Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

More or less correct. However, what you have to remember is that prior to somewhere in the mid 90s, that was how it was defined already. Ambrya's earlier link included a definition called "grey rape". I'd honestly never heard that definition used before, but that's basically what I'm talking about. It's my contention that what we today call "date rape" is an almalomation of "rape by an acquiantance" and "grey rape" as described in that link.


My argument isn't that we should remove something, but that it should not have been added in the first place. The relevance to what that link calls "grey rape" is high IMO. Basically, no one used the term "date rape" until they added "grey rape" into the mix. That's why I have a problem with the term as a whole. It's a classification that exists largely *because* some bright folks wanted to add non-physical coersion into the catagory of "rape", and realized it was easier to do that by leveraging the existing concept of "rape by an acquaintance", rolling the whole thing together and calling it "date rape".




No. I'm not failing to address that. It's my key point. You have to remember that we're talking about legal changes and legal charges for a crime. So the issue of proving consent is critical. If you can't prove a crime has been commited, can you charge someone with that crime, arrest them, set a trial date, etc? Prior to the 90s, when the whole date rape thing became a big political issue, the criteria I mentioned earlier was pretty much the rule. If you could not show evidence of physical force being used, you couldn't charge someone with a crime. In exactly the same way I can't charge you with battery if I don't have any bruises on me or any witnesses to an assault of some kind.


My whole point is that what you can claim and what you can prove are two very very different things. In a sane legal system, there must be some minimum level of proof before a charge should even be leveled. What happened during the 90s was that we lowered the bar of proof needed to bring a charge against someone. In many cases (like that of the OP) lowered it to the point where any woman could charge someone with rape, with no evidence other then her own claim, and that charge would be taken seriously. The male would be charged, booked, bail set, etc...

That's my problem. It clearly was a problem in the OP. And it very definately was a legal change that came out of the "cause" to fight against date rape. I'm still confused how anyone can deny this. They happened at the same time. Date rape, while perhaps broadly defined as any rape by someone you know, changed only in that the "grey rape" idea was added. Since that focuses on non-physical sexual coersion and labels it "rape", that requires a much more lenient allegation process in order to ever hope to bring one to trial. I honestly didn't think I was trying to express a concept that was that complicated or difficult to understand. Clearly, the laws changed over time. Clearly those changes make it easier for women to charge a man with rape. Clearly, those changes occured at the same time that "date rape" was a big politcal issue, and many changes were made. The obvious conclusion is well... obvious.



That's part of what I'm saying. It's a whole body of changes in our legal thinking about rape. Certainly the idea that a woman must give explicit consent is part of it. I remember a college town changing their laws a number of years ago, basically requiring that every act of sex or change of sexual "level" must be accompanied by an explicit and verbal request and approval. So basically, if the man does not ask the woman "can I take off your panties", regardless of body language or anything else, he could be charged with rape.

That's the change in thinking that drive situations like the OP. IMO, that does not empower women at all. As I've said a few times now, I believe it reinforces negative stereotypes about women. The assumption for the verbal permission thing is that if a woman is to drunk or otherwise incapacitated to verbalize consent, then she can't give consent is ludicrous and biased. So I guess a drunk man is always in control, but a drunk woman is just a victim? And that's what passes for womens rights these days?


There are just so many aspects of the entire issue that disgust me that it's hard to focus on just one. They promote negative stereotypes about women. They don't help the victims of violence at all, but just add to the "numbers" so it seems like they've got more company I guess. And the create situations like the OP that should never happen under any sane legal system.


Again. Ignore the semantics and look at what has changed. Call it date rape, grey rape, or stupid rape if you want. The fact is that sometime in the last 15 years, we've changed the laws as regards charges of rape. We've done so specifically to try to target men who take advantage of women. But in the process, we've created a set of rules that can easily be taken advantage of by any women with a mind to do so and a beef against a man. What you call it doesn't matter. The fact is that this is why soemthing like the OP can and does happen all the time.

There's a difference between stating your opinion, and attempting to make a persuasive argument without the use of such fancy notions as logic or truth.





Edited, Fri Aug 19 23:39:30 2005 by trickybeck

You just keep drinking that smug coffee of yours.


Maybe I need to go back and re-read everything gbaji posted, because I honestly just see a guy basing explaination/observations and views upon his own classification of the types of 'rape' and how they should be dealt with. Is his arguement consistent and well planned? Not from what Joph and others are pointing out; however, it appears that he made a mistake in the beginning, and unfortunately the snowball just keeps going down the hill.

You've got a guy who'll write a pragraph to say hello, and a male feminist arguing about an incredibly tricky subject. It's like Bush and a bycicle, you just can't win either way.

So, summary: You're cranky and irritated because Gbaji-wise, you've only just discovered fire and are upset that others are making s'mores? Got it. If you don't see the fun in a good 'ol circular argument/flame fest, you're in the wrong forum. Cry me a river.


A culture that relies so heavily upon language can't help but use labels. I assume the term evolved more for psychological than legal reasons. There is a difference when your trust and body have been violated by someone you trusted vs. someone you never met. I disagree about the end result. Being raped by your father vs. nameless hoodlum makes Annie a much more screwy individual, who requires different care if she is to move past it. Of course neither option is "better", but you can't deny that statutory, drugged, prison, gang rape, male rape and grey rape all have their specific issues.

Would the line "Get raped" be too risky for this thread?





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ( v o)

speak for yourself, ****.

It was more like "wait, he's your boyfriend, and you've had sex before, so how can it be rape now?". Victims were having trouble being heard and believed that a bona fide rape occurred in the first place.

Whippersnapper.

You ****, how would you feel if you were accused of rape and no woman would go near you for the rest of your life EVEN though she dropped the case. And if you even remotely want to write something serious I'd suggest you use this tool herebefore you get flamed on spelling.

How can you spell people wrong...

Ok, all TRUE rapes leave marks or at least thats what my dad the Forensic Scientist told me. See, they have a UV camera that can see far far better than the human eye. If you run into a cabinet there is a bruise you just can't see it because it's under the surface level. So this UV camera can pick up a bruise the size of a needle showing there was some struggle.



Gbaji is right. The laws did change it was only in the mid 90's that the grey rape clause was added.
If nobody checked this link
then I suggest you do it.

In Illnois a woman can charge you with rape AFTER consesual sex started if she realizes she made a bad choice and says no AFTER CONSENSUAL SEX STARTED.

This may not prove gbaji's 80's-90's claim but it sure proves the laws are changing so a woman can send a man to jail just because she made a bad decision. As Gbaji said. Jophiel's claims are insanly biased ,go ahead flame me,he/she never looks at it from a male's point of few.

I'm about 6'2" 200 pounds quite a big guy but I'm more or less a nerd/geek. The only muscle I have is on my calf's and thigh's. I was falsely accused of rape at the age of 15. She said I forced her down and put all my weight on her shoulders and held her like that till I was done. She was my girlfriend at the time around 2 years, and well just between the forum and I she could kick my *** ten ways to sunday if she felt like it she was 5' 11" around the time 175 pounds of rock muscle. So, with that being said HOW could I have forced her down with 200+ pounds of force and not have even left the slightest mark, she does bruise easily you could poke her and she'd bruise, bruise or anything. Well, to any effect it went to trial and was thrown out because she had little proof just her word and trace DNA. Thank god the judge believed me probly because he saw she could beat my ***. Anyway the reason she accused me I think, I haven't talked to her since the trial, was because we had a HUGE fight and we just ended it, f.y.i. she broke up w/ me just so you know I'm not a royal ***.

So, Thus with nothing but her word against mine I was in jail for a little over a day before I got bail. Went to trial over a false claim, And lastly my whole life was **** from there until I moved.

You know the look people give you that sick digusted look and the shifty eyes. Yeah, get that thrown in your face every day and **** from the of every girl in the whole school,this school has 7-12 grades approx. 3k kids, and parents for 3 years of your life and not say that these laws are ****** the hell up. Where your Ex-G/f or even just a good friend in the case of the OP can royally **** your life just because they got pissed at you or made a bad decision so Jophiel I give you my two finger salute and say **** you.

You know what, you're right. I think we should change some laws up so we can save some guys the trouble you went through... Who cares if a fair amount of actual rapists go free? No big deal right? At least you and some other guys wouldn't be inconvenienced.

Does it suck that stuff like what happened to you and the young man in the OP happens? Fuc[/b]king right it does! Deal with it you fuc[b]king pansy! Get a pair and realize that sh[/b]it fu[b]cking happens in life. 1 day in jail... cry me a fu[/b]cking river.

Some rules suck, some laws inconvenience innocent people (sometimes worse), but the ultimate purpose they serve almost always justifies their existence (especially in this case). Is this not common sense?

Its called the "Big Picture". If you and Gbaji could see past your own fu[b]cking noses you just might be able to undersand that.

/rant off

Edited, Mon Aug 22 09:23:19 2005 by NaturalDisaster

Only if you don't stop when she says no, dingleberry.

That's according to the law. And it's hardly a new thing that has to do with date rape. The Illinois bill added section (c) to sections (a) and (b) which were part of the 1960 law. In other words, "threat of force" has been on the books in Illinois since at least 1960, long before "date rape" was a term.
This would be where the courts have the task of determing whether it was consentual or not. Neither proves guilt, they merely give cause to go to court. The onus is on the girl to prove it was non-consentual (at least in the US, I don't know UK law).
Given that the area was presumably residental, I'm just glad you're not my lawyer. Anyway, I doubt leaving someone alone anywhere constitutes a threat of force so this would be a moot point.Oh, absolutely

Edited, Mon Aug 22 12:53:15 2005 by Jophiel