Ambrya wrote:
Quote:
'm sorry, but if there's no signs of struggle, you weren't raped. You just made a bad choice. Deal with it...
Oh for Christ's sake, Gbaji...f
uck that idea and f
uck you if that is what you honestly think.
If a man holds a knife on a woman and tells her that if she doesn't have sex with him, he will slit her throat, that is rape. If he threatens to kill her children if she doesn't have sex with him, it's rape. If he drugs her and has sex with her semi- or unconscious person, it's rape. If he, in any way, somehow manages to force her to have sex with or without leaving bruises, it's rape. There are a thousand ways rape can occur without leaving signs of physical assault. It doesn't matter if there are signs of a struggle or not, it is still violent coercion.
No matter how intellectual you try to be, Gbaji, you have just definitively proven you are nothing more than a well-spoken troglodyte.
Sigh. None of which changes the statement I made. Do you have any idea of how infrequently a woman ends up with a knife to her throat and forced to have sex with someone and there is *no* sign of physical trauma on her body as a result? If it's in her home, there will be signs of a break in. If it's not, there will be signs of her trying to get away before he grabs her. Even if he manages to get ahold of her and get a knife to her throat without any struggle occuring beforehand, there will be signs of brusing on her body. Forensic scientists can tell if sex was consentual or not quite accurately, no matter how much other violence occured.
Rapists of that type are not about having sex. It's a violent act. They *always* leave marks. There's always physical evidence to indicate a rape occured.
That's what I'm talking about. My disgust with the whole date rape issue is two things:
1. It's impossible for anyone to forensically or otherwise determine if the claim of rape is true.
2. It cheapens the entire issue for woman who have *actually* been raped since they're lumped in the same catagory with women who actually did have a choice.
I'm not talking about a woman going on a date with someone and then being raped by that person. That's rape and always has been. What "date rape" is, is when a woman has sex with someone but says she didn't really want to. There's no way to tell if a woman had sex with the guy because she felt she had no choice at the time, or if she had it consentually and later felt bad about it and claimed he made her do it. Look at the documented cases of date rape out there. They are *not* what many people think. It's really not about women raped by people they date. It's women getting themselves into situations where they feel pressure to have sex with someone, but instead of refusing go along with it, and then after the fact feel they've been taken advantage of.
While I agree that guys shouldn't pressure women about sex, I believe that if you don't actually say no, and he doesn't actually ignore you and *physically* force you to have sex with him, then you weren't actually raped. You were just talked into doing something you didn't want to do. That's still a choice.
That's ultimately my problem with date rape. It's distinguished from "real" rape in that in a real rape situation the woman has no choice and no chance to avoid it. In date rape situations, the woman did have a choice. She could have physically walked out of the room. If he physically stops her *then* it's rape. But in virtually every case of "date rape" I've seen, that's not what happens. The woman chooses to have sex with him to avoid a percieved negative consequence ("I thought he would hurt me if I didn't have sex with him"). But since they never actually establish that he would have done so, it's effectively all in her head and extremely subjective. Maybe that guy would have gotten violent with you if you'd not given in to him. But maybe not. You don't know since you avoided the situation. Trying to charge him with a crime based on what you think he might have done is ridiculous IMO.
It applies directly to this case, because this is a direct result of that kind of thinking. Here you have a case where the woman cries rape after giving a guy a *******. It's a perfect example of the "slipperly slope" coming true. Since we've already established that a woman can charge someone with rape with no physical evidence, no witnesses, and no proof other then her own testimony, it's only a matter of time before we see a situation exactly like this. Some poor guy getting charged with rape on a whim from a woman who doesn't want people to think she's a ****.
If we didn't already have such a ridiculous stance towards date rape, this girls charge would have been ignored right off the bat. No bruises. No sign of struggle. No sign of rape. No charge without some other coroboration. Everyone is standing around wondering how on earth the police could have charged that guy with a crime, yet no one seems to get that it's the direct result of the changes we've made in terms of rape charges in general. It's not the police's fault. They're following the laws as written. It's the idiot legistlatures who've redefined rape in such a way as to take any claim of rape from a woman as factual regardless of a total lack of any physical evidence.