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

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:

CLICK!

Ae you taking pictures?

Nope just clicking the ignore button. Enough is enough. It just got too sick and I'm no longer going to entertain them. I should have stopped the first time I said I was.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

It just got too sick and I'm no longer going to entertain them

Firefly was not all that sick..............

Nothing wrong with her sharing her rape fantasy in my opinion.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I do not think you are a rapist, but your narrow view of rape (there are "real rapes" and not "real rapes" in your version of reality), comes close to being a rape sympathizer. Your expressed sympathies certainly seem to lie mainly with the male in a rape situation, rather than the female victim. It is this complete lack of empathy for the female that is striking, and that is angering people here. Rape really has to be understood on an emotional level, from the victim's perspective, if it is to be genuinely understood, and if we are to have a meaningful discussion on the topic.

You may not believe in the "victim culture", but people are victims of the crime of rape. They have literally had an unwanted violation of their bodies thrust on them by another person. They did not want the experience, they did not want the violation. They are victims. And most of these victims are women. And after they have been raped by an attacker, they are often raped and violated again by the legal process and the criminal justice system.

Your attempts to advocate for "a new way" or changes in the rape laws has to start with some basic acknowledgment of the real problem of rape, and the problems of obtaining rape convictions. Instead, rather foolishly, you tend to deny that rape exists. You redefine it as an "intimate relationship" or an "act of passion" when it is actually a sexual assault, more linked to pathological needs for power and dominance than anything connected with passion or normal sexuality, and more about the expression of anger than lust. You minimize its frequency of occurrence, as though to dismiss it as a trivial concern. For most, if not all, women, the possibility of being raped is not a trivial concern. And you bemoan the problems for the poor male defendant in a rape case, with no consideration, at all, of what the female victim is put through once she reports a rape, and what she is put through at the rapist's trial.

You can't effect any change in the system until you first understand the way it is working now. It is not fair to the woman now, and that's a main failing that you just can't see. You think the women now hold all the cards, when quite the opposite is true. We are not arresting and convicting rapists under our present system, and you want to water it down even more. Rape is not a public health problem. It is a crime. It is a public safety problem. You don't see rapists as dangerous, but most would disagree with you. At the very least they are thieves. They rob women of feelings of security, of the feeling that their body is safe from unwanted intrusion. They rob women of their sense of privacy, in the most basic sense.

Rape hinges on consent. I cannot believe that you do not know when a woman is not consenting to sex. Or when she cannot consent. And, if you, or any other man, cannot understand her communications, the law expects you to stop and not have sex with that woman. It really is that simple. You don't try to take advantage of the situation, or the woman. If she's not willing, or if you're unsure that she is willing, just stop. Don't have sex with her. The law is fairly clear. It is meant to protect a woman from being raped, but it is also meant to protect a man from unwittingly committing rape. If consent isn't clear, don't have sex.

If you want anyone to take what you have to say seriously, you have to display some understanding of the problems of rape victims, and the very real problems involved in obtaining rape convictions. Rape should not be a crime that anyone can commit with impunity.

And you should be able to imagine what it might be like for you if you were raped...

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It is not fair to the woman now, and that's a main failing that you just can't see. You think the women now hold all the cards, when quite the opposite is true. We are not arresting and convicting rapists under our present system, and you want to water it down even more. Rape

Try telling that to the 30 or so innocent men who had been release in the last year about not getting enough convictions.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

You redefine it as an "intimate relationship" or an "act of passion" when it is actually a sexual assault,

OR an act of extortion ................................

0 Replies

@BillRM,

If you had any real understanding of the reasons for wrongful rape convictions, you would know that the cause tends to lie within the criminal justice system itself. Forensic evidence that could exonerate the defendant is withheld or never tested. Sometimes the forensic evidence is faulty. Victims and witnesses misidentify defendants, sometimes due to faulty police procedures, sometimes possibly due to racial factors.

Deliberate false accusations by a victim seem to play virtually no role in the majority of these convictions. When misidentifications by victims or witnesses have occurred, and the defendant is later exonerated, the victims tend to feel extreme guilt for the misidentification, along with fears that the man who raped them is still free on the streets. The real miscarriages of justice for the defendants in rape cases do not occur often in trials of date rape (he said she said) cases, they generally occur for those convicted of the more brutal sexual assaults, often combined with other crimes, like murder. And, overwhelmingly, these wrongfully convicted defendants are poor African American men.

No one wants to see an innocent man in prison for a crime he did not commit. Apart from the tragic miscarriage of justice for the innocent, it means that a rapist has been left to roam the streets.

Quote:

Women Gain When Men Wrongly Accused of Rape Are Freed
By Maddy deLone

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The Innocence Project often opens the prison gates for men falsely accused of sex assault. Its staff is often asked whether its work serves the interests of rape survivors and women generally. Commentator Maddy deLone says the answers are yes and yes.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Earlier this month, Alan Newton walked out of a Bronx courtroom a free man. Twenty-two years after he was convicted for a brutal rape that he didn't commit, he was finally exonerated. For the first time since 1984, he decided what he would wear and what he would do.

One of the first things he did was approach several dozen reporters to talk about the rape survivor who mistakenly identified him as the perpetrator, leading to his conviction. Before addressing his own wrongful conviction and his new freedom, he said his thoughts were with the rape survivor. His voice chocked with emotion, he expressed compassion and sympathy for her.

To date, 182 people nationwide have been exonerated with DNA testing. The Innocence Project represented many of them, just as we represented Alan Newton. Because we only take cases where DNA can yield conclusive proof of innocence, many of our clients are men who were wrongly convicted of sexual assault. Ninety percent of the 182 exonerations involved sexual assault (sometimes in combination with murder and other crimes). While the criminal justice system began using DNA testing two decades ago to help identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent, it has become more prevalent and more sophisticated in recent years.

Since our clients are primarily men convicted of heinous crimes against women, some people wonder whether our work serves the interests of rape survivors and women generally. I strongly believe that it does in very specific, individual ways, and also more broadly and profoundly.

When No Justice Is Served

When the wrong man is convicted of assaulting a woman, nobody sees justice. The true perpetrator can remain at large, unpunished for a horrible crime and able to rape again. In one-third of the 182 DNA exonerations, we haven't just proved someone's innocence; the DNA has been used to help identify the true perpetrator.

As Alan Newton recognized earlier this month, wrongful convictions--once they're finally overturned--reopen crime victims' wounds and prevent them from moving forward, often decades after a crime. Once DNA proves that the wrong man was convicted, rape survivors are often brought right back to the night of the crime. Many are left questioning how they identified the wrong man, and wondering whether they will have to endure another trial, years later. The pain survivors experience at such times could be avoided if wrongful convictions were prevented in the first place.

Beyond the substantial consequences for the wrongly accused and individual rape survivors, wrongful convictions concern many of us because people of color and poor people are disproportionately targeted by our criminal justice system. That's troubling enough, but when it's done in the name of protecting the public and punishing violence against women, we cannot stand by.

More Men of Color Convicted

Among the 182 exoneration cases, where the race of wrongly convicted people is known, nearly 75 percent are men of color. No two cases are alike, but in many of them, police focused on an African American man immediately and ignored information that might have led to other suspects. In some of them, police coerced confessions, prosecutors concealed evidence and defense attorneys for poor defendants failed to challenge faulty evidence and law enforcement tactics.

The leading cause of wrongful convictions--playing a factor in about 75 percent of the exoneration cases--is eyewitness misidentification. The day after Alan Newton was exonerated in the Bronx, a member of a "men's advocacy" group called our office. He wasn't calling to help Newton find a job or offering other support to him, as many others have. He wanted to know why the Innocence Project doesn't pursue perjury charges against rape survivors who identify the wrong man.

Aside from the patently offensive notion of putting rape survivors on trial, the truth is that eyewitness misidentification is often the result of flawed law enforcement techniques that lead crime victims to identify a suspect who police already presume is guilty. The Innocence Project pursues policy reforms to improve identification techniques nationwide so crime victims aren't led to misidentify innocent people. These include specific changes to police lineup procedures, which have already been adopted by a number of cities, states and counties.

Women Who Help Our Work

A number of rape survivors and crime victims work with the Innocence Project to remedy the deeply embedded problems in our criminal justice system that cause wrongful convictions in the first place. They are all incredibly strong, powerful and amazing women. A particularly inspiring partner in our work is Christy Sheppard of Oklahoma.

Her cousin, Debra Sue Carter, was brutally raped and murdered in 1982. Six years later, Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were convicted; Fritz was sentenced to life in prison, while Williamson received the death penalty and came within five days of being executed. In 1999, both men were exonerated with DNA testing, which indicated that the state's main witness against them was actually the perpetrator.

In the years since, Christy Sheppard has pressed for state legislation to create an Innocence Commission that would study wrongful convictions in the state and identify steps to avoid future wrongful convictions. She says this advocacy is her way of fighting for real justice for her cousin, and for countless other women.

In very different ways, Christy Sheppard and Alan Newton remind us why working to free the wrongly convicted and prevent wrongful convictions is critical for everyone involved. They show us not just what's at stake, but that all of us can--and must--do our part to correct injustice.

Maddy deLone is executive director of The Innocence Project, which is affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York.
http://www.womensenews.org/story/commentary/060727/women-gain-when-men-wrongly-accused-rape-are-freed

While miscarriages of justice due to convictions based on deliberately false accusations are rare, they do occur. And the penalties for the accuser can be severe, when a conviction has resulted based on that false testimony. This is one such case.

Quote:

December 10, 2009, 2:12 pm
Formal Exoneration for Man Wrongly Convicted for Rape
By JOHN ELIGON
Calling wrongful convictions “a catastrophe both for the injured party and for the criminal justice system,” a Manhattan judge on Thursday issued a decision that officially exonerated William McCaffrey of a rape charge that had kept him in prison for about four years.

The 10-page decision, issued by Justice Richard D. Carruthers of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, was a formality; Justice Carruthers had indicated last month that he would throw out Mr. McCaffrey’s conviction and dismiss the indictment against him after prosecutors agreed that he was wrongfully convicted.

Mr. McCaffrey was arrested in September 2005 on charges that he had raped Biurny Peguero while they were on their way to a party in Upper Manhattan, and Ms. Peguero testified to that at trial. But Ms. Peguero, now married and known as Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, recanted her testimony this year. She said she had lied to cover up for a fight she had had with some of her friends.

Ms. Gonzalez, 27, pleaded guilty on Monday to two counts of perjury and faces up to seven years in prison.

Mr. McCaffrey, 32, had been free on bail since September when the case was reopened for investigation. Justice Carruthers overturned the conviction and dismissed the indictment because of newly discovered evidence: Ms. Gonzalez’s recantation and DNA that proved that bite marks on her were not left by Mr. McCaffrey. That evidence led the judge to declare that Mr. McCaffrey was actually innocent.

“The only reasonable conclusion to draw from Peguero’s recantation, the DNA results, and the statements of witnesses made after the recantation is that Mr. McCaffrey did not commit the crimes of which he was convicted,” Justice Carruthers wrote
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/rape-conviction-overturned-in-manhattan/

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Rape hinges on consent. I cannot believe that you do not know when a woman is not consenting to sex

You cant be that dim....a lot of the time the two individuals involved are not clear on consent...we have disagreements on consent, and these disagreements should not be in the legal system. The feminist line is that if the woman feels that she was violated then she was, the man must be wrong, and this is bullshit.

Quote:

We are not arresting and convicting rapists under our present system, and you want to water it down even more

mostly because the "victims" themselves do not want the event in the system. Feminist are busy claiming that they are too traumatized to know better, that this is a problem that needs a solution, but as I said 20 or so pages back if feminists want victims to report then victims need to be offered a better deal. This will in part be not bloodying the accused. Victims dont want rape to happen to themselves or others, but a lot of the time they care for the accused, sometimes they are even married to them. When the result of making the call is all kinds of hell for the accused and all who are connected to them not calling often looks like the smarter choice. If you dont like it then change the choices

Quote:

If you want anyone to take what you have to say seriously, you have to display some understanding of the problems of rape victims, and the very real problems involved in obtaining rape convictions

I could take you more seriously if you were not so hung up on rape convictions and cared more about individuals having happy problem free sexual encounters based upon equality. Punishing those who commit forcible rape should be a part of our program to get there, but one of many. Rape victims are a small minority of our population, sexual regulation programs need to work for them but for everyone else as well. I am convinced that a more holistic approach based mostly in the pubic health system will work better for victims, and I am very sure that it will work better for everyone else. We can not continue to have individuals so worried about draconian criminal punishments for sex errors that they can't function naturally, because as it is now it is clear that the only way for a man to protect against charges is to let the woman decide everything. Ideally she should document her orders. This is not right, this is not good, this is not how humans work either male or female. In the end most women don't like ball-less men, dont want to have all the power, so this is not even going to make women happy. This entire drive to make sure women run relationships is a giant cockup. We need to work toward equality, it will never be right until we have equality.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Those articles were good reads. As much as Hawkeye and Bill wish to argue to any person individually here in the thread, the bottom line is pretty clear.

The definition of rape is not flawed.

The arguments put forth by hawkeye and bill regarding the extortion of men have sunk. In none of these cases can it be demonstrated how a looser definition would have been necessary. Simply put, it is not the definition of rape that leads to false convictions, but poor police and prosecutor actions. Additionally, the stories that Bill and Hawkeye seem to think support their view, don't. These stories show instead that false accusers are caught and that in matches of he-said-she-said, the law does not default to the woman's testimony.

As I requested earlier (and it was ignored), I'd love for either person to offer me a new definition of rape which would apply to both genders. ANY definition offered will demonstrate the flaw in the logic put forth.

If hawkeye believes that the current definition throws things out of balance, I encourage him to present me with a definition which doesn't create the blueprint for the perfect crime.

A
R
There isn't anything wrong with the definition

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

If hawkeye believes that the current definition throws things out of balance, I encourage him to present me with a definition which doesn't create the blueprint for the perfect crime.

Why would I do this work after you have just said that your mind is closed?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
If hawkeye believes that the current definition throws things out of balance, I encourage him to present me with a definition which doesn't create the blueprint for the perfect crime.

Why would I do this work after you have just said that your mind is closed?

Ante up or get off the card table, hawkeye. You can't play unless you put money on the table. Show you've got the intellectual currency to even be acknowledged here. I'm entertaining your "new way." Certainly, you believe you can provide a definition such that I cannot demonstrate exactly what I have said. Come on. Put me in my place. I'm literally begging.

Provide me a definition. We'll test your idea. You do want it tested right? The alternative is that you know you can't fulfill this simple request. It's entirely up to you. Do or don't, but if you don't, I'll take it as your concession on this matter.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You cant be that dim....a lot of the time the two individuals involved are not clear on consent...we have disagreements on consent, and these disagreements should not be in the legal system

No, a lot of the time we do not have disagreements on consent. The woman says "No" and the man does not take "No" for an answer.

You can't arbitrarily decide that only forcible rape is "real rape" or that force must be present in all rapes. The laws state that force is not a necessary component in date rape.

The law, particularly on consent in date rape is also quite clear.

It is the male who must be sure that he has consent. It is the male who must be sure he has consent before continuing with the sexual act. The laws are written to reflect that.
You just can't enter someone's home without being sure you have consent to do so beforehand. And you can't enter a woman's body without being sure you have consent beforehand.

If the man is unsure whether he has consent, he should not continue with any sexual act. If the woman indicates non consent regarding any sexual act, the man must refrain from it.

Where is the "disagreement" on consent? The important factor in the date rape laws is that once the woman indicates non consent, the man must stop. No means no.

The law realizes that a woman might agree to some acts, but not others. She might agree to foreplay, but not intercourse. Once she says, "No" the man must stop. If he has intercourse with her after she has said , "No", he is committing rape. Whether you feel it is rape or not, the law says it is rape.

Again, for the 4th time I have posted this, this is NYS date rape law

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

There is nothing fuzzy or unclear about that law. If the woman indicates lack of consent, the man cannot have intercourse with her without violating that rape law in NYS.

If the man isn't clear on consent, he can always ask the woman what she does and does not want to do. Is that a radical idea? But the man is the one who has to be sure he has consent, because he will be the one charged with rape if he has non consensual sex with the woman.

If you, or any man, cannot accept the definition of "consent" as it is explained in the rape laws, and you choose to ignore it, or disregard it and substitute your own definition, you might be charged with rape. Even though you might not agree with the law, you must abide by it if you wish to avoid being charged with rape.

If you want to get legal definitions of "consent" in the rape laws changed, go right ahead and work toward that end. Meanwhile, if you want to avoid being charged with rape, you must abide by the rape laws already on the books. These laws are clear. And ignorance of the law, or dislike of the law, is not an excuse or a defense against a rape charge.

Quote:

because as it is now it is clear that the only way for a man to protect against charges is to let the woman decide everything...This is not right, this is not good,

Whether you like it or not, the woman, and only the woman, decides who can have access to entering her body, and when they can have such access. I'm sorry if you feel this makes you "ball-less". It is her body. Attitudes such as yours, that you have some entitlement to the woman's body, whether or not she objects to it, are the reasons we have, and need rape laws. When it comes right down to it, you don't want to recognize the woman's right, and power, to say, "No".

1 Reply

@failures art,

I have already done this...Rape goes back to the old definition of force used over expression of nonconsent. All other problems go through the public health system with mandatory compliance. Non Compliance becomes a criminal matter. Repeated trips through the public health system would kick a new review to evaluate to see if we have someone who is gaming the system, or who is mentally ill but has not before now been discovered....thus repeat contacts with the public health system could bump the individual up to the criminal system. Normally both parties take part in the public health system process, victims who make repeat trips through the system will receive more aggressive remediation each time, for instance to see if there are underlying problems such as childhood sexual abuse that have not been dealt with,

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

No, a lot of the time we do not have disagreements on consent. The woman says "No" and the man does not take "No" for an answer

You should not lie boldly with the internet around.....

Quote:

At least 45% of rapists were under the influence of alcohol or drugs

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
This study puts the victim under the influence rate at 30%
http://vaw.msu.edu/core_faculty/rebecca_campbell/Articles/Campbell,_Sefl,_Barnes,_Ahrens_et_al._(1999).pdf

Quote:

Assault: More than 696,000 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking
• Sexual Abuse: More than 97,000 are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape

http://www.madd.org/docs/college%20statistics.pdf this is collage students but is is true for most ages. The rapist often is under the influence. Less easy to find out but true is that at almost and equal rate the victim is also under the influence. In the majority of cases where on is smashed they are both actually smashed. And then consent gets very fuzzy as often neither one is all to sure what happened exactly, all they know is that the women after the fact feels like she was violated, because she never would have done what she did normally so she must have been taken advantage of.

These woman dont usually call the cops, and a lot of the time they will not agree that they have been raped, however sometimes that want the man strung up. We should not comply, we should send them both to counselling.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

of course the decided upon solution is that alcohol voids consent so who really knows how many cases of rape happen per day, or will once the laws are all changed. This should keep the saviors gainfully employed for some time.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You should not lie boldly with the internet around.....

I didn't lie, I posted the date rape law in NYS.

Quote:

The rapist often is under the influence.

So, crimes committed while under the influence don't count? Since when is drinking an excuse for rape?

If a man is too intoxicated to recognize and understand the woman's non consenting behaviors, or to recognize whether she is too impaired to legally consent, he might be running the risk of a rape charge.
The woman isn't guilty of anything if she gets drunk. Getting drunk is not a crime, rape is a crime.

Just as you are expected not to get into a car and drive drunk, you are expected not to put your penis into a woman while drunk, unless she has given consent for you to do so. If she indicates non consent, you should not have intercourse. If you are unsure whether you have consent you should not have intercourse. If you are too drunk to realize these things, and you have intercourse, you might find yourself in trouble, and the fact you were drunk is not a valid ezcuse.

Quote:

These woman dont usually call the cops, and a lot of the time they will not agree that they have been raped, however sometimes that want the man strung up.with her, no matter how drunk you are.

If these cases usually don't get reported, why do you bother posting this nonsense. Even if "they want the man strung up" the case will probably go nowhere if they were both intoxicated, and no charges will be filed because the police won't be able to determine whether a rape even occurred--unless there is some evidence, or supporting witnesses, to indicate rape. So these examples are meaningless.

The issues with these cases do not indicate problems in the law. Regardless of whether both are intoxicated, the legal burden on the man is the same--he must be sure he had consent. If she is very drunk, the law might well consider her unable to give consent. But, the burden is always on the man to be sure he has consent, if he wants to avoid getting himself embroiled in a possible rape case. If he's unsure about her consent, or her ability to consent, he shouldn't have sex with her. That's his option, and his control, in the situation.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

If she is very drunk, the law might well consider her unable to give consent

I am waiting to see how fast the feminists try to push down the bar...we started at passed out, now we are at visually intoxicated. Visibly impaired should be right around the corner and feminists are just clueless enough to push for it unaware the the tide of public perception has changed. This will be the last straw, as nobody is going to allow the feminists to get in the way of a good time, not men or women. Times are tough, and we need to have our release, alcohol driven sex is not going to be given up.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Let me repeat this again for emphasis because it is a big part of your problem with the rape laws, and why you are always ranting about feminists giving women all the power regarding sex acts.

Whether you like it or not, the woman, and only the woman, decides who can have access to entering her body, and when they can have such access. I'm sorry if you feel this makes you "ball-less". It is her body. Attitudes such as yours, that you have some entitlement to the woman's body, whether or not she objects to it, are the reasons we have, and need rape laws. When it comes right down to it, you don't want to recognize the woman's right, and power, to say, "No". You resent the fact that she can control, and deny, access to her bodily openings, and you have said so repeatedly. The rape laws will not change just to suit you. This control of access to her body will always rest with the woman.

2 Replies

@firefly,

If the feminists push the alcohol bar down they will lose the support of women as well as men, these rape laws will lose the support of women as well as men. Women are not going to save the feminists from their own stupidly, they will cut you loose. Feminism will be renounced by the majority of women, and will there after be a powerless fringe group.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Times are tough, and we need to have our release, alcohol driven sex is not going to be given up.

The woman can get drunk. Getting drunk is not a crime. Rape is a crime.

Getting drunk in those situations might result in real problems for the men.The men in those situations might risk rape charges. The necessity to be sure of consent, before having intercourse, falls on the man, as it would in any case. This has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with responsible behavior on the part of men under the current rape laws.

If you drive drunk, you risk getting into an accident. If a man has sex while drunk he risks getting involved involved in a nasty rape case. If he has sex with a woman who is drunk he risks getting involved in a nasty rape case. That's life. That's the way it is. Suck it up.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

That's life. That's the way it is. Suck it up.

No thanks, I'd rather change the laws. The feminists stepping out to far is helpful to the cause though, so bring it on. Male-female sexual relationships are more complicated than feminist theory will allow for, so all of this paternalistic authoritarian draconian sex regulation does not have a chance in hell of standing the test of time.

And what we have now is very new, this never seems to register with you. You just assume that the masses will support it because you think that they should.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know