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

@Builder,

Quote:

You've posted misinformation articles, and hearsay,

So you are so far over the bend that you are willing to try to denial information contained in news sources all over the web?

The Heraldsun is not a good source and Judge W. Osmond Smith III did not rule as they claimed in the Duke matter?

USnews is also not a good source of information either and is making up facts in your opinion?

Caleb Warner was not kicked out of the University of North Dakota on the word of a woman who needed to flee from a charge of making a false police report over her claims?

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture

In January 2010, University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student. A UND tribunal determined that Warner was guilty of misconduct, and he was swiftly suspended from school and banned from setting foot on campus for three years. Yet the police – presented with the same evidence – were so unconvinced of Warner's guilt that they refused to bring criminal charges against him. Instead, they charged his accuser with filing a false report and issued a warrant for her arrest. Warner's accuser fled town and failed to appear to answer the charges.

Despite these developments, the university repeatedly rejected Warner's requests for a rehearing. Finally, a year and a half later, UND reexamined Warner's case and determined that their finding of guilt was "not substantiated" – but only after the civil liberties group FIRE intervened and launched a national campaign on Warner's behalf.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Oh take note the "victim" who is on the run from the law, charge with making false charges, name is not in the USNEWS article however the real victim of false charges full name is given.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

If just one person reconsiders abusing or assaulting or raping another human being, then isn't that worth the effort of sharing information and case histories?

Or are you as heartless and inhumane as rapists themselves?

Do you really think that if a real rapist reads this thread they're just going to stop raping? Really?

There's nothing constructive going on in this thread. I've tried to be constructive, and then I get attacked. Looking for solutions is much more constructive than throwing a pity party.

And the title is "Hey, can a WOMAN ask to be raped?" not exactly gender neutral for something that's supposedly inclusive of men also. Far as I can tell, all this thread is doing is fanning the flames of contempt for men and male sexuality; presenting men as merely predatory and presenting male sexuality as only hostile, abusive, and sleazy.

1 Reply

@nononono,

Quote:

There's nothing constructive going on in this thread.

I dont agree, this thread gets a lot of interest from lurkers, this is clearly a subject that is interesting to some people. We dont know why, but hopefully they are getting the idea that the reality of sexual assault and of sex law is different from what is advertised by the establishment ( to include the media). How often do you get to read views that deviate from the Feminists storyline? Not bloody often.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye, it might be helpful to lower the legal drinking age back to 18 under the theory that it will reduced binge drinking in colleges and therefore drunken sex that the Fireflies of the world are defining as rape whether the sex is consensus or not.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Hawkeye, it might be helpful to lower the legal drinking age back to 18 under the theory that it will reduced binge drinking in colleges and therefore drunken sex that the Fireflies of the world are defining as rape whether the sex is consensus or not.

YEP, and decriminalizing teen sex would help too. We treat youth like helpless kids so they never get to practice taking care of themselves, is it any wonder that they go to university unprepared? This alleged rape epidemic is really almost all about confused consent, because these people dont know how to handle themselves. We set this up. If they were drinking at home and having sex at home before they went to university they would have had a chance to practice up. This business of young women getting hammered on booze, and laying on the sexual messaging as they do it, often compounding the problem by going home with guys who want to **** them ( and they know it, and they love that guys want them) is all about not knowing how to behave. The guys who get into the same room alone with these idiot females and thus invite the feminists hammer after the female has regrets in the morning is also about not knowing how to behave.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Builder is right--you are posting misinformation.

First you cite a case at Duke which was reported and adjudicated for misconduct in '2010, and then you claim it reflects current federal policies which were instituted in 2014.

Then you go on to make a totally inaccurate statement.

Quote:

Basic human rights such as basic legal protections as the right to face your accuser or have a lawyer or the right to have any misdeed proven by at the very least the preponderance of the evidence not just more likely then not, that is being denial to young men in colleges hearings mandated by the federal government?

You are confusing "basic human rights" with civil rights, particularly the right to due process which is afforded to those defendants accused of crimes in the criminal justice system. Except, colleges are not charging students with crimes, they are charging them with violations of the school's code of conduct, which is a very different matter.

Who says the accused can't retain or consult a lawyer?

Since this is not a criminal proceeding, why should a college be bound by the exact same legal standards as would operate in a court of law?

Were this matter handled in the criminal justice system, the charge might well be a felony, which could carry time in prison, and which could leave the defendant with a permanent criminal record, so greater legal protections are needed in that case. But the maximum punishment a college can give, for a violation of their code of conduct, is expulsion from their campus, and there is no criminal record for the guilty party. Compared to the criminal justice system, that's little more than a slap on the wrist for something that might be a felony crime. That alone justifies different procedures, and a different standard of proof, because its treated as an internal matter within the college or university.

Quote:

the right to have any misdeed proven by at the very least the preponderance of the evidence not just more likely then not

You clearly don't know what you are talking about--the current standard of proof used by colleges is "by a preponderance of the evidence"--and legally that is exactly the same as "more likely than not".

This is from the article you posted.

Quote:

Since April 2011, the Department of Education has required institutions to consider cases of sexual misconduct under a "preponderance of evidence" standard (rather than a higher "clear and convincing" standard, which was commonly used prior to the new guidelines). This means that if a majority of committee members believe it is just slightly more likely than not that a sexual assault occurred, they must side with the accuser.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture

So the colleges are already using a standard of proof you claim would be satisfactory.

And "a preponderance of the evidence" is exactly the same standard of proof required in a civil court case--if the accuser chose to bring a civil case against the accused for a sexual assault.

There is no reason to demand that a college adhere to, or duplicate, all procedures which would be followed in a criminal court of law--they are not adjudicating crimes.

And there is no reason, at all, to assume these are "kangaroo courts"--which operate irresponsibly, or mock justice for those accused. It is grossly unfair to assume unethical conduct on the part of colleges, designed to disadvantage those accused, to increase the likelihood of a guilty finding--which is what a kangaroo court means. If anything, the outpouring of Title IX complaints, suggests these matters, for the complainants involved, have often been mishandled in the past, resulting in little justice for those alleging sexual assault. Improving procedures is more likely to benefit everyone involved. The ultimate goal is to reduce this type of campus crime.

Quote:

Can not prove any misdeed had been done in real courts where basic human rights are protected so the Federal government in backing it war on young men by forcing Universities to set up kangaroo "courts".

The characterization of a "war on young men" is totally unjustified, as is the contention that this is being done because these "misdeeds" can not be proved in "real courts". For one thing, the accuser can still choose to take the complaint to the police, and have the matter handled in a "real court". And, the alternative of having the matter handled only by the college, rather than law enforcement, spares the accused greater publicity, high legal costs, and the possibility of a jail sentence and a permanent criminal record, if convicted.

And, as is evident from the Duke case you posted, those accused can seek recourse in the courts if they feel they have been treated unfairly by the university.

So your entire argument about an alleged "war on men" is both full of holes and inaccuracies. It's mostly a political propaganda line being promoted by conservatives, seemingly as a retort to the Democrats' contention of a Republican war on women. Trying to hold sexual predators accountable for their actions is a war on crime everyone should be supporting.

Most importantly, you completely ignore the fact that the government regards sexual assaults as a safety issue on campus. You mischaracterize this as a "war on young men" because you chose to ignore the fact that the females who lodge sexual assault complaints are alleging they have been the victim of a crime--an assaultive crime.

So safety is a paramount issue, particularly because both the complainant and the accused remain on the same campus while the case is being investigated and decided, which can subject a complainant to retaliation, trauma, anxiety, harassment, etc. because she may continue to be around the person who assaulted her, or friends of that person, who may try to get her to withdraw her complaint or disparage her for lodging the complaint.

Because a campus is an enclosed environment, it presents different challenges in dealing with matters of this sort, and it is important that the college protect the welfare and well being of the alleged victim throughout the entire process. It's important that the college provide an unbiased investigation and adjudication process, for the benefit of everyone involved.

And, part of the reason this matter is receiving current attention from the federal government is directly related to the safety issue, and the failure on the part of colleges to provide the government with accurate statistics on campus crimes, in order to make their campuses seem safer than might actually be the case.

You must agree with George Will that victims enjoy a "coveted" and "privileged" status, since you go to great lengths to promote men as a victimized group, and you've done that throughout this this thread. But, the fact is that men are the primary gender group committing sexual assaults on college campuses, so attempts to dodge that reality are really rather absurd.

I repeat...Trying to hold sexual predators accountable for their actions is a war on crime everyone should be supporting.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

because she may continue to be around the person who assaulted her, or friends of that person, who may try to get her to withdraw her complaint or disparage her for lodging the complaint.

The recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion protests eliminates this argument, as this is a constitutionally protected right. So long as you are not touched people have the right to come up to you and advocate that you either do or do not do something. What you actually do is up to you, so you have not been harmed.

Quote:

Trying to hold sexual predators accountable for their actions is a war on crime everyone should be supporting.

the university standards being imposed by Washington is about punishing guys that the university guesses violated some nebulous consent parameters. There may be a few sexual predators caught in the nets, but this has nothing to do with sexual predators other than this oppression of men uses the claimed existence of sexual predators in its sales snow job.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I do not normally read Firefly anymore but is she expressing worry that friends of the accuse might try to talk a woman into dropping charges?

Odds as she had never express any problem when a woman is pressure/talk into pressing charges when she was not inclined to do so in the first place.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I do not normally read Firefly anymore but is she expressing worry that friends of the accuse might try to talk a woman into dropping charges?

Odds as she had never express any problem when a woman is pressure/talk into pressing charges when she was not inclined to do so in the first place.

remember that according to the feminists those who take the sexual victim label are not to be questioned. To do so they claim is to re-abuse them! Drunk

Nifty racket if people dumb enough to go along with this can be found, and apparently they can be.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

To do so they claim is to re-abuse them!

Hell that the very reason given for not allowing a male college student the very basic right to confront his female accuser in those kangaroo courts, is so not to re-traumatize the "victim".

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
To do so they claim is to re-abuse them!

Hell that the very reason given for not allowing a male college student the very basic right to confront his female accuser in those kangaroo courts, is so not to re-traumatize the "victim".

the feminists are working hard to keep the one who claims to be a victim from needing to subject themselves to examination in real courts on the same grounds. It has been the standard for almost a decade that sexual assault victims dont need to sit in a courtroom and be examined by the defense as any other witness must do. Remember just a few days ago Firefly was giving this as the rational for the state lying in charges that could end up to something like 700 years in prison. We see this method from the state in plea dealing for other crimes too, the state goes for an oversized hammer against one of us citizens in the attempt to bully us into not exercising our constitutional rights. There was never more proof that our government has become abusive, any government that tries to bully its citizens into giving up rights is a malignant government.

BTW: the state has a lot of nerve writing anti-bully laws for us common folk, given that it is THE WORST abuser of the practice.

0 Replies

Quote:

PROVIDENCE — Two Brown University football players who have been under investigation by Providence police in the alleged sexual assault of a Providence College student were ordered to leave campus just before finals week.
The Brown football players, then freshmen, were accused by the female student, also then a freshman, of sexually assaulting her while she was incapacitated in a Brown dorm room in November 2013.
The Providence police are working with the state attorney general’s office to determine whether the case will go to a state grand jury, Providence police Major David A. Lapatin said.
(The Providence Journal’s policy is not to name rape victims. The alleged perpetrators have not been criminally charged and therefore are not being identified.)
While the alleged assault occurred in November, a Brown University spokeswoman said the university didn’t become aware of the complaint until Brown’s public-safety officials alerted them to the criminal investigation shortly after the student filed a complaint with Providence police on Feb. 13.
The Brown spokeswoman declined to explain what happened between the time the university learned of the investigation in February and its late April decision to remove the students from campus.
“The university considers first and foremost the safety of the campus and we make decisions in a timely way based on the best information available,” Marisa A. Quinn, a Brown spokeswoman, said.
The Providence College student, then 18, alleges in her complaint that she was with friends at the former Louie’s Tavern on Douglas Avenue Nov. 21, where she met with the two Brown students. (City license regulators revoked the bar’s liquor license later that month, citing violations including underage drinking.)
While at the bar, she had one shot of alcohol and then only water, but “felt that she was drugged,” she told police. “Her arms and body fell limp,” the police report said.
She told the police she was carried out of the bar and placed in a taxi by one of the two Brown students. She said she woke up in a Brown dorm room bed and was being asked to perform sex on one of the Brown students, the police report said.
The other Brown student photographed the sexual act, the female student’s lawyer wrote in a court document, and later circulated the photo on the Internet.
The young woman went to a hospital the night after the alleged assault, and later spoke with a sexual-assault advocate at Providence College, according to the police report.
Nine days after the student filed the police complaint, Providence College officials issued a “No Tresspass” order against the Brown students, according to the court documents.
A Providence College spokesman declined to discuss specifics of the case, saying the college “respects the privacy and confidentiality of our students.”
“We take very seriously any report of a sexual assault involving one of our students, no matter where or when the assault allegedly occurred,” Steven Maurano, the Providence College spokesman, said. “We encourage our students to report any such incident to the police and offer to assist them in doing so….”
On Feb. 18, on the advice of a victims’ advocate, the Providence College student filed a request in Superior Court for a restraining order against the two Brown students.
“I am in fear of them and retaliation from both…” she wrote.
The accused students remained at Brown through the spring semester while the case was being investigated until April 30, when Brown ordered them to leave campus, “apparently in light of the pending sexual assault investigation,” John R. Grasso, a Providence lawyer representing one of the Brown students, said in court documents.
Brown made arrangements to allow his client to finish his work from home, Grasso told The Providence Journal Thursday.
“I’m not happy at the way Brown handled it at all,” Grasso said. “Guilty until proven innocent. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.”
On May 19, a week after exams ended, Grasso filed a civil complaint in Superior Court against the Providence College student, stating that she had made “false and defamatory statements” about his client “in reckless disregard of the truth…” As a result, he stated, his client “has been and will continue to be significantly damaged.”
Her lawyer, Thomas G. Briody, of Providence, declined comment.
Superior Court Judge Luis Matos dismissed the complaint.
Both the Brown students are still enrolled at the college and still are shown on the university’s website as members of its 2014 football roster.

http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140613-2-brown-university-football-players-accused-of-sexual-assault-ordered-off-campus.ece

this sounds like a lie....should be a simple matter that if the woman wants to claim that she was drugged she needs to get her blood drawn ASAP, not 24 hours later. I dont know of drugs that work in plain water or in shots, Ambien for instance is very bitter in water, dont think it dissolves in alcohol. Valium certainly does not dissolve in alcohol.

EDIT: Rohypnol is detectable for a month in hair, I hope the establishment took a sample so that the guys can prove their innocence, if they are indeed innocent. Seems to me that if a woman wants to claim drugs she should need to document at least that she has drugs in her body. THen we can talk about how they got there.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

hopefully they are getting the idea that the reality of sexual assault and of sex law is different from what is advertised by the establishment

Well, they won't get that reality from reading your posts. Have you ever posted any actual sexual assault laws? Have you even read them?

I have posted the actual sexual assault laws, earlier in this thread, and I posted them from several states, including the definitions of "consent" contained in those laws. In fact, one purpose of this thread, for me, has been to disseminate accurate information about exactly what those laws say. There was considerable misinformation being posted regarding what these laws actually say, and by posting the accurate information, and the exact laws, I feel this thread served an important educational service.

The reality of what those sexual assault laws actually contain has little or nothing to do with feminist thinking, or feminist philosophy, or control of men, or any of the other issues you continually harp about in support of your paranoid conspiracy theories. In fact, the entire issue of feminism is really irrelevant to the topic of sexual assault laws, laws which are passed by predominantly male state legislatures, and laws which are designed to reflect community values and morality, including those of the religious conservatives, and laws which are designed to deter and punish certain types of crimes.

While one can point to the clear influence of certain lobbying groups, like the NRA, on gun control legislation, you have yet to provide a single example of feminist lobbying directly influencing sexual assault legislation. Your delusional speculations about some murky feminist/government conspiracy remain totally unsupported by facts.

The crimes of sexual assault, like all other crimes in the criminal code, are rather simple, basic, straight-forward descriptions of criminal actions, and they encompass almost every conceivable type of sexually assaultive action that can be perpetrated male on female, female on male, male on male, and female on female. They refer only to actions taken by one individual toward another. There is nothing in these laws to indicate any particular gender bias in how the laws are applied. Like all criminal laws, they criminalize certain actions and behaviors--in accord with prevailing community standards.

And a significant recent change in the wording of some of these laws has been for the purpose of providing stiffer punishments for those who commit crimes involving penetrative sexual assaults on men, to make these crimes fully the equivalent of a rape of a female by a male in terms of severity. That was a major reason the federal definition of rape was recently revised--it allows for better data collection on these serious sexual assaults of men, which then allows for better allocation of community resources for the victims of such crimes. It's also the reason that several states have eliminated the term "rape" from their criminal code, using the more gender neutral "sexual assault" in all cases. Increasingly, the entire thrust of sexual assault law has been in the direction of greater gender neutrality.

And both you and BillRM opposed these "expansions" in definitions to better include male victims, including the revised federal rape definition. Neither of you have any interest in the welfare or legal protection of male victims of sexual assault. Given your contemptuous attitude toward gays, who you've referred to as "faggots", that doesn't surprise me at all, but it does reveal your deep hypocrisy as an alleged advocate for justice, particularly justice for men.

If feminism does deserve credit for more humanitarian and equality concerns than you have displayed, it's evident in the fact that N.O.W. has been a strong advocate for the rights of the LGBT community, including their right to be better protected from violence and crimes of sexual assault. If gays need support in these matters, they seem better served by the women's rights groups than by the alleged men's rights supporters.

Quote:

How often do you get to read views that deviate from the Feminists storyline?

All the time actually. Legal discussions focusing on sexual assaults, are based on criminal laws and legal precedents, and are unrelated to anything feminists, or any other special interest group, might have to say about such matters. News reports of rapes, and rape trials, show how violations of sexual assault laws are actually handled in the courts.

The only "storyline" that matters regarding sexual assaults, is what has been codified into law in the state criminal codes. That's the only reality that matters, because that's the only reality that actually governs people's behaviors. And those exact, and quite specific, laws are the one reality you seem unable to address.

Most people have no difficulty, at all, abiding by the sexual assault laws, there is no hew and cry from the public to rescind these laws, and there is no compelling argument for why these laws should not continue to be enforced.

Of course, if you recognized that, it wouldn't leave you with anything to bitch and whine about. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

If a survey asks men, for example, if they ever “had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances,” some of them will say yes, as long as the questions don’t use the “R” word.

And they didn't just admit to raping—they admitted to raping repeatedly (as long as it's not really "rape," of course!) According to the study, a small percentage of men are responsible for committing a large portion of sexual assaults—that's a whole lot of "accidents," "misreadings," and "gray areas":

Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.

What does this mean about our "accidental" rapists?

a) The vast majority of acquaintance rapes are committed by the same people;

b) These people don't see themselves as "rapists";

c) They are, however, able recognize that they regularly threat, force, and intoxicate women in order to have sex with them.

Oops! There's no "accident" here—these guys just deny, evade punishment, and repeat.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/

Do you notice what our well known man hater Amanda Hess does here? She takes the information that men have sex with intoxicated women (and we know that the man is also usually intoxicated) and turns that into the alleged crime of intoxicating women with the intent to rape them.

No, most guys get drunk with women because they like drinking and they like women. They then have sex with women because they want to have sex with the women and the women seem to want to have sex with them. The reality is not even close to what is advertised by this feminist. She is not honest in her use of language either.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion protests eliminates this argument, as this is a constitutionally protected right. So long as you are not touched people have the right to come up to you and advocate that you either do or do not do something. What you actually do is up to you, so you have not been harmed.

Someone who lodges a complaint of a crime, such as a crime of sexual assault, is also a witness in a legal proceeding, so the ruling you cite is irrelevant. Tampering with, and pressuring, and threatening, witnesses, is quite a different matter than allowing protestors to vocalize outside an abortion clinic.

Quote:

the university standards being imposed by Washington is about punishing guys that the university guesses violated some nebulous consent parameters...

The consent parameters aren't at all nebulous. They are specific for each state and are really quite clear. Anyone of normal intelligence can be expected to understand them. Does that exclude you? Have you read the definition for "consent" in the sexual assault laws for the state of Washington, where you live? What part of it do you find "nebulous"?

The traffic laws are more complicated than the sexual assault laws.

Quote:

There may be a few sexual predators caught in the nets, but this has nothing to do with sexual predators other than this oppression of men uses the claimed existence of sexual predators in its sales snow job.

I fail to see how holding men accountable for possible violations of sexual assault laws constitutes an "oppression of men", any more than holding them accountable for possible violations of burglary or tax laws is an "oppression of men."

Sexual contacts without consent constitute oppressions of the rights of the victims involved. That's why such contacts are deemed crimes

The only snow job that's going on is the blizzard you've been generating throughout this thread.

How come all the college men, on all the campuses throughout the land, aren't the ones rising up and protesting the current policies regarding sexual assaults? Maybe that's because they recognize the reality of sexual assault they know is going on on their campuses, and they don't buy the BS you're trying to sell them.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

No, most guys get drunk with women because they like drinking and they like women. They then have sex with women because they want to have sex with the women and the women seem to want to have sex with them. The reality is not even close to what is advertised by this feminist. She is not honest in her use of language either.

Of course not as most men do not think oh if I could only get this woman drunk I could have sex with her.

Most men go out partying with women they already have a sexual relationship with and if both get high and then have sex so what.

I had from time to time in my life had have sex while both myself and my partner was under the voluntary influence but only in a sick man hating mind of a firefly would that be anything but consensus sex.

Adults both male and female adults are responsible for their own actions under the voluntary influence be that action driving or having sex.

Lord I fear for our younger generation of men as only random chance stand between them and a charge from an unstable woman charging rape due to regret after the fact.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

this sounds like a lie...

I see absolutely no reason to assume the young women is lying.

She describes a sequence of events which were likely witnessed by a number of people, including a cab driver, others in the bar, and possibly others in the dorm, who could testify to her degree of physical incapacitation that evening.

In addition, the contention, by a lawyer for one of the players, that she made false statements about his client, has already been dismissed by the judge.

Quote:

On May 19, a week after exams ended, Grasso filed a civil complaint in Superior Court against the Providence College student, stating that she had made “false and defamatory statements” about his client “in reckless disregard of the truth…” As a result, he stated, his client “has been and will continue to be significantly damaged.”
Her lawyer, Thomas G. Briody, of Providence, declined comment.
Superior Court Judge Luis Matos dismissed the complaint

And it is possible that the photo taken of her during the sexual act will also reveal whether or not she was incapacitated.

And why would someone take a photo like that, and then post it on the internet? What possible motive would explain that?

There doesn't have to be toxicology evidence of drugs in her system, if witness accounts, and circumstantial evidence, corroborate that she was incapacitated.

Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that she lied? You seem to have no compunctions about leveling that sort of unsubstantiated allegation at women who lodge complaints of sexual assault. Are you hoping you can magically erase all possible instances of sexual assault by recklessly branding the accusers as liars?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

That's a great article, Hawkeye. It's a shame that, once again, you've chosen to distort the material you yourself post. You do this with alarming regularity--without even realizing it, you post information that directly contradicts the conclusions you then draw.

Quote:

She takes the information that men have sex with intoxicated women (and we know that the man is also usually intoxicated) and turns that into the alleged crime of intoxicating women with the intent to rape them.

No, she does no such thing.

She is discussing survey results that asked men if they ever “had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances,” and that question describes an act that would be considered rape in my state, your state, and every other state I can think of.

Someone who answered that question with a "Yes" would be admitting to having committed an act of rape. They might have contributed to intoxicating the woman, by urging alcohol on her, or they might have targeted an already extremely intoxicated woman, that really isn't essential to the question.

The exact questions asked, regarding rape and attempted rape, were:

Quote:

(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?

Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists by David Lesak and Paul M. Miller, published in Violence and Victims, Vol 17, No. 1, 2002 (Lisak & Miller 2002).

Those survey results, based on a study of 1882 college men, found that 120 men (about 6%) admitted to raping or attempting to rape. Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each.
Of all 120 admitted rapists, only about 30% reported using force or threats, while the remainder raped intoxicated victims. This proportion was roughly the same between the 44 rapists who reported one assault and the 76 who reported multiple assaults.

So, you have drawn quite inaccurate conclusions. These results say nothing about the alleged "crime of intoxicating women with the intent to rape them". The results simply report the number of men who admitted raping someone, who did not want to have sex, but was too intoxicated to resist. And about 70% of the admitted rapes fell into that category.

Quote:

No, most guys get drunk with women because they like drinking and they like women. They then have sex with women because they want to have sex with the women and the women seem to want to have sex with them.

This survey does not address the issue of why most guys drink with women, nor does it have anything to do with women who want to have sex after they have been drinking. So your statement is not only irrelevant, it suggests you are clueless about what the survey did find.

The survey question specifically asked about having sex with someone who didn't want to, but was too intoxicated too resist--along with other questions, it was designed to find "undetected rapists" in the population--self-admitted rapists--and that question describes an act which would be considered rape in all 50 states.

Quote:

The reality is not even close to what is advertised by this feminist..

How do you know she's a feminist? I can't find any evidence that identifies her as such. Are the voices telling you that?

You're not close to reality--in fact you're considerably out of touch with what that Hess article, or the survey she refers to, is even about. It's about identifying rapists, dummy, and the types of rapes, and the number of rapes, they report. And the study referred to was done by Dr. David Lisak, who is considered to be a highly-regarded expert in the entire area of sexual assault research.

And the finding confirms what I've said repeatedly--only about 6% of men are sexual predators, but since they commit an average of 6 rapes/sexual assaults each, they are the ones who drive the sexual assault numbers up.

And this columnist, who you've gratuitously labeled a "man-hater", for no logical reason that's apparent, is actually helping to disseminate the message that most men--94% of them, in fact--don't rape or attempt to rape.

But it's that 6% who are serial offenders who need to be apprehended and stopped, and they are most often raping people known to them. And that's why reporting should be encouraged--it helps to identify this group.

So, all you've actually demonstrated is that you neither correctly understood Amanda Hess' column, nor the study results she was citing. Had you correctly understood both, you might have gained some insight into why many of the alcohol fueled sexual assaults reported actually are rapes, and types of rapes that perpetrators will admit they have committed, in a survey.

Your inability to correctly interpret information has become very glaring. It actually makes trying to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you useless. Mostly I'm generally trying to correct your inaccuracies and fallacious conclusions. And, while I hope that's useful for other readers, I mostly find it boring and not worth my time and energy.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

How do you know she's a feminist?

Quote:

AH: I'm trying to remember how I first started identifying as a feminist, and I think I always kind of did, even before I was that interested in reading about it or even knew what that meant exactly.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/04/katy_perry_says_she_s_not_a_feminist_when_are_we_going_to_stop_asking_that.html

Quote:

The survey question specifically asked about having sex with someone who didn't want to, but was too intoxicated too resist-

Actually I dont know this, as I have sex when I dont want to sometimes, after consenting. I dont know that this person that another person believes was too drunk to resist was actually too drunk to resist, and I dont know that they wanted to resist. My wife for instance has a thing about getting used without her will as I have explained, and I have met others who share this kink.

In any case my point was as I said that she claims that these men got the women drunk with the intent to rape them, none of this we know. It is for instance alarming how often women knowingly and with the intent to get drunk take many drinks in their hands and pour them down their throats, and the men around them get blamed for it happening.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know