25
   

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

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 04:31 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs.
They also dont believe that they need to put down the feminists, dont need to remove them from their power positions of running sex law and running the sex stores. The government for damn sure is in no hurry to get rid of them because subcontracting out sex law and "victim" services is way easier politically than is running these government programs in house, and if the feminists were not allowed to take these contracts there is no one else waiting in the wings to take their place....government would be stuck needing to run these programs hands on again.

So at the moment we are stuck, till we have had enough of our government abusing men, and micro managing our sex lives and relationships, at the behest of the feminists.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 05:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
So at the moment we are stuck, till we have had enough of our government abusing men, and micro managing our sex lives and relationships, at the behest of the feminists.


In my state Florida when I went to get my married license in 1981 I was charge a surcharge of twenty dollars to go to the private women shelters.

So I guess the view being is that men who are willing to committed to a marriage is more likely to harm their partners then men who just live in sin with their partners.

Somehow that never did make sense to me to punish couples for wishing to married instead of just living together.

Before my 2006 marriage I checked and not only did they still have a surcharge in placed but the Feminists got to run pre-married counseling services and if you did not sign up and pay them in that manner the state would just add another surcharge and hands the funds to them.

Oh. there was a gun type cooling off period on getting married unless you had taken this counseling.

I find it annoying that the feminists such as Firefly think that they had something to add to my relationship with my now wife even if at that point we had been in a relationship dating back to 1985.

To sum up I was very happy that we ended up getting married outside of the state of Florida so we did not get ripped off in this manner.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 05:29 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
To sum up I was very happy that we ended up getting married outside of the state of Florida so we did not get ripped off in this manner.
Tip of the Iceberg my friend, but you clearly get it....
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 05:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye as far as women of the past being helpless victims I can still remember my mother telling me how in 1942 when my parents had gotten marry she told my father that he was free to hit her anytime he would care to but she strongly recommended that he never close his eyes in the house afterward.

On the drive back from Maryland where they had gone to get married upon stopping at a restaurant/dinner she played on the juke box the song “There will be some changes make”.

Somehow my mother seems not to had needed the help of the Fireflies of the world to handle her marriage and husband.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 06:45 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hawkeye as far as women of the past being helpless victims I can still remember my mother telling me how in 1942 when my parents had gotten marry she told my father that he was free to hit her anytime he would care to but she strongly recommended that he never close his eyes in the house afterward.
Women were never the brutalized helpless things as the feminists have written them into history. There was always near parity, it was only when technology removed much of the work from womens work and thus confronted with too much time on their hands and not enough challenge women turned neurotic that women got the idea that men were abusing them. It was never true on the whole, but women needed someone to blame for their unhappiness, and men were as always handy.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 08:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
No no Hawkeye only the new laws put in placed over the last decade or two had slow down the abused of women such as beatings and rapes.

Men are all lust driven animals.

Thanks gods that Fireflies type women who while not in relationships with evil men themselves still had taken the time to protected their abused sisters.

Before the changes if a woman had gotten drunk at a party and ended up in bed with a man she would not had normally had done so, would just had made a mental note to herself not to drink to that extend in the future but now she can cry rape as it is not her responsibility to control her drinking.

After all the guy should had known that she would not had consent to sex with such a loser if she had not been too drunk to grant valid consent.

So off to prison he should go............

The crazy years indeed.........
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 08:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Men are all lust driven animals.
Have you tried lust filled wild monkey sex lately?? Why are you knocking it?

Sex law must respect humanity, it must conform to who and what humans are, when it does not it is inhumane. Humans mix power into our sex, and I understand that the feminists are extremely pissed off about this and that they mean to put a stop to it, but frankly I dont give a flying **** what they want.... I decide who I am; I decide what I want; I decide and what I become....anyone who comes at me claiming that they have the right to decide for me can shove off, these scumbags are not worth my time because they dont posses the minimum level of respect for their peers reguired to run their mouths about what they want.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:08 am
@hawkeye10,
Here have have someone making a completely different point but they end up a the some place I do, which is deciding that the American "justice" system's sex law is an assault upon humanity

Quote:
The difficulty in getting Medicaid coverage for cases that qualify under the law as written demonstrates why building exceptions into abortion bans just doesn't work. The whole idea behind the "rape, incest, or medical emergency" exception is that the law can meaningfully divide women into virgin and whore categories, and allow the former to have the abortions they've earned by being good girls in pitiable situations (including women who fully intended to have their babies like good, Christian women, but who face health problems that prevent them from doing so) while making sure the filthy sluts who have sex for pleasure get their due punishment. But the categories of "virgin" and "whore" aren't as clear-cut as people who come up with these exceptions imagine. Anyone who observes the justice system's approach to rape can attest to this; behavior in the victim that may have seemed relatively innocuous before the rape suddenly looks like the height of dirty sluttitude when portrayed by the defense team, allowing juries to let accused rapists off because the victims were supposedly asking for it. (I got a powerful photo at SlutWalk NYC demonstrating how silly all this really gets.) Exceptions for how you got pregnant in abortion bans allow the person making the exception to preen about how they aren't trying to punish the good girls, but in reality almost no one gets to be a good enough girl to be considered a good girl. After all, we still have vaginas and sexual urges, exactly like those filthy sluts. The lines blur quickly.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/10/03/only_37_percent_of_women_who_qualify_for_medicaid_funded_abortio.html

Quote:
Rape exceptions are there to relieve anti-choice consciences more than they are there to make sure women in need get abortions. They demonstrate the futility of having outsiders who don't understand a woman's intimate situation trying to parse whether or not she deserves an abortion, whether or not she's put enough of a good faith effort into fitting their model of chaste womanhood to get the abortion she needs


They demonstrate the futility of having outsiders who don't understand a couple's intimate situation trying to parse whether or not the man deserves to be charged with rape, whether or not he's put enough of a good faith effort into fitting their model of none threatening male to get the sexual freedom he needs
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 07:52 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
I find it annoying that the feminists such as Firefly

Since I have repeatedly said I am not a feminist, it is quite clear you would rather deliberately lie and distort than honestly address the issues I have raised.
Given your blatant dishonesty, anything else you say on the topic cannot be considered credible.

You want to argue with feminists? Go right ahead, but cite the names of the feminists you are disagreeing with, and offer direct quotes from their writings or statements--otherwise, your comments are meaningless products of your imagination.

Assault laws, including sexual assault laws, are intended to protect one person from the harmful and unwanted actions of another person.

People have a right to prevent unwanted access to their bodies just as they have a right to prevent unwanted access to their property.



firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 09:10 am
@hawkeye10,
Again, you have misinterpreted the articles you posted. Unless you are suddenly in agreement with the view that the justice system is unfair and biased in its treatment of rape victims because it helps to promote the view that that the woman "asked for it". And such myths are what prompted this thread.
The article you posted said...
Quote:
Anyone who observes the justice system's approach to rape can attest to this; behavior in the victim that may have seemed relatively innocuous before the rape suddenly looks like the height of dirty sluttitude when portrayed by the defense team, allowing juries to let accused rapists off because the victims were supposedly asking for it.

The article says nothing about "sex law"--it refers to the type of tactics defense attorneys use to assail the characters of rape victims, and which feed into rape myths that a woman deserves to be raped, or "asked for it", because of her mode of dress, or drinking habits, or past sexual behaviors.

You also misinterpreted this statement...
Quote:
They demonstrate the futility of having outsiders who don't understand a woman's intimate situation trying to parse whether or not she deserves an abortion, whether or not she's put enough of a good faith effort into fitting their model of chaste womanhood to get the abortion she needs

That statement refers to outsiders trying to judge a woman's right to an abortion based on whether she fits into their standards of morality in her sexual conduct--something, according to the writer, that should not enter into a decision about whether a woman is entitled to an abortion.
Similarly, juries should not decide whether or not a woman was raped because of their moral view of her behavior.

But, look what you came up with Rolling Eyes
Quote:

They demonstrate the futility of having outsiders who don't understand a couple's intimate situation trying to parse whether or not the man deserves to be charged with rape, whether or not he's put enough of a good faith effort into fitting their model of none threatening male to get the sexual freedom he needs

An issue of possible sexual assault becomes, according to you, "a couple's intimate situation". So, the woman who is sexually assaulted on a street, or sexually assaulted by a man she just met in a bar, is suddenly part of a "couple" and in an "intimate situation"? Rolling Eyes

The main legal issue in determining whether a sexual assault took place is whether there was consent. Whether the man has violated the rape law by acting without consent.

It has nothing to do with giving a male "the sexual freedom he needs". No one, neither males nor females, has the "freedom" or the "right" to engage in unwanted or non-consenting sexual activity with another person. Once your behavior intrudes or impinges on the civil rights of others, you no longer have unbridled "freedom".

Your absurd sense of entitlement--to use other peoples' bodies--against their wishes--for your own sexual gratification--is mind -boggling.

When your sexual behavior involves another person, you no longer have the legal "freedom" to do whatever you want to do, unless the other person is freely willing and in agreement with you--they must be consenting.

And, if you don't like that, or you worry about criminal charges being lodged against you, just stick to masturbation.

The laws will not be altered to allow you to legally sexually assault someone because you find pesky details, like "consent", an impediment to your gratification of your sexual needs.

If you see property belonging to another person that you want, or even need, and you take it, without consent or permission, you are a thief. If you have sexual intercourse without the consent or permission of the other person, you are a rapist.

It's just that simple.

You resent the power of another person to deny you want you want--and you have voiced that resentment loud and clear throughout this thread. You may fancy yourself as a sexual freedom fighter but you sound more like a toddler who is throwing a temper tantrum because mommy just said you can't have a cookie, and, if you try to steal the cookie, you'll get spanked. Your thinking is really that juvenile. You resent a woman's power to say, "NO" to your sexual actions--toward her--and you blame feminists for their role in helping to codify that into law. Stop sulking, and grow up. Women have civil rights too--including the right not to be sexually assaulted, by you or anyone else.




0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 09:50 am
Interesting article from South Africa
Quote:
30 September 2011
Do men hold the key to fighting rape in South Africa?
By Mike Lanchin

BBC News spoke to Ronnie and Phikeleli, who have been taking part in the Men Against Violence workshop

"How many of you here have ever raped a woman?"

After a short silence two men gingerly raise their hands.

In towns and cities across South Africa, small groups of men, some of them confessed rapists, are meeting to talk about sexual violence, as part of a small but significant challenge to their country's notorious record on rape.

This workshop is gathered at a sports centre in the deprived Johannesburg township of Alexandra.

"Most men are silent about this," says Dumisani Rebombo, who is leading the workshop organised by the One Man Can Campaign.

But it is "vitally important" for men to play their part in tackling the rape crisis, he says.

Just as the participation of white people in the black struggle against apartheid in South Africa had added strength to that movement, men "must stand up and work with women" to combat rape, he told the BBC World Service.

"Do you think women are raped in our country because of wearing short skirts?" Mr Rebombo asks the group.

They reply with a mix of Yes and No - the Yes group a little louder than the other.

"Rape is about sleeping with a woman without her consent and I have done it," admits one of the men, 33-year-old Phikeleli.

"By coming here I have had the opportunity to sit down with other men and to discuss the issue of 'No is No' - and to understand exactly what rape is," he adds.

Another man told the BBC about a gang rape of a woman in his neighbourhood.

"The community said that she deserved it... It happens so often that it is not taken seriously by the community - it's a norm to them."

Though South Africa's murder rate has now fallen to its lowest level in recent years, rape is still on the increase, according to the latest official crime figures.

More than 56,000 women reported having been raped during the 12-month period to March 2011, police say. Many more cases are believed to go unreported.

Justice and society

Earlier this month President Jacob Zuma infuriated activists and many of the country's top lawyers by appointing an ordained pastor with controversial views on rape and homosexuality as the country's chief justice.

The workshop is trying challenge some of the root causes of rape

Judge Mogoeng Mogoeng, now South Africa's most senior judge, has denied he was insensitive to rape.

In 2004, however, he reduced the sentence of a man convicted of raping a seven-year-old girl from life imprisonment to 18 months, the minimum.

And a year later, he reduced the jail sentence of another man who attempted rape from five to two years.

In an interview with the BBC World Service, South Africa's Minister for Basic Education, Angie Motshekga, denied the authorities were doing too little to tackle the crime.

The rate of rape cases is "unacceptably high," says Mrs Motshekga.

But she says "the decadence in our society" is to blame, not the government.

"Kids come to school with social stereotypes, which are reinforced at home, in society, in the church - everywhere they go. It is a social problem."

"How many people we arrest isn't the solution, it lies with socialisation and our country's value system."

Saying sorry

Dumisani Rebombo is himself a confessed rapist who went one step further by seeking out his victim years later, in order to ask for her forgiveness.

He was 15 years old when he and another boy raped a girl in their village - "in order to teach her a lesson".

He said it took him 20 years to realise what he had done was wrong.

"It dawned on me that I had to find this woman," he said.

When they met, he apologised and she broke down in tears.

Dumisani Rebombo was racked by guilt after raping a woman

Three years later, he began organising workshops to talk about how to stop other men raping women.

"I would say all men have in one way or another raped," says Ronnie, a former convict and another member at the workshop.

Many of his fellow inmates were in jail for rape attacks.

"It's not easy for them to accept what they did was wrong," he says.

"It's all about power - men believe they have the right to do as they please."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15110750

Men everywhere, and not just in South Africa, may hold the key to fighting rape.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:34 am
@firefly,
Quote:
I am not a feminist, it is quite clear you would rather deliberately lie and distort than honestly address the issues I have raised.
Given your blatant dishonesty, anything else you say on the topic cannot be considered credible.


I question if many people reading your large body of postings would not label your not only a feminist but one on the nutty edge of that movement

You surely meet and excess any common understanding even if for some strange reason are not proud of belonging to that group.

Hell when the issue was granting women both equal rights and equal responsibilities and the passing of the ERA I consider myself a feminist supporter.

Sadly the movement had gone on to treating women as children in order to protected them from the evil men that surround them.


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:42 am
@firefly,
You and people like you efforts to redefine rape away from the test of whether force or the threat of force was use had done more harm then good in aiding victims of real rape instead of women who had regrets after consenting to sex.

Using the excuse of invalid consent because of such things as the women own voluntary drinking.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:00 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

You and people like you efforts to redefine rape away from the test of whether force or the threat of force was use had done more harm then good in aiding victims of real rape instead of women who had regrets after consenting to sex.

Using the excuse of invalid consent because of such things as the women own voluntary drinking.
it also does not help that she lies ...her song and dance about how rape has not changed, and that everyone knows what rape is and how horible it is.....
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 12:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
You know Hawkeye on the local news there was yesterday a reported of the sad case of a 19 years old good looking college girl who got herself drunk and ran her car into the back of a 68 years old woman automobile killing her.

Somehow we are holding this young lady totally responsibility for her actions under the influence.

Now if a male friend had been with her and knew she was too drunk to drive safety and yet still allowed her to drive away in her car he would had no criminal liability for the accident that took the older woman life.

We do not normally hold others responsible for the actions of an adult under the voluntary influence of drugs or alcohol however Firefly position is if this young woman would had said to this male friend of her I am horny and desire to have sex with you he would had been guilty of raping her if he would had gone along and she had regrets the next day.

Strangely he does not have a legal obligation to act as her guardian except when it come to having sex with him.

Sorry that is insane…………………a woman is either an adult who is responsible for her own actions under the influence or not under the influence or she is a child.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 12:57 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
he would had been guilty of raping her if he would had gone along and she had regrets the next day.

Can you cite a specific legal case where a woman freely and knowingly consented to sex, but had regrets the next day, and the male was convicted of rape?

I'd like to read the actual cases where this happened to support your fantasies about the workings of the law.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:19 pm
@firefly,
I had already posted on this thread such cases.

Oh the one that burn in my mind is the young West Point Cadet who was not convicted but still needed to go thought a full scale court marshal for rape because the drunken woman who after jumping into his bed while he was asleep regretted losing her virginity on her 18 birthday in such a manner the next day. In fact we even know the trigger that set her off it was her sister teasing her about being 18 and still being a virgin.

I am sure that did wonders for his military career even if he won at the court marshal.

There been similar cases that had been posted on this thread go look for them.

Last comment you had posted over and over and over that you wish men held responsible for daring to had sex with adult women under the voluntary influence if the woman had regret afterward so......................you are once more trying to be dishonest here.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 01:44 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:



We do not normally hold others responsible for the actions of an adult under the voluntary influence of drugs or alcohol however Firefly position is if this young woman would had said to this male friend of her I am horny and desire to have sex with you he would had been guilty of raping her if he would had gone along and she had regrets the next day.

Strangely he does not have a legal obligation to act as her guardian except when it come to having sex with him.

Sorry that is insane…………………a woman is either an adult who is responsible for her own actions under the influence or not under the influence or she is a child.


We also do not normally when we find after the fact that phsycological pressure has been applied by one side in a negotiation not only void the contract but make the applying of pressure a class A felony. If we did most salesmen would be locked-up. The feminists are making men selling ourselves to women for sex a crime....a huge penalty crime. This is flat out abuse of our rights to look after our interests.

Sex law is way different than is the rest of the law...it would have to be as the law generally aims for fairness but here we have the feminists using sex law as a tool of oppression......adjustments must be made.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 02:15 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I had already posted on this thread such cases.

You never posted a single case of a man who was convicted of rape because a woman, who freely and knowingly consented to sex, had regrets about it the next day.

And the West Point case did not lead to a conviction.

Regrets by the female, after the fact, are not grounds for a rape conviction.
The issue is consent--at the time the sex took place. In order to legally consent, one must be fully conscious and aware of what one is consenting to. Intoxicating substances, whether ingested voluntarily or not, impair cognitive functions such as judgment, awareness, perception, and even level of consciousness. They may also physically incapacitate the person and impair the ability to resist.

Do you think a lawyer would allow you to sign your Will if you were severely intoxicated?

You are engaging in victim blame--she got drunk, so she was "asking to be raped", at the same time you are ignoring the law regarding the definition of "consent" and the responsibility of the male to be aware of what the state sexual assault laws say.


mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 02:39 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The issue is consent--at the time the sex took place. In order to legally consent, one must be fully conscious and aware of what one is consenting to. Intoxicating substances, whether ingested voluntarily or not, impair cognitive functions such as judgment, awareness, perception, and even level of consciousness. They may also physically incapacitate the person and impair the ability to resist.


While I dont want to sound like Bill and Hawkeye, it is this passage right here that is,imho, causing the problem and creating the image of a double standard.

You have said, that one cannot give consent if they are drunk or otherwise intoxicated, so therefore they cannot consent to sex.
And if they cannor consent to sex, then it is rape.

However, using your argument, and taking it to an absurd level, how can a person ever be convicted of drunk driving, especially if they kill someone?
After all, if they were drunk, they were not capable of making the decision to drive, and cannot be held responsible for their actions.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 11:08:19