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

I for one would love to see the polls you are using.



If the laws in questions are evil on their face and go again human nature beside no. Such laws are wrongs and it is wrong both to enforce them or keep them on the books a moment longer then is needed to repeal them.



Laws that are sane and useful should be obey laws that by their very nature can not even be obey with the best intentions in the world should be ignore by the government and nullify at the jury level if all else fail until they can be repeal.

A fine example of such a law is expanding the child porn laws to lock up teenagers daring to share naked pictures of themselves with their boyfriends/girlfriends as sexual predators.

I would argue that a huge chunk of the population nullifies sex law that they dont find sane or useful through the choice to not report. This is of course a choice that the feminists are working hard to remove, also are working hard to lay a guilt trip on anyone who makes this choice now. As you know they also then use the act of not reporting as proof of trauma, because they are unwilling to consider that a woman might both be of sound judgment and also come to the conclusion that reporting is wrong.

The only problem by allowing such silliness on the books and just ignoring them is that every once in the blue moon you are going to have some unlucky guy or gal almost at random life ruin by them.

We do need to get them off the books as soon as we can gather enough support to overwhelm the narrow pressures groups that place them there is the first place.

Most people do not pay attention to what the damn government is doing to make the pressures groups happy until the situation is completely out of hand.

You know that my take is that power never goes unused, if women have this undue power over men then they will use it. However, it is good to see young women of today still resisting using this power. But yes, the laws must be equitable and must also reflect the reality of human sexuality and also reflect the reality of how power is used in intimate relationship. The sex law that we have currently is the Disney version, it is time to upgrade to the real thing.

If he doesn't carry the same mindset as you regarding women, he should be fine.

Why are laws that simply say that a person has a right to refuse sexual contact he/she doesn't want "evil"? And that people who make unwanted sexual contact with another are breaking a law.

Why is that not sane? Why should such laws not be obeyed?

When you are on a checkout line in a store, should every woman who passes you feel free to grab your genitals and give them a squeeze? Is it crazy that we have laws to control such behavior?

Should another man, a co-worker who has offered you a ride home, have the right to grab you in a deserted parking lot, throw you to the ground, and anally assault you without your consent BillRM? How would you feel about that?

There is no reason that the rape laws cannot be obeyed.

They were, in fact, probably obeyed much more 60 years ago, when virginity was more highly regarded, and casual sex was considerably less prevalent, and people were not hooking up with strangers in situations, like bars, that involved as much drinking as goes on now. Consent was more widely understood as necessary, and men were more likely to accept a woman's "NO" regarding sexual intercourse. Date rape might have gone on then, but nowhere to the extent it seems to be happening now. Human nature, and a man's ability to control himself haven't changed since that time. What's changed is that society's attitudes toward female sexual behaviors have become considerably more accepting and permissive, more females engage in casual sexual encounters, and males have come to feel that a woman should "put out" with someone she barely knows, or even has any real intention of wanting to get to know better, simply because that is what expected in the situation. And, if she doesn't, the man just takes what he wants, without consent, because he feels entitled to it. And that's rape.

Women are much freer to enjoy their sexuality now, but that does not mean they should have to pay the price of being raped when they don't want that sexual contact. They have to have the option of being able to say, "No" and have it respected. And, if men, particularly in date/acquaintance rape situations, respected the fact that they must always have the woman's freely willing consent, we wouldn't need the rape laws. It's because of all the men that don't understand, "No means no" that the power of law enforcement comes into the picture. It is male behavior that creates the problem, and the necessity for the laws. That's why involvement by men, in educating other men about rape, is very important. Rape is not acceptable. Rape apologist attitudes are not acceptable. Woman do not want to be raped. They do not "ask to be" raped. And men who can't get or understand that message will find themselves hauled into court. You just can't decide to ignore laws without expecting consequences.

It could be argued that stealing is part of human nature. You see something you want, and you take it, regardless of whether it belongs to you or not. Very young children do that. And their parents teach them that it is wrong. They tell their child you must first ask if you can take something, you must have consent, otherwise you are stealing. So the whole notion of consent is ingrained in most of us at a very early age. And most of us are not muggers, or robbers, or burglars or thieves as adults. We've learned to inhibit our impulses to just take something, because that is how civilized, moral adult people function.

If you want the rape laws changed, then eliminate all the laws pertaining to stealing. Let everyone shoplift, and mug, and burglarize to their heart's content. If the need for consent, before taking something, like sexual entrance into the body of another person, is unnecessary, then it should be equally unnecessary when it comes to taking property. Let people take what they want, without the consent of the property owner, because consent laws interfere with "human nature" to steal.

Just as a woman has a right to keep her home from being invaded by unwanted intruders, she has a right to keep her body from being invaded by unwanted intruders. And that's what the rape laws are all about. And why they are needed.

Not one person here have a problem with no meaning no however the problem exist when a yes or even a hell yes can be withdrawn at the whim of a woman after the event is only a memory or when it is a crime to try to talk <I repeat TALK> a woman into perhaps changing her mind on the subject.



You do not know history either it would seem, as people had been acting as people for all of human history. The pill of the late 50s might or might not have slightly increased casual sex but that is not even a sure thing.

People did get married very young but if you do not think for one second that cheating and back doors romances was any less in our grandfathers/mothers or great grandfathers/mothers days you are very wrong. Hell, the founding fathers had interesting sex lives look up Hamilton, Jefferson and Franklin for examples.

The roaring 1880s, the roaring 1920s, and of course in my own lifetime the “freelove” 1960s was all periods known for sex and more sex and more sex in a fairly open manner and not just with your legal mates.

Periods where the country happen not to be doing well such as the 1930s the sex went more into hiding but I question if were any less. Hmm maybe less at that as the birthrate did drop sharply during the worst of the Great Depression.

Below is small part of a many pages pamphlet written by the founding father Alex Hamilton explaining to the American people of the time that he had not used his position as the first Secretary of the Treasury to defraud the government with the aid of a bond trader by the name of Mr. Reynolds instead he was being blackmail by the man for having an affair with his wife.

Oh side note Hamilton met this woman by her just showing up one day at his office with a sad story. In other word a stranger hookup in the late 1790s.

Sorry nothing had change in man/woman relationships for a million years of so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


The charge against me is a connection with one James Reynolds for purposes of improper pecuniary is speculation. My real crime is an amorous connection with his wife, for a considerable time with his privity and connivance, if not originally brought on by a combination between the husband and wife with the design to extort money from me.

This confession is not made without a blush. I cannot be the apologist of an vice because the ardour of passion may have made it mine. I can never cease to condemn myself for the pang, which it may inflict in a bosom eminently intitled to all my gratitude, fidelity and love. But that bosom will approve, that even at so great an expence, I should effectually wipe away a more serious stain from a name, which it cherishes with no less elevation than tenderness. The public too will I trust excuse the confession. The necessity of it to my defence against a more heinous charge could alone have extorted from me so painful an indeocrum.

When a woman can level a charge that a man had touch her in a line and drag the man name in the mud and when it is found to be untrue nothing happen to her that is a problem in my opinion. When a woman can claimed that seven men rape her in a bathroom and it is found to be untrue and nothing happen to her that is also a problem.

That's a problem for you, mostly because you're an idiot. (There are remedies available for false accusations.)

What might they be?

Are you going to sue a hooker/dancer in the case of the bathroom "rape" for the million plus legal fees that the seven men lawyers ran up and the harm done to them and their families?

Yes, I know the Duke players did get some funds out of both Duke and the local government but it did not made them whole for the harm it did to their lives and the woman still walk free. Hopefully it at least the settlement cover the legal fees so the parents of the seven would not end up losing their homes.

The cash line so call assault case ran for twenty months or so where a fairly well know UK actor name was drag though the mud and his accuser is a model of some kind is unlikely to have a net-worth worth suing for.

So what are the remedies??????

The pill didn't just "slightly increase" casual sex, it came on the market just as the Women's Liberation movement was taking hold. Those two factors combined, and that's when all that "free love" stuff began. You could not have had "free love" without women being freer to engage in sex. Women's Lib gave women permission to do that, and the pill gave them reliable protection from pregnancy that was under their control.

Women really did not engage in casual sex that much before that time. Women who did that were considered sluts--it was not acceptable. Women didn't go to bars to meet men. They tended not to sleep with men before marriage. Virginity was a much bigger deal. And men, while they might try to pressure a woman to have sex, would not generally force it. They would accept "No" and settle for foreplay or mutual masturbation, or even oral sex, if the woman would do that. There were a lot of "technical virgins", women who stopped short of having intercourse, in the 50's and 60's. And not everyone jumped on the "free love" bandwagon, the frequency of really casual sexual encounters increased over a span of decades. Before that time, sex was generally between two people who were at least involved in some sort of ongoing relationship. Total strangers were not jumping into bed with each other, and having sexual intercourse, with any degree of frequency, until about 30 or 40 years ago.

You are talking about infidelities and things of that nature, and I am talking about casual sex between two single people who just met in a bar or at a party, go off alone together, and the connection between that sort of thing and date rape.

Women should not have to pay the price of rape in order to enjoy their sexual freedom. They should be able to have some confidence that they won't be forced sexually beyond where they want to go. You can't have that confidence with a man you just met. And a man can't know a woman he's just met, or always understand her communications. One of the problems may be that too many people are having sex, or trying to have sex, with people they don't know, and date rapes, or accusations of date rape, are a consequence of that, particularly if one or both parties have been drinking too much.

If that is the case, the problem isn't with the rape laws, it's with the kinds of reckless behavior that both men and women may engage in, and that may include casual sexual encounters with people who are little more than strangers. Perhaps people should get to know each other first. Perhaps sex shouldn't be automatically expected by either party. Perhaps sex should be a part of a relationship and not as impersonal or casual as shaking hands. Perhaps people need to communicate more and drink less. But, when all is said and done, the man is still going to have to pay attention when the woman says, "No" and he has to stop, otherwise he is committing rape, whether he sees it that way or not. And there will always be a group of men who feel the need to make conquests of any woman, and they will continue to rape to satisfy their need to dominate, in any situation that the woman is vulnerable or can be made to be vulnerable. .

WRONG WRONG WRONG.........................

Women middle class women living in large cities started going to bars "speak easys" in very very large numbers to meet men in the 1920s not the 1960s.

There was also rubbers long long before the pill and they work just fine if used correctly beside protecting from STDS.



So you do not approval of casual sexual encounters so you wish to have insane sexual assaults laws in place to try to frighten men and women from doing so?

And I find it strange you like an era when a man could beat his wife and no one would stop him and where women was for real treated as protected children if they was lucky and abused children if they was not.



I am somewhat confuse oral sex and masturbating each other is as must sex to me as having the man penis entering the woman so other then as a mean of birth control and the old maiden head what was the point? They still was having a form of sex and a form that I would bet big money on would after it got going lead to what you seem to think is the only real sex in large part of the times and not by force on the man part either.

As far as women and strange men I knew a woman who met a man over a dial up computer network call CIS in 1985 using a C-64 computer and after talking to him over the phone and by way of emails for a few months was insane enough to get on a plane and fly 2000 thousands miles to be with this stranger and go on a week long cruise with him beside.

So far this reckless behavior seem to be paying off for me my wife 25 years laster.

Life is full of risks of all kinds but most men and women are good people and sometime the risks are both worth it and a lot of fun to take and none of society business in any case.

However creating rapes/sexual assaults laws that are insane and seem design and does in fact lead to all kinds of abuses by unstable people is a class of risks that have no benefits to men or to women.

Second these laws are not going to result in going back to a time that did not in fact exist.

Some rape victims are often women that are too drunk to do anything about it and a man/men take advantage of it. Drinking makes you vulnerable which is why I don't get blind drunk. Isn't that particular problem best addressed at preventing women to binge drink.

Raping a woman because she is wearing a short skirt is horse ****, a person is violating a woman sometimes brutally, if a short skirt or wot not leads to rape, a deep violation then what are our morals and standards coming to? "Please judge I know it is fundamentally wrong to rape a woman but she was flashing some leg so she was asking for it" what!? That's just passing the blame, passing responsibilities on to the woman, what are they so weak that they succumb to a bit of flesh, no it's the rapist that doesn't have any control over himself and he is responsible for his own actions, there are plenty of men who don't turn into savage animals just because a women is wearing revealing clothing.

No woman can asked to be raped because why would she. Are you telling me that every woman who has worn revealing clothing asks to be raped, of course she doesn't. Christ if this was true we'd be scared to go out in the summer. Tell me is it the same if she's wearing shorts? Can we not even wear them when we jog, tell me is there a list of clothing that warns us if we wear them it'll entice rape, sorry but it's just plain ridiculas. What about the summer in hot weather, no I don't think so. It is obvious that it takes a certain particular man to rape, ie, an animal, leaving the onus at their door where it rightly belongs, men don't treat women as sex objects there for their pleasure only, they respect women and they respect their right to wear what they want and show restraint if it arouses desires, for these desires in normal men are ones where men enjoy women and in the abnormal men it's twisted.

Laying the blame at women dressing in short skirts just gives every rapist a green light. I see men walk down the street and women walk down the same street with revealing clothing on and they are civil not animals. It's very dangerous to blame the victim for how else are they going to be able to deal with the trauma if she feels to blame. I know it goes on and I think the judges who think this are just plain sexist and has no idea what the victim is going through and that the rapist is weak to the point he's a danger to women.

What is wrong with wearing a short skirt or revealing clothing, I ask you? Nothing because most men are normal and don't wish to violate a woman that's showing flesh which brings me to the conclusion that if you can't restrain yourself and have to rape someone because of a bit of leg then there is something not right with you leaving the onus at your door and the blame and responsibility of your actions. Blaming the girl is just absurd, if most men show constraint and I believe they do this easily then a rapist is just weak and needs treatment failing that and they normally do, what I recommend is lock them up as they are a danger to women and throw away the key. Come on if every man thought it was ok to rape judging on what the women were wearing there'd be chaos. No the only way to shut them up is if you wear a burka, because where does shirking the responsibility stop, "she was wearing tight jeans your honor" or "she gave me the look", it's all the same crap.

If it was true that a woman was asking for sex because of her attire then why not ask her to avoid confusion because they are just passing the blame that's why not. The only physical way of telling if a woman is asking for sex is if you ask her unless your bloody psychic, there is no way other than to ask her, you don't take that right away from her just because you're dumb enough to presume she's up for it, a woman, a human, has the right not to have sex with a man if she so choses, even if she's blind drunk wearing a bikini because that is her right. What are us women never going to sunbathe on the beach now for fear of rape, it's just so ridiculas.

It's all down to morals and what morals you have personally and some haven't got any and should be punished by THEIR actions not a woman wearing a mini skirt. You know these judges who place the blame at the women, (never mind the rapist is free to rape again), let the rapists off because they think it'll never happen in my back yard, should be struck off for being responsible for letting a rapist get off scott free to rape again. Can you imagine what it does to the woman being blamed and how that it will effect her life. I suspect some would be nervous to go out and be nervous what they're wearing.

They are free to wear what they like without trouble, it's called a free country. My mum bought me a tight denim skirt when I was 13, do you think it would've destroyed me if I was raped for wearing it, something I did which is why it's dangerous to blame women for rape when it is a violation of a human right, are you're telling me humans cant resist a bit of flesh, get real and get the rapists not the innocent victims, raped because of her skirt, for gods sake, ridiculous. And obvious blaming which serves only a dangerous rapist to rape again, if he used his head and only raped women in short skirts then he could continue to rape all the time free of punishment and what kind of society would that be?

I just hate judges who think it's the girls fault destroying her life even more, they are ignorant sexist bastards who should be told how would he like it if it happened to his daughter or sister or mother, all because her blouse was sheer, it's ridiculous, men show restraint in a civilized society which is why some men, the rapists should be locked up, force is force and no is no, you don't have a right to violate someones body because her skirt is high, that doesnt give you permission, a right over her, we don't live in the dark ages for christ sake.

Rapists blaming the women are just copping out and I say they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it and free to do it again, they need locking up for good, out of harms way so it's safe to walk down the streets. Do us women have to watch what we wear before we go out, blaming women is sick, there are sick rapists and judges out there and it's not fair on the victim, anyone with half a brain can see a woman is free to do, wear what she likes without fear of sexual violence, that no means no and you are taking advantage of her if she's blind drunk, where are your morals and where is the sense of justice judge? Thankfully not all men and not all judges are like this, it would be a bad place for women if they were.

Your entire post is a Red Herring:
http://www.ncur20.ws/presentations/14/1474/paper.pdf

Slutty looking women have often been penalized at trial for what was view as personal moral failings, but they are not more likely to get raped. Men are not the uncontrolled ogres as some scaredy cat women like to assume. We see the same story in domestic abuse, where science has shown that men are LESS likely to retaliate for abuse done to them than women are. This entire canard that men can not control themselves is yet another round of male bashing. The science proves that the story being told is not true. Women who desire to be viewed are as reasonable and as being on top of the facts should refrain from telling known lies.

That wasn't my post you quoted but in response to yours, I said exactly the same things, that not all men are animals. How is my post a red herring? My post was about women who wear revealing clothes are not asking to be raped, how is that a red herring please? Your quote is statistical, my post was based on beliefs but good quote, it just proves it wrong that women who wear short skirts are not asking to be raped, I was just challenging the belief that they are to blame but thanks for the stat, I can now disperse that belief even more. I was just responding to the op.

P.S. I cant load the link you gave to me, would you mind explaining what it was about please? Thanks.

this thread has been such a long wide ranging conversation that I had forgotten that "short skirts" was part of the OP, so it was not. My apologies.

What I was considering a red herring was what I took as your assertion that dressing slutty has any relationship to being raped. The only relationship between the two is on how the women is judged after the fact.

Getting drunk will certainly increase a womans likelihood of getting raped, and she needs to be held to account for her behaviour. Flirting is a gray zone for me, I dont know the facts on how that plays into rape, however I certainly think that women who indicates that they are doing more than playing....indicate that they are sexually available and seriously interested in having sex with a guy and then "change their minds" ...need to be held to account if they have a pattern of doing this. The womans behaviour does need to be examined in all cases, she should be shown where she had the opportunity to make different choices, and if she is constantly putting herself into dangerous situations the question of the soundness of her broader emotional and mental state need to be asked. Getting at solutions to where the interaction went bad is why I advocate moving all but forcible rape garden variety assault domestic violence cases out of the criminal justice system and into the public health system. The criminal justice system is the wrong one to use for solving power problems in intimate relationship. So far at a2k I am a minority of one, no one has publicly agreed with this position, although Dlowan has said that the Austrailian system in practice does do this.

Just the first google link that shows a fact that I know to be true. Better evidence would be required to prove my point.

BTW, are you aware that if you want to bitch about blaming rape victims that you should direct your attention more to women than to men??

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/women-more-likely-blame-rape-victims?page=2

I have no doubt but that our resident man haters Firefly and Occom Bill would like to pretend otherwise...

True to form, Hawkeye, you post the information that seems to agree with your sick thinking.

Had you also printed the next two paragrapsh, it would have negated what you quoted. How convenient. It went on to explain why the numbers were as they were.

The paragraphs you neglected to include:

This tendency of so many women to judge rape victims harshly and blame them doesn't seem to make sense. The behaviors that get you judged harshly are so common that many of the women saying you asked for it have themselves performed those behaviors. Dressing to attract male attention, flirting with men, going to bed with men, having a drink with a man? If women who blamed women for rape were consistent, they'd believe they themselves deserve to get raped.

What's going on, as far as I can tell, is the classic rationale of, "But in my case, it's different." People tend to whip this out in touchy situations in general, but when it comes to women and sex, the tendency to judge harshly in others while forgiving yourself and those you love is extreme indeed. When a stranger dresses for men, flirts with men, has a drink with a man, etc., she's a huge slut. When we do it, it's just dating.