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

@firefly,

Quote:

And she is a minor, who not only cannot legally consent to sex, she went to the school officials to complain about being sexually abused. When school officials receive complaints of sexual abuse they should be expected to notify a child abuse hotline,

Given that her partner is also very very likely to be a minor we should at once arrested her for having sex with another minor if we find that she did so willingly.

Sorry when you have two minors engaging is willing sex it is not normally charge as a case of statutory rape.

I know you would like to have two sets of laws one to be apply to poor female 'victims" and one to males no matter what their age but that is not the case.

Given the ages that most young people have sex for the first time we would be locking up the bulk of the next generation if your craziness would fly.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry when you have two minors engaging is willing sex it is not normally charge as a case of statutory rape

If only one of them is a retard then such a charge might make sense, though even then before the "zero tolerance" law and order goons took over our "justice" system such cases were handled more delicately .

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

If only one of them is a retard then such a charge might make sense, though even then before the "zero tolerance" law and order goons took over our "justice" systems such cases were handled more delicately .

It depend on the degree the girl is "retard' as most people with IQ in the 70s or higher range have the same legal standing in most regards as any other person.

Let see the SC had rule that the cut off point for executing the retardeds is an IQ of 70.

If you ban less retarded people from forming sexual relationships on the same terms as everyone else you are taking a very basic human freedom away from them.

Perhaps we should also go back to the 1920s when some states enforce sterilization on the retarded. Hell the last force sterilization happen in 1981 in the US!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Well, a D.A. in the county where this school system is located clearly does not agree with you. He has said quite clearly they should have called a hotline, even if it was not mandated in this particular instance.

You fail to see that sexual abuse of a minor calls for immediate action to protect the welfare and well being of the child--as is the case with any type of abuse--and that is why a hotline must be called. This is not an adult female lodging a complaint, it is a child.

This school district does not have a police department. But, the county prosecutor said that the protocols they have in place in this county say that the initial interview of the child, on a matter of sexual abuse, should not be done by law enforcement, it is supposed to be done by special forensic examiners who work with children--they have a Child Advocacy Center. It definitely is not supposed to be done by school personnel, and it is definitely not the job of school personnel to evaluate the credibility of the sexual abuse complaint, they are just supposed to report it--to a hotline, not to the police. The police handle it only as a criminal matter, in terms, of whether to press charges, but that is an entirely separate matter from addressing the welfare, and needs, of the female child who may have been the victim of abuse--that job falls to a child protective services agency.

You are failing to recognize that this is legally a situation of child abuse--that puts it into a different category than the sexual abuse or rape of an adult female in terms of the obligation to address and protect the physical, emotional, and psychological welfare of the victim--that's why child protective services exists, they handle such matters, they investigate complaints of sexual abuse, including child on child sexual abuse. And, in this case, the abuse was actually taking place on school property, which should have heightened the obligation of the school to call a hotline.

This is just another topic that you fail to fully understand. Which is also why it's meaningless to continue to try to educate you. You seem to have too limited a capacity to grasp what you read which is why you continue to ask questions which have already been answered.

I'm not interested in continuing to waste my time with your nonsense.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Let me get this straight in that state the power to review sexual abused/rape claims for minors had a been taken out of the police hands and given to some Child Advocacy Center?!!!!????

Are they a government department or are they a state funded but not state control organization and god had mercy on our souls if that is true.

Note for AM that is just a saying......not an indication that I am a believer in god or souls.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Let me get this straight in that state the power to review sexual abused/rape claims for minors had a been taken out of the police hands and given to some Child Advocacy Center?!!!!???

Yes , to a large degree the government has subcontracted out not only sex law but also victim assistance, this being done because in their mind they can deny any responsibility for what is done, they say "we are funding the experts in the field, they are doing what they feel is best, and we support them". The feminists/victim community pushed hard for the power to decide where the money goes and for the ability to decide policy and to decide individual cases. They do have some government oversight, but not much. Not that it matters, because those in government handling these issues are the same people who are out in the field, just as we see with corporate , oil drilling and financial system oversight the revolving door between the regulator and the regulated makes a mockery of any claims that effective regulation is taking place.

EDIT: we see this trend with government subcontracting out public policy when it has decided either that it either cant do the job because of political deadlock or when the issue is controversial and so government "leaders" want to sidestep the issue so that they dont need to fight about it. It is an abdication of democratic responsibility, and it is just one of many places where we can see clearly that Washington no longer works. In this case we have the taxpayers paying the bills but the ability of our representatives to decide how it is spent...ie be responsible for how it is spent..is largely removed. You see this same kind of thinking in the debt ceiling deal of two weeks ago, where the tendensy is set up groups of people to decide what is to be done that can not be controlled by our representatives. You also saw this in Obamacare, where panels are set up to cut cost and much of the public power is subcontracted out to them that is supposed to rest with one of the three branches of government.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye this is not funny people with Firefly outlook and no common sense is taking more and more control of important aspects of out society and all without the public having a clue of what is happening until it hit in their own family.

I look at some of these NGO websites and found for one the interesting "fact' that one half of all children in this nation are victims of child abuse during their childhood and I forgot what silly numbers they gave for female children sexual abuse.

The people who come up with this craziness are the same people that are going to do the screening in child abuse cases before the police get involved!!!!!!

At least once there was someone directly responsible for actions taken under government power now it is being outsource to non-government agencies control by the Fireflies of the world.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

The people who come up with this craziness are the same people that are going to do the screening in child abuse cases before the police get involved!!!!!

It is even better than that...as of a few years ago the staff at the rape stores can fill out restraining orders against the alleged abuser, can fill out the paperwork for tapping the victim assistance slush funds, and can write out child abuse reports (amongst other normally public sector duties), and have them accepted by the courts and other government agents AS IF THEY WERE GENERATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. We have the victim assistance zealots stipulating facts which are taken by the government without evaluation, and these testimonials are used to get taxpayer monies and are used to hang men. Lets remember too that these same zealots will straight up say that when an alleged victim comes telling stories of abuse they should be believed, that expressing any doubt about their stories is to oppress them, and is to discourage other victims from coming forwards. Between the victim assistance slush funds and medicaid shocking amounts of money goes out to alleged victims with little to no evaluation of the stories they tell, and we now also allow such story telling to to keep any illegal who tells such a story in the US indefinently . We have incentivized the claiming of abuse, so of course we are going to get lots of claims of abuse, which serves to keep the rape industry fully employed.

It is quite the scam. My hat is off the the feminists for a job well done in sucking at the public sector tit to their hearts content with little objection from the chumps who pay the bills. The men who get accused of abuse suffer the most of course, but we have not cared about the well being of men for some time...Men suck, everyone knows that!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Hey Bill, if you have had any doubts about my claim that sex law is an unjust jobs program for the feminists and savior community get a load of the following claims the divorce law is similarly an unjust jobs program that resists all efforts at reform because those sucking at the public sector tit dont want to let go:

Quote:

Must be Friday, because someone has just noticed, again, that our family court system is a soul-crushing, pocket-emptying, child-destroying disgrace. A piece on the Huffington Post alerted me that yet another high-powered group, of mostly lawyers, has formed yet another commission to mop up the mess that is our divorce courts. And again, they’re promising the kind of reform almost certain to provide the panel's sixty members with media exposure, high-level networking opportunities, and dream university/government jobs. Anything else will be a bonus.

This isn't cynical. It's correct, mostly because those who make their living by the hour (attorneys and the mental health crowd) will prevent meaningful reform from arriving before they retire; no one knows better than they how to pointlessly, and profitably, drag out crucial endeavors indefinitely. But the real reason not to hold one’s breath about this latest reform attempt is the composition of the brain trust tackling it. Reform may eventually come, but it will, by design, work much better for some of the players than for others.

The plan is this, writes one of the initiative members, Dr. Richard Warshak: “To transform a system of justice widely viewed as unjust (a 'psychological meat grinder' according to one victim), the American Bar Association Section on Family Law, partnering with the University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, last summer inaugurated a massive initiative that is now poised to bring family law into the 21st century.” I follow family court news obsessively and this is the first I've heard of this year-old initiative; it doesn't even have a website. Meetings are not open to the public and its only charter is to promulgate "recommendations" in two years’ time. Recommendations.
To generate these recommendations, the project, called Families Matter, will bring together “sixty top family law experts—[e.g.] judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys along with about five mental health professionals.” Notice who’s not considered an “expert”? Litigants. Parents. Kids. How you gonna dismantle a “psychological meat grinder” without listening to the sausage? That’s like doctors trying to improve their bedside manner by consulting only other MDs and shrinks. Why such a glaring oversight?

Several immediate suspicions arise.

There’s the arrogant elitism of the professions comprising the panel—a largely unaccountable group with impressive credentials and absolute power over family court litigants, a cohort of which society disapproves. It wouldn’t be surprising if no one ever even seriously suggested including the victims of the meat grinder. Hard as they might try, many of the experts subconsciously believe litigants incapable of good judgment; you don't have to be a litigant long to figure that out. There is likely also a distaste for unmediated contact with the unpredictable “great unwashed,” if they were finally allowed to speak freely. These experts would be idiots if they didn’t harbor a very rational fear of the anger, despair, and unvarnished truths they’d have to hear from “petitioners” and “respondents” reconstituted as citizens for a day. (Never doubt that the one thing you don’t feel like in family court is a citizen.) Imagine volunteering to be confronted by those who’ve spent years sitting mute while you experts vilified them. While therapists pronounce their exes the better parents after spending only a single session with them. While people they don’t respect decide how much money is enough for them to live on and how often they’ll be seeing their kids. Oh, no. There was little chance that family court’s victims—the meat in the grinder—were ever going to get a real day in court. Talk about taxation without representation.

The only prayer this latest attempt has is that judges have become unworkably overburdened by their caseloads; in Maryland for example, there are more family cases than all others types combined, criminal included. So what’s likely to happen is that, many years from now, the system will be made more efficient, but remain equally remunerative for the players paid by the hour, like attorneys and shrinks. Benefit to the litigants will be real, but pure “trickle down”; all they can do is hope for the best, tongues still bitten, checkbooks still at the ready. But here’s a tiny way to acknowledge those who pay the price for a broken system. The first recommendation should be that every court session should begin with this recitation by anyone who sits in judgment of litigants: "They're not silent because they’re in awe of my wisdom. They're silent because they fear me

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html

0 Replies

@firefly,

Semantically, perhaps a woman could say, "Rape me." Any man in his right mind would not oblige.

But no woman asks to be raped. I was raped as a 9 year old. I was in the foster system and had no adults looking out for me. This set me up for years of molestation and abuse.

I got therapy as soon as I was on my own and escaped the abusive cycle. Rape can be violent, with many bruises and physical damage. It can also be coercive--with the victim scared to move [because of my early rape, I would freeze when men touched me uninvited]. It's a complex crime--one the victim experiences for years.

If any woman every meets a man who doesn't understand this---leave him alone.

1 Reply

@Nogard2u,

Not one person supported the used of force or the threat of force on this long thread and surely had not supported the raping of a child.

For any child to be a victim male is female is one of the most evil things that a person could do

However no man should be charge with rape or sexual assaults due not to his actions but because of the unusual feelings you have toward men due to your sad history that he might not even be aware of.

You had a duty to let a man who had approached you in a sexual manner that you are not interested in him in that way.

If a man come up to you in a bar or at a party and after talking to you for a time place his hand on your shoulder that is not a sexual assault.

At that point you need to communicate with him that you are not interest in him.

Men are not mind readers and in this culture it is our task to approach you if we find you interesting in a sexual manner and such approaches are not a crime as long as the man stop when told to stop.

Once more I am sorry that you suffer such evilness as a child.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I see that no one supported the rape of a child. As a child and teen, I froze. As an adult, I got therapy and learned to say no loudly. Sometimes it didn't stop the guy.

I agree no man should be charged without wrong action.

A woman, no matter what she's wearing, what she was drinking, or what she said up until she said 'no,' should be heeded--because after that it is without consent.

The man's penis does not run ahead of him, with him holding on saying, "no I don't want to do that." Just saying...

2 Replies

@Nogard2u,

Quote:

Yes, I see that no one supported the rape of a child. As a child and teen, I froze. As an adult, I got therapy and learned to say no loudly. Sometimes it didn't stop the guy.

I agree no man should be charged without wrong action.

I you read into the thread then you see that one of the points of disagreement is where the line for rape is......it is someplace between pushing forwards after the woman says no and having sex with a woman who has not given an enthusiastic "please **** me!" without any mental reservation or feelings of pressure. We have in the latter the feminists wanting to ring guys up for rape based upon the claimed mental state of the woman, after the fact, when so far as the man knows the woman willingly participated and enjoyed the sex.

The law used to read that in order to claim that she was raped a woman must first actively physically try to get away from and/or push the man off of her, which was slightly unreasonable but not by much. I say that a woman must say no with vigor. If you freeze and dont say no then that is your problem, fix it, dont blame the guy. Having sex with a kid is of course under different rules.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Actually, I lied because there are man hating bitch feminists who want to ring guys up for rape if:

A)Men do not properly execute the government mandated request for sex procedure

B)Men are not totally honest about who they are and what they want (rape by deception)

C)Any man who has sex with a woman who is deemed to have less power than he UNLESS she is the one to made the first request for sex and he can prove it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye to be fair if a woman freeze up when I touch her that would be kind of a clear signal that something might be wrong and I should find out what before undressing her.

Yes she should say NO in a clear voice but freezing would be so over the top in reacting to my advances and would therefore cause some question in my mind if I had consent or not!!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Hawkeye to be fair if a woman freeze up when I touch her that would be kind of a clear signal that something might be wrong and I should find out what before undressing her.

When people say "freeze up" they normally mean that they cant make their mouths say the "NO!" that they claim that they want it to, it does not normally mean that they become stiff as boards, though it can. I am firm in my assertion that it is not with-in the man's power to know the unexpressed mind of a woman, it there fore does not matter what her mind was, it only matters what she expressed and how closely the man complied with her EXPRESSED mind.

There are a great many feminists who will convict a man of rape solely on the after the fact claims from the woman about what her mental state was during the act. This is an abuse of men.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I was always been amazed at the balls Bill Gate had in courting his wife when she was in middle management at Microsoft and the old old position that she feel pressure to have a sexual relationship with him could had been used at least for one hell of a civil lawsuit.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Yes, freezing have many meanings and if she mean by it that she fear communicating her none consent because of a past not due to any actions on his part that is ashame but not the fault of the man and not rape..

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I was always been amazed at the balls Bill Gate had in courting his wife when she was in middle management at Microsoft and the old old position that she feel pressure to have a sexual relationship with him could had been used at least for one hell of a civil lawsuit.

That was a long time ago, more recently Mark Hurd did not fair so well. The CFO of Office Depot just got fired today for a relationship that almost was certainly along those lines....

The feminists are having a lot of success getting corporate America to adopt their standards, something that we should be alarmed about.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

When people say "freeze up" they normally mean that they cant make their mouths say the "NO!" that they claim that they want it to, it does not normally mean that they become stiff as boards, though it can. I am firm in my assertion that it is not with-in the man's power to know the unexpressed mind of a woman, it there fore does not matter what her mind was, it only matters what she expressed and how closely the man complied with her EXPRESSED mind.

This time, BillRM is right and you are wrong. What a person expresses in body language, whether by coming stiff and tense, or by giving a shove, is a communication, it is being EXPRESSED. If the other person freezes, it certainly should not be taken as a clear indication of consent. And the rape laws are written to indicate that the lack of consent can be expressed either in terms of behavior or in words. And BillRM is right, any indication that the partner is unwilling is the time to stop and to start verbally communicating with each other about what is wanted or unwanted, and why.

You personally resent the entire idea of having to have consent, or agreement, or permission, from a partner. You want to do what you want to do, and you don't like the feeling that the other person can interfere with that, or hold power over you in any way. You also resent the idea that people should be communicating with each other during sex, and paying attention to each other's communications. You are about as self-absorbed and self-centered as a person can get.

You are exceptionally naive if you think that "feminists" are the only females concerned with issues such as consent, or communication, or rape. These issues concern most women, and most women would differ with your views. Actually, most men differ with you too, and that has been apparent throughout this thread.

Quote:

The feminists are having a lot of success getting corporate America to adopt their standards, something that we should be alarmed about.

Again, you are exceptionally naive if you think feminists are the only females concerned with issues of sexual harrassment in the workplace. Have you ever met a woman who was completely indifferent on this issue? Most people. both women and men, don't want to have to deal with unwanted sexual advances or pressures in the workplace, they go to work to do their jobs.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know