25
   

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

 
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
maybe I dont understand the definition of "plague".


Bingo!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
you are advocating for life sentences right?

Am I? That seems like quite a leap of logic. If one could, in fact, call that "logic," which I don't think one can.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:36 pm
@firefly,
Poor guy is sleeping in bed when a woman climbed into his bed waking him up and begin kissing him and because of our silly laws all that was needed to ruin this young man life was her regretting having sex later and claiming she had been drinking.

Such laws are crazy and an outrageous to all commons sense and fairness and the only fault is the woman not the guy in this case.

I can not see a duty to do a soberly test to a woman who sexual attacked you uninvited in your own bed no matter what the military laws or Firefly say or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Point Rape Trial Focuses on Female Cadet's Drinking
By FRANK BRUNI
Published: January 23, 1997
Twitter
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

WEST POINT, N.Y., Jan. 22— Testimony in the court-martial here of a male cadet charged with raping a female classmate focused today on the questions of precisely how drunk the 20-year-old woman was and, by implication, whether she had the ability to consent to a sexual act.

Prosecutors sought to prove that at a party the two cadets attended last Memorial Day weekend at a vacation cottage in Stockholm, N.J., the young woman was virtually incoherent, flopping against people and bumping into furniture.

But the attorneys defending the accused cadet, James P. Engelbrecht, a 22-year-old senior at the United States Military Academy here, elicited confirmation from witnesses that Cadet Engelbrecht, having retreated to a bunk bed in a back room of the cottage early that night, did not see the signs that the woman was severely intoxicated.

Defense attorneys also elicited observations from witnesses that the young woman was acting flirtatiously with various people at the party, testimony clearly meant to bolster Cadet Engelbrecht's contention that the woman came to his bed and initiated a sexual encounter.

And it became clear that the decision of the all-male jury of seven senior Army officers could boil down a delicate question of law: If a woman is too drunk to know what she is doing, but a man is not aware of that, can he be guilty of rape? Military regulations suggest that he can, but the military judge's instructions to the jury on the point will be crucial.

Witnesses said the young woman drank steadily through the evening of May 24 and into the early hours of May 25, which was her birthday.

''At one point, it looked like she was going to walk into a wall,'' said Jenny A. Ligon, a college student in Lubbock, Tex., who attended the party. At another point, Ms. Ligon testified, ''I was concerned because it looked like she was going to throw up.''

But Cadet Daniel D. Cox said he saw Cadet Engelbrecht and the woman together in the top of a bunk bed at about 1:30 A.M., and that the woman seemed fully conscious.

Cadet Cox and other witnesses also affirmed that there was somebody in the bottom bunk of the bedroom all night long, and that people wandered into the room, details relevant to a second charge against Cadet Engelbrecht for committing an indecent act. Under military law, having sex with someone in a place where others might be present constitutes an indecent act.

Other witnesses vouched for the the fact that the woman was a virgin before that night.

The woman's sister recounted getting a call from her less than 12 hours after the incident and wishing her a happy birthday. ''I said, 'Howdoes it feel to be the only 20-year-old virgin on the face of the earth?' '' the sister recalled. The cadet immediately burst into tears, she said.




hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:53 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Am I? That seems like quite a leap of logic. If one could, in fact, call that "logic," which I don't think one can.
I dont know, because you are being coy. You say that society as an interest in taking rapists off the streets but you will not say why. I can see that society has an interest in reducing rape, how does prison help do that? If all you do is put them in prison for ten years you dont do much of anything, all you get is 1/6 of their lives where they dont rape free people, because during this time if they rape they only rape convicts. after that they are back amongst us. Is this the beginning and the end of your plan to end rape?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:12 pm
@Intrepid,
One of the problems with date rape is that people start saying things like, "Why didn't she fight back?", or "She said no, but she really meant yes". That's why this discussion would not have stopped at page 2 of this thread.

There seems to be a real resistance to acknowledging that the problem of date rape even occurs, and both men and women may engage in this sort of denial.

This is the "date rape" law in NYS

Quote:

Rape 3rd & Sodomy 3rd. Penal Law 130.25 and 130.40 – Class E felonies.

1. Sexual intercourse,

2. without consent

3. where the lack of consent is not due to "incapacity to consent." That is, the victim actually expresses lack of consent by words and/or actions during the incident. Use of force is not required. No means no.

The new definition of lack of consent in Penal Law 130.05(2) adds "circumstances under which at the time of intercourse, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the [defendant’s] situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances."
http://www.correctionhistory.org/northcountry/html/knowlaw/sarasummary3.htm


She doesn't have to fight back. The rapist doesn't have to use force. All she has to do is say, "No" or "Stop" or "I don't want to do that" or shove, or push, or try to leave. That is lack of consent. The man who ignores that, and penetrates her body anyway, has raped her.

In the lack of any additional evidence (bruising, ripped clothing, broken furniture,etc.), this becomes a she-said, he-said situation. If brought to trial it will hinge on who is more credible, the man or the woman. Because these are weak cases for a prosecutor to get a conviction on, they are rarely brought to trial, despite the fact that women are being raped. Even where evidence may exist, the man can claim she wanted "rough sex". Again, the issue is credibility.

So general attitudes that raise doubts about any woman's credibility regarding a rape allegation, become even more problematic when they are shared by potential jurors who may be biased before they even hear the case.

In some rape trials, such as the highly publicized 1991 trial of William Kennedy Smith in Florida, other women, who also claimed to have been raped by the defendant, although they did not report those rapes, came forward and wanted to testify about their experiences. This could have helped to establish a pattern of behavior on the part of Smith, and could have helped the jury to assess the credibility of the accuser. However, the trial judge refused to allow such testimony. Was that fair? Perhaps not.

It is easy to understand why women who might have been raped by a member of the powerful and influential Kennedy family might have been reluctant to report their rapes. It is hard enough for a woman to get someone to believe her about such things, and the Kennedys have power and influence. The woman who brought the allegation in the Smith case had told a friend that while she was shouting for help, that Sen. Ted Kennedy stood by watching and doing nothing. There were even questions about whether Sen. Kennedy had tried to exert influence in his nephew William's legal case.

But, once one woman went public in the Smith case, the other women felt empowered to come forward to tell their stories. Rape tends to be an offense which is repeated. So knowledge of a prior pattern of possible rape behavior might be germane in a rape trial, and might help to reinforce the accusing woman's credibility. I would rather see such witnesses be allowed to testify, and to be cross-examined by the defense attorney. Then, allow the jury to make up their own minds.

I watched the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, it was televised. The accuser, Patricia Bowman, was a very credible witness. Kennedy was found Not Guilty at trial, but, in the court of public opinion, many felt he was guilty, as many felt O.J. was guilty, and it was a controversial verdict. Partly this was due to the fact that those 3 other women were not allowed to testify. But if the jury was not convinced, they were right to acquit him.

It is worthwhile to consider what Patricia Bowman was put through after she brought charges against Smith:

Quote:
NEWS RELEASE

04/15/92

CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558

Bowman lambastes media for invading her privacy
STANFORD -- In their race for scoops and rating points, the news media brutally and consistently violate the basic rights of rape victims to privacy and protection, and force them not to report sexual assaults to legal authorities, an alleged rape victim told a Stanford audience on April 13.

Patricia Bowman, who testified against William Kennedy Smith in the televised Palm Beach rape trial last December, talked about "Surviving the Media: A Victim's Perspective" at Kresge Auditorium. Her talk was the first of a series of events sponsored by the Stanford Rape Education Project, as a part of Rape Awareness Week. An audience of more than 100 women and men gave her a lengthy standing ovation.

Since Smith was acquitted, Bowman has launched a public campaign for victims' rights. On Monday, she urged her listeners to call media decision-makers and tell them the public does not want to know the names of rape victims or intimate details about their private lives.

"They say that we, the public, want to know this kind of information," Bowman said. "In all my travels and conversations I never met anyone who agrees with that. Speak up; let your voice be heard. Help yourself by helping us stop the unnecessary further victimization of rape victims.

"Some of you have known me as the woman who testified behind the 'blue blob' in the rape trial. Many of you got to know me as Patricia Bowman, after my name was published, without my consent, by several media organizations, simply because I was a victim of crime. Others may know me because I made a personal decision to go public and talk about the crime that was committed against me."

Bowman said that going public has been very difficult for her but that she feels it was the right thing to do. Still, she has come to realize the extent to which "the truth can become an easily manipulated set of facts in the criminal justice system." Working for justice makes the decision to go public worthwhile, she said.

"Until March 13, 1991, I believed, like most of you, in some simple, common American values: truth, justice, humanity and the American way," she said. "On that day, I was sexually assaulted, and all that belief system was shattered.

"The rape destroyed me, physically and emotionally. I felt humiliated. I lost my ability to trust, my ability to hope, my ability to feel safe. I cried and cried. I had nightmares. I was placed on medication.

"A survey of rape victims showed that victims suffered the most intense anxiety within 6 to 10 days after the assault. I, however, wasn't given six days by the media," Bowman said.

"Within 48 hours of the assault committed against me, I heard car doors slam outside my door. The door bell rang. The telephone rang. Satellite trucks were outside my home. I was under siege. I was terrified. I knew that if the media had found me, the man who assaulted me could find me too."

News people were in her street, in her yard, on her property, day and night, making her and her daughter's life unbearable, Bowman said.

Tears in her eyes, she described the impact on her 1-year old daughter.

"She had to see her mommy get into the trunk of her grandmother's car, just to leave home," Bowman said. "And she has seen them, the strangers in the street, the strangers outside her bedroom window. A year after it all began, we still lock each and every window in our home, and we scare the monsters away, so my daughter can go to sleep."

The New York Times, one of the organizations that revealed Bowman's name in the beginning of the ordeal, told its readers everything there was to know about her daughter's bedroom, including the titles of her children's books, Bowman said.

"These books are kept on bookshelves in her room," Bowman said, "and the titles of the books are only visible by trespassing my property and looking through a 1-year-old's bedroom window.

"How does a traumatized mother explain this to her child? How do the people who victimized my family explain this to themselves?"

The media's invasion into her life went on for months, Bowman said.

"A few months after the assault, I was cooking in my kitchen, and my sister, who lived 2,000 miles away from me, called to tell me what I was wearing that night, because she saw me cooking in my kitchen on national TV," Bowman said.

"Why did the Times publish my name on April 17? Because the public had the right to know? What did the public have the right to know? Does the media have the right to force the non- reporting of sexual assault crimes based on the supposed 'right to know'? Does the media have the right to impede the recovery process of rape victims? Does the media have the right to impede justice?

"The press has a powerful tool in its hands, and this tool should be used in the spirit of the First Amendment, as a fundamental right to cherish a free and right society, not as a weapon used against that society," she said.

"Over one million women were raped last year. Statistics show that one of four women will be the victim of some form of sexual assault. It can be acquaintance rape, date rape or stranger rape. Anyway, it is still rape.

"I received many letters from elderly women, who were raped in their teens and never told anybody about it. This has to stop. Rape victims, and crime victims of all sorts, should have the right to recover, and they should have the right to tell just what they want, to whom they want, when they want," she said.

"I had to postpone my ability to enforce these rights because of the media's intense, inhuman involvement with my life. No victim should have to go through what I went through."
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920415Arc2287.html


And that was almost 20 years ago. No woman would have subjected herself to what went along with bringing that rape charge against Smith unless she was absolutely sure she had been raped.

Dominick Dunne has a very interesting article on the case that begins this way, with a question to Patricia Bowman
Quote:
“One of the most asked questions about you is, What was she doing in a bar at three o’clock in the morning?”

“Yes, I was out late with friends, but so was he. The issue of what I was doing at three in the morning has nothing to do with what happened to me from that man.”


you can read the entire article here
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/dunne199203

Aside from the fact this case involved a Kennedy, it was an allegation that described a fairly typical date rape scenario. Two people meet at a bar, they go back to a house to talk and....she says he raped her, he says it was consensual.
And it exposes all the problems involved with this sort of case, and with trying to address the problem of date rape.



BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
One of the problems with date rape is that people start saying things like, "Why didn't she fight back?", or "She said no, but she really meant yes". That's why this discussion would not have stopped at page 2 of this thread.


Or she climbed into his bed uninvited and some people dare to consider that not rape. LOL
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:24 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Panzade wrote:
Men and the American public in general have to start grasping the fact that rape is an insidious plague


Quote:
It is? It is reported that rapes per capita are down 85% over the last 25 years.....maybe I dont understand the definition of "plague".


Does that account for the number of unreported rapes? Does it account only for the fact that more rapes may not be reported?

Strange that you should refer to it as an industry.


Why do you just babble on and not answer questions that are asked of you. Oh, wait... Doesn't have an answer that fits his sick agenda.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:28 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I watched the Kennedy rape trial, it was televised. The accuser, Patricia Bowman, was a very credible witness. Kennedy was found Not Guilty at trial, but, in the court of public opinion, many felt he was guilty, as many felt O.J. was guilty, and it was a controversial verdict. Partly this was due to the fact that those 3 other women were not allowed to testify. But if the jury was not convinced, they were right to acquit him.

It is worthwhile to consider what Patricia Bowman was put through after she brought charges against Smith:


Tell me firefly had you ever come to the conclusion that any woman who had level a charge of rape was not being truthful? One woman in your life that your question her truthfullness?

Lord being able to get a rape conviction against a Kennedy would be like winning the superball lottery.

Poor Dr. Kennedy found no guilty but he still need to put up with the kind of nonsense you had just posted.

Any male charge by any woman even if he is found not guilty must be guilty anyway in your very sick world view.

I sure that the Duke players rape that hooker also in your opinion.


hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:01 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
Why do you just babble on and not answer questions that are asked of you
I am not your research assistant, however considering that the percent of rapes that are reported is said the be holding steady or trending slightly up I dont think it matters if this number is based upon reported rapes or the guess of the total number of rapes. If you do care then go find out.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:10 pm
Quote:
Yet, with the blessing of the government and various feminists, some important legal safeguards have been eroded in rape cases and the burden of proof has been reversed. Rather than the prosecutor having to prove that the woman did not consent, the defendant now must prove that the woman did consent.

Women are done no favours by these changes. They are being treated as feeble dimwits who have constantly to be asked for their consent, to be checked on every step of the way to make sure they’re okay. It is curious that self-described feminists are propounding such a paternalistic view of women as unable to make their own minds up, as too weak and silly to say ‘no’ to men, and as putting themselves at risk by drinking and flirting and potentially knocking out their critical faculties, leading them to wake up in a strange bed without having first given their ‘active consent’.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8319/

Yep.
Quote:
Today, various rape-awareness activists and state feminists are themselves helping to blur the boundaries between sex and rape, encouraging women to regard themselves as violated, abused and traumatised for having gone to bed with a man without thinking it through in minute detail.



The Sexual Offences Act 2003 declared that consent must be ‘active, not passive’; in rape cases, consent is now taken to mean agreement rather than the absence of a refusal. So if a woman goes along with sex, but doesn’t make it explicitly clear that she is actively consenting to it, it can be deemed to be rape. The government has even moved towards ensuring that no agreement can be taken as consent if it is given under the influence of alcohol. As Cavendish pointed out: ‘In our zeal to protect women, are we going to legislate so that a drunken man is accountable for his deeds, but a drunken woman is not? Why do we encourage women to see themselves as victims?’ Absolving women who engage in sexual liaisons – whether drunk or sober – of responsibility for their actions is not liberating; it’s demeaning.

yep


This message has been a public service towards the education of the a2k dimwits who insist that the views that I voice are not supported by any normal people.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I can see that society has an interest in reducing rape, how does prison help do that?

How does prison help society by putting away people who commit assault? How does prison help society by putting away people who commit murder?

hawkeye10 wrote:
If all you do is put them in prison for ten years you dont do much of anything, all you get is 1/6 of their lives where they dont rape free people, because during this time if they rape they only rape convicts. after that they are back amongst us. Is this the beginning and the end of your plan to end rape?

Did I say I have a plan to end rape? I don't believe that I did. I said that imprisoning rapists protects the general population of society.

You have a severe case of Strawmanitis.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:37 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
How does prison help society by putting away people who commit assault? How does prison help society by putting away people who commit murder?
I have a good suspicion that the primary reason the feminists have worked so hard to try to reframe rape from being a sex act to being a violence act is just so people would buy the suggested remedy, which is treating it like the run of the mill non crimes of passion. The feminists have not had a whole lot of success however, I think because their claim is not plausible, and it does not change that the criminal system is not very effective at regulating individual passions.

However, once the feminists pushed to change to rules from making rape a crime where the defendant is presumed innocent like for every other crime to where the defendant is required to prove his innocents they pretty much distroyed their argument that rape is just another crime. It is by their own admission a very special crime, requiring special rules.
DrewDad
 
  6  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Is the criminal justice system designed to regulate individual passions? Deary me, I thought it was designed to punish.

And your description of rape as a sex act pretty much tells us all we need to know about you....
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:48 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I thought it was designed to punish.

we live in dark times, so a lot of people believe this to be true. Once upon a time these places were called "correctional facilities" and they were charged with rehabilitating individuals, giving those who had done the collective wrong the opportunity for redemption. Look it up, it is true. You will be amazed I am sure.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:52 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Is the criminal justice system designed to regulate individual passions? Deary me, I thought it was designed to punish.

And your description of rape as a sex act pretty much tells us all we need to know about you....
AMEN AND AMEN!
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:00 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
One of the problems with date rape is that people start saying things like, "Why didn't she fight back?", or "She said no, but she really meant yes". That's why this discussion would not have stopped at page 2 of this thread.


Strange I had not seen one comment on this thread like you are claiming is a problem in the altitude of men toward rape You are setting up straw dogs and that is kind both a silly and dishonest thing to be doing.

Now however below are problems with our laws that had been express here.

Woman jump into a man bed and the later regret losing her virginity and he is now a rapist for some reason.

Man take longer then 7 seconds to withdraw after consent had been revoke and for his is a rapist.

Man did not take a comment by the woman that she will have to leaving as revoking permission right away and now he is a rapist.

BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:03 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
And your description of rape as a sex act pretty much tells us all we need to know about you....


Oh so that West pointer with the woman jumping into his bed was not having an act of sex with her?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:13 pm
@BillRM,
Bill, Bill, Bill, you will never learn. You are not allowed the question the theory of "date rape"....I am not sure that anyone has seriously attempted it since James Tedeschi and Richard Felson, 'Aggression and Coercive Actions: A Social-Interactionist Perspective in 1994, and they were promptly crucified. From an article on the work:
Quote:
The key point is that persuasion is not the same as coercion. Felson notes that a majority of college women who described date-rape experiences did not describe themselves as frightened or intimidated; at most, they described the experience as unpleasant. Felson cites studies showing that many people, including men, claim that they engage in sex when they don't really wish to for a variety of reasons, including a desire to please the other person, wishing to avoid making a scene or feeling obligated. In fact, even the famous Koss study found that about half of the alleged victims continued to have sex at later times with the "rapist," and that the majority -- 73 percent -- of these "victims" did not consider themselves raped.

A problem, says Felson, is that some researchers use the terms "coercive" or "assaultive" to describe any attempts at persuasion that they personally find objectionable. (Some feminists, for example, believe that any sexual activity not initiated by a woman is rape.) But value judgments can't replace scientific analysis: "False promises of love and badgering may be obnoxious or morally repugnant, but they are not coercive. Giving alcohol to someone is not coercive, although coercion may follow if sexual relations are forced on a person who is incapacitated or unconscious," writes Felson.

But that position makes some researchers see red. "No means no," Prentky says angrily, "in all situations, under all circumstances." He adds that feeling pressured or obligated is the same as feeling threatened or intimidated. "Respecting and honoring a woman means respecting and honoring her no."

According to Prentky, even in cases where women offer token resistance -- saying no when they mean yes -- the "no" should be taken at face value. But Felson and others counter that in the complex world of male-female communication about sex, things are rarely so simple. In fact, a large number of women who were defined as rape victims in the Koss survey and in other studies describe their experiences as resulting from "miscommunication." In a majority of these cases, in fact, the rape occurred while the couple was engaged in consensual sexual acts.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n36_v10/ai_15794136/pg_3/?tag=content;col1

THERE WILL BE NO MORE QUESTIONING OF THE DOGGMA...DO YOU UNDERSTAND!
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:17 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
And your description of rape as a sex act pretty much tells us all we need to know about you....


Oh so that West pointer with the woman jumping into his bed was not having an act of sex with her?
That is NOT my quote.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why do you just babble on and not answer questions that are asked of you
I am not your research assistant, however considering that the percent of rapes that are reported is said the be holding steady or trending slightly up I dont think it matters if this number is based upon reported rapes or the guess of the total number of rapes. If you do care then go find out.


As usual, you make unfounded claims and then can't back them up and use some stupid excuse that you are not the researcher. Then why post the crap in the first place?

The reason that I care is that you, once again, cannot backup what you say. Once again, you show yourself to be without substance and lack the intelligence to even know what you are saying. Pathetic.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 03/28/2025 at 02:27:31