall of 1997, two new developments brought the
ACSA issue to the fore. First, the U.S. and Philippine govern-
ments began talks on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that
would grant partial diplomatic immunity to U.S. military person-
nel in the Philippines. The proposed agreement is reminiscent of
the policy under the Military Bases Agreement whereby U.S.
soldiers were often able to escape punishment for crimes com-
mitted in the Philippines, including the killing of Filipinos.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MPpCwVnx5p4fB26XGWB9jC3VxYb0QMQKz0fpGYt0Xt38JgpGzPkX!-1069521214!-1419836203?docId=97787204

The "gender symmetry" debate continues. In the absence of conclusive data and based on substantial research, it nevertheless appears that, whether they are heterosexual, bisexual, gay (Renzetti & Miley, 1996), or transsexuai/transsexed (Brown, 2007), and no matter what their age, physical ability, and socioeconomic or ethnic background, both women and men are subject to IPA and IPV.

Research findings indicating that women are both victims and perpetrators of IPA and IPV challenge many previously held conceptualizations and explanations (McHugh & Hanson Frieze frieze, in architecture, the member of an entablature between the architrave and the cornice or any horizontal band used for decorative purposes. In the first type the Doric frieze alternates the metope and the triglyph; that of the other orders is plain or , 2006), leading to calls for more in-depth studies of the experiences of male victims, an area in which relatively little qualitative research Qualitative research


.
.
As a feminist sociologist, gender-related issues are at the forefront of my concerns. Issues surrounding the use and abuse of power by women in intimate relationships are eminently worthy of rigorous, detailed investigation by feminist and other scholars, for a lack of empirical research into female-on-male intimate violence limits greatly our understanding of its nature and processes. Although this is open to debate, De Welde (2003) has argued that "hegemonic discourses of women's powerlessness are not equipped to deal with power from women" (p. 250), and such hegemonic discourses require contestation. There are, of course, discourses around the use and abuse of power by females; for example, in the analysis of women's sexual abuse of children (Denov, 2004) and female relational abuse (Kelkar, 1992). Fitzroy (2001) reminds us that victims of women's violence include children, parents, siblings, disabled family members, female or male partners, colleagues, workers, and strangers.

In general, there is a relative dearth of qualitative research into physical abuse perpetrated by women upon their intimate partners, especially when unilaterally generated.