·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Little girls that cry rape are bad
Little girls that cry rape are badFollow
Wow this is the first time i've ever checked out the assylum forum and it really is the assylum. Can't we just leave it alone? I mean in my opinion ghabi or whatever his name is, is a ****** that like to knitpick at everything. The truth is the world isn't perfect and humans suck. The sooner we self destruct and leave the earth in peace the better. I think the world would be a better place if everyone knew just how lucky and the minute a chance we have of existing. Anyway i'm just rambling now, i think we need to just end this thread, but i have to say it was a good read and i learnt a lot. :)
1 post
As my first post i'd like to start off by saying Jophiel, you have way too many posts, and everything that comes out of your mouth is crap.
Personally, I think the only people who should be talking about rape are the people who have actually had a foreboding experience with it, be it a person who has actually been raped,their family, friends, whatever.
That's why i'm shutting up right now.
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:50:59 2005 by Takeshii
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:47:56 2005 by Takeshii
Personally, I think the only people who should be talking about rape are the people who have actually had a foreboding experience with it, be it a person who has actually been raped,their family, friends, whatever.
That's why i'm shutting up right now.
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:50:59 2005 by Takeshii
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:47:56 2005 by Takeshii
Takeshii wrote:
As my first post i'd like to start off by saying Jophiel, you have way too many posts, and everything that comes out of your mouth is crap.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Takeshii wrote:
As my first post i'd like to start off by saying Jophiel, you have way too many posts, and everything that comes out of your mouth is crap.
Personally, I think the only people who should be talking about rape are the people who have actually had a foreboding experience with it, be it a person who has actually been raped,their family, friends, whatever.
That's why i'm shutting up right now.
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:50:59 2005 by Takeshii
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:47:56 2005 by Takeshii
Personally, I think the only people who should be talking about rape are the people who have actually had a foreboding experience with it, be it a person who has actually been raped,their family, friends, whatever.
That's why i'm shutting up right now.
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:50:59 2005 by Takeshii
Edited, Tue Aug 30 13:47:56 2005 by Takeshii
Edit a third time, and remove "foreboding."
Maybe the experience is lurking in his closet, Mr. Smart Guy.
I have a second cousin who, during her first year of college, was drugged, raped by multiple guys (the medical folk say four) and left naked in a cornfield in central Illinois in February. Luckily, she managed to awaken and stumble to a house with only some nasty frostbite to show as her additional injuries. I've no idea what that has to do with the OP but I'm glad I'm now qualified!
I have a second cousin who, during her first year of college, was drugged, raped by multiple guys (the medical folk say four) and left naked in a cornfield in central Illinois in February. Luckily, she managed to awaken and stumble to a house with only some nasty frostbite to show as her additional injuries. I've no idea what that has to do with the OP but I'm glad I'm now qualified!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
And to think I missed all those freshman campus hijinks in favor of entering the workforce after high school.
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
And to think I missed all those freshman campus hijinks in favor of entering the workforce after high school.
I know!
Edited, Tue Aug 30 18:22:01 2005 by Debalic
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Jophiel wrote:
I have a second cousin who, during her first year of college, was drugged, raped by multiple guys (the medical folk say four) and left naked in a cornfield in central Illinois in February. Luckily, she managed to awaken and stumble to a house with only some nasty frostbite to show as her additional injuries. I've no idea what that has to do with the OP but I'm glad I'm now qualified!
Least she could have the corn as a snack if she wanted.
In all seriousness, that's pretty sad.
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
I'm just going to say to all the men out there arguing what's going on in a womans mind (you've never known what we were thinking before, what makes you think you can understand this?): most of us love sex. Most of us are not trying to "cry rape" in order to get back at some man that wronged us.
Women that do cry rape are bad, and the rest of us are not behind her, cheering "You go, girl!"
And yes, quite a lot of women have been subjected to date rape, and it wasn't just "morning after regret". Usually we just regret the fact that we knew the guy that put us in that position in the first place.
can this thread end now? Sheesh.
Women that do cry rape are bad, and the rest of us are not behind her, cheering "You go, girl!"
And yes, quite a lot of women have been subjected to date rape, and it wasn't just "morning after regret". Usually we just regret the fact that we knew the guy that put us in that position in the first place.
can this thread end now? Sheesh.
Hah! Apparently not...
You're right. The problem though is that while you may not be standing on the sidelines cheering the false-rape accusers, there are many powerful womens groups/lobbyists who *are* doing just that. Koss's study (which is where the 1 in 4 figure comes from) is absolutely scary in how it's handled. Basically, even if the women didn't think they were raped, weren't traumatized, and didn't feel any regret at all, they were counted as "raped" in the study.
And it's exactly this sort of thinking that *is* influencing our laws and has been for the last 15-20 years now. Your lack of cheerleading is great. But that's not stopping the lobbyists who are pushing for those legal changes. And they're pushing for those changes based on ridiculously broadly defined rape as outlined in Koss's study.
Worse, the findings and underlining thought behind that definition is what's being taught to women in universities and colleges around the country (and presumably in the UK, France, Germany, etc). Women are being "re-educated" about what constitutes rape based on the Koss model. Is there *any* wonder why some women belief it? Is there any wonder that some women will take those ideas to heart and charge rape in situations that are *not* rape?
Joph makes a big point that non-consentual is not the same as regretting it afterwords. But remember that non-consentual is extremely subjective. Who says whether the woman gave consent? The active-consent folks say that unless a woman says "yes" to every specific sexual action, she's not giving consent. Some laws are now defining any form of intoxication as making consent impossible. So yeah. In many cases, given the extremely broad and subjective conditions underwhich a charge of rape can be brought, the only difference between a man charged with rape and one who isn't will be whether or not the woman regrets the sexual encounter the next day. If she had a good time, she likely wont charge the guy with rape. If she regrets the sex, she just might.
The point I'm making is that with such a broad definition, almost all sexual encounters *can* be considered rape, if the woman wants to. Somewhat by requirement (since she's not likely to be pressing charges until *after* the event) the decision of whether rape occured in those cases will be after the fact, and certainly her feelings about the encounter will be a significant factor in that decision.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
If she had a good time, she likely wont charge the guy with rape.
Bobby Knight wrote:
If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.
gbaji wrote:
The active-consent folks say that unless a woman says "yes" to every specific sexual action, she's not giving consent.
I don't know about you, but when I have sex the woman screams "yes" during every sexual action. Don't be upset becuase you can't perform in the sack. I've been called God too, although I don't think I should be idolized as your next diety. Then again ...
At this point I would like to jump back in and just reiterate that Gbaji is the Cliff Claven of the boards. You spout a lot of useless sh[b][/b]it. This time in particular you spouted something extremely stupid and poorly thought out have spent the last 2 pages trying to explain how it "isnt stupid" all the while you are only digging yourself deeper.
We all understand what you are saying. Its perfectly clear under the mass of words. Its just that everyone on the forum (everyone that is not you) disagrees with what you are saying.
We all understand what you are saying. Its perfectly clear under the mass of words. Its just that everyone on the forum (everyone that is not you) disagrees with what you are saying.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
So, Nadenu, what's your favorite mix to put with vodka?
I sometimes like a vodka tonic in the summertime with a twist of lime. That's pretty refreshing, don't you think? When I was younger, I was a vodka sour gal & I guess I still sort of like that too.
When I'm feeling really festive I like a nice, dry martini, but it's no fun if it isn't served in a martini glass.
I sometimes like a vodka tonic in the summertime with a twist of lime. That's pretty refreshing, don't you think? When I was younger, I was a vodka sour gal & I guess I still sort of like that too.
When I'm feeling really festive I like a nice, dry martini, but it's no fun if it isn't served in a martini glass.
I'm actually into the vanilla vodka right now. Mix it with a little tonic or 7... very refreshing.
And I haven't seen my martini glasses in quite a while. I'm hoping they're just still in storage. At least I haven't been reduced to using jelly glasses yet though!
yet.
Quote:
At this point I would like to jump back in and just reiterate that Gbaji is the Cliff Claven of the boards. You spout a lot of useless ****. This time in particular you spouted something extremely stupid and poorly thought out have spent the last 2 pages trying to explain how it "isnt stupid" all the while you are only digging yourself deeper.
We all understand what you are saying. Its perfectly clear under the mass of words. Its just that everyone on the forum (everyone that is not you) disagrees with what you are saying.
We all understand what you are saying. Its perfectly clear under the mass of words. Its just that everyone on the forum (everyone that is not you) disagrees with what you are saying.
Cites??
bhodisattva wrote:
This time in particular you spouted something extremely stupid and poorly thought out have spent the last 2 pages trying to explain how it "isnt stupid" all the while you are only digging yourself deeper.
Wait! Let me get this straight. The OP links a news story in which a 13 year old is falsely accused of rape, and run through the ringer over it.
I state that the reason this is happening more often is because of a change in both social perception and laws resulting from the "date rape" movement in the 1990s. I show conclusively that these social changes have occured. I show conclusively that there have been changes to the laws as a *direct* result of that movement.
But my statement is "stupid"? How exactly is it stupid to point out the incredibly obvious cause for the problem shown in the OP?
I've provided an extremely well thought and logical argument. It's been responded to with nothing but knee-jerk cliche answers and rhetoric. Almost every single counterargument has been pure strawman. Joph in particular has responded on several occasions with counter arguments that don't actually counter what I'm saying at all. I list off what is and what is not rape, and he says I'm wrong because something I said was rape is actually rape. Um... Thanks for playing, but that's not countering anything I said.
No one has yet provided a single viable counterargument to my original premis that false accusations like the one in the OP are the direct result of legal and perception changes in regards to rape that occurred in the mid 90s when the "date rape" issue became a major thing. That's all I said. Not one person has presented a single counter to that statement. Instead, we've had people trying to spin various scenarios that maybe are rape or aren't, and trying to imply that I'm a bad man because I'm not supportive of rape victims or something.
But I'm stupid? Sheesh folks.
Quote:
We all understand what you are saying. Its perfectly clear under the mass of words. Its just that everyone on the forum (everyone that is not you) disagrees with what you are saying.
No. I don't think you do. The fact that not a single counter argument has directly addressed what I said is pretty indicative of just how much you *don't* understand. You don't disagree with me because you understand what I'm saying but don't think it's a viable statement. You disagree with me because I'm saying something that appears to be against rape victims. And being against rape victims is "bad", so I must be wrong. It's a nice comfortable state of ignorance that I see all too often.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gbaji wriggled once more:
To be accurate (a trait you yourself seem to lack), your point starting out in this thread was NOT that the change in social and legal perception of what constitutes rape was leading to more and more false accusations.
Your point was that if a woman didn't have bruises, she wasn't raped. Period. You went on for several posts about how all TRUE rapes were committed in violence and always left some sort of physical signs. You pretended to know about the medical and forensic details of such attacks, but in the process patently proved that you actually knew no such thing.
Only when you had been called upon these facts and told, flat out, that you were a fu[i][/i]ckwit for proposing that only bruises could be considered an indicator of rape did you attempt to change your tact. You attempted to demonstrate then how rapes laws were changing to include women who changed their minds after the fact of intercourse. When challenged to demonstrate exactly what laws were setting this precedent, you were unable to do so.
So, with your habitual ability to perform more spins than a prima ballerina, you then moved on to the social perception of rape, and now are claiming that this has been your stance all along.
But it ain't necessarily so. Some of us DO remember what you started out arguing, and it isn't what you claim it is.
Quote:
I state that the reason this is happening more often is because of a change in both social perception and laws resulting from the "date rape" movement in the 1990s. I show conclusively that these social changes have occured. I show conclusively that there have been changes to the laws as a *direct* result of that movement.
To be accurate (a trait you yourself seem to lack), your point starting out in this thread was NOT that the change in social and legal perception of what constitutes rape was leading to more and more false accusations.
Your point was that if a woman didn't have bruises, she wasn't raped. Period. You went on for several posts about how all TRUE rapes were committed in violence and always left some sort of physical signs. You pretended to know about the medical and forensic details of such attacks, but in the process patently proved that you actually knew no such thing.
Only when you had been called upon these facts and told, flat out, that you were a fu[i][/i]ckwit for proposing that only bruises could be considered an indicator of rape did you attempt to change your tact. You attempted to demonstrate then how rapes laws were changing to include women who changed their minds after the fact of intercourse. When challenged to demonstrate exactly what laws were setting this precedent, you were unable to do so.
So, with your habitual ability to perform more spins than a prima ballerina, you then moved on to the social perception of rape, and now are claiming that this has been your stance all along.
But it ain't necessarily so. Some of us DO remember what you started out arguing, and it isn't what you claim it is.
That's only because you're too busy arguing semantics out of context to look at the literal deltas and stuff. That's poor logic!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ambrya wrote:
Gbaji wriggled once more:
To be accurate (a trait you yourself seem to lack), your point starting out in this thread was NOT that the change in social and legal perception of what constitutes rape was leading to more and more false accusations.
Quote:
I state that the reason this is happening more often is because of a change in both social perception and laws resulting from the "date rape" movement in the 1990s. I show conclusively that these social changes have occured. I show conclusively that there have been changes to the laws as a *direct* result of that movement.
To be accurate (a trait you yourself seem to lack), your point starting out in this thread was NOT that the change in social and legal perception of what constitutes rape was leading to more and more false accusations.
Actually. The first sentence I wrote in this thread was this:
gbaji wrote:
Not really surprising though. We headed down this "slipperly slope" when we started putting weight in the idea of date rape.
That's the point I made at the very beginning. It was meant in a broad sense to address the trend of false accusation for rape.
I then *added* this statement:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but if there's no signs of struggle, you weren't raped. You just made a bad choice. Deal with it...
And you're right. This is pretty questionable, and I've already ammended it by accepting that it's possible to be raped without any physical signs being left (the knife to the throat scenario). I'm still not thoroughly convinced that a forensics exam couldn't establish a degree of force involved in the rape (no amount of holding a knife to a womans throat is going to make her completely accepting of sex, and I'd expect that to show in excessive bruising and tearing during a rape exam), but I'll accept the argument that some women maybe wont show physical signs.
But that's still somewhat tangental to the point I was making.
When I wrote that second statement, I was *specifically* referring to the case in the OP. In that situation, no threat with a weapon was alleged. She simply claimed that the guy forced her to give him a ********. In that case, one would expect some form of physical evidence to being physically forced to perform such an act. Yet there was no indication that they even looked for it, or that it was used as any determinant of a rape having occured.
Quote:
Your point was that if a woman didn't have bruises, she wasn't raped. Period. You went on for several posts about how all TRUE rapes were committed in violence and always left some sort of physical signs. You pretended to know about the medical and forensic details of such attacks, but in the process patently proved that you actually knew no such thing.
Again. I don't necessarily agree with that assertion. While I'll accept that my second statement was a bit broad, it's broadness does not cancel out the initial statement at all. Coming up with scenarios where a woman can be raped without leaving any physical signs does not counter the statement that our definition of date rape and the adoption of many of the concepts therein within our legal system has made it easier for many women to charge rape in situations where no "real" rape has occured.
Quote:
Only when you had been called upon these facts and told, flat out, that you were a fu[/i]ckwit for proposing that only bruises could be considered an indicator of rape did you attempt to change your tact. You attempted to demonstrate then how rapes laws were changing to include women who changed their minds after the fact of intercourse. When challenged to demonstrate exactly what laws were setting this precedent, you were unable to do so.
But you're looking at this wrong. You're looking at it in a "If I prove one thing wrong that gbaji said, then everything he said is wrong" manner. That's bogus logic. You can look at my orinal post as a statement and a supporting argument (it wasn't originally intended that way, but I'll accept if you intepret it that way). If you counter the supporting statement, then is it not perfectly acceptable for me to produce additional supporting statements? Is it not acceptable for me to counter that the conditions underwhich my supporting statement is *not* valid do not counter my original statement?
My point was about the "slipperly slope" of broadening the definition of rape within the context of "date rape" and how that has resulted in false accusations like that in the OP. I made one statement in semi-support of that contention. Yes. It was a poor one. I admit that. I honestly was only thinking about situations like in the OP. However, introducing cases where someone was held at knifepoint and forced to perform some sexual act does *not* counter my original contention. What's happening is that we're seeing charges filed in cases where no physical force is alleged at all, or cases where physical force is alleged but no evidence of that force can be found. So you can come up with a scenario where a threat of force is used, so that a woman is raped with no physical evidence on her body. Well bully for you! I'll be the first one to say that the threat of violence is rape in those situations (and I have stated that repeatedly in this thread).
I'm specifically talking about the set of situations where we charge rape in situations where no physical force was used or alleged to be used and in which no "extranious" threats of violence were issued. That's the crux of the whole date rape movement. It contends that non-physical coersion counts as rape as well. Forcing a woman to have sex by threatening her with a weapon was rape before the date rape issue came up, and is still rape after. I'm talking about the changes in the definition of rape.
Quote:
So, with your habitual ability to perform more spins than a prima ballerina, you then moved on to the social perception of rape, and now are claiming that this has been your stance all along.
Except I didn't "move on" to the social perception of rape. I started my whole argument with that point. You chose to ignore the point and argue the particulars of a secondary statement. What exactly did you think I was referring to when I said that the date rape phenomenon was partly responsible for the situation in the OP? Did you just skim over that point? I wrote it first and the other part second for a reason. Unlike some people here, I write in a relatively "classical" way in which I present the main point first, and then supporting statements afterwords. Attacking the supporting statements without looking at them in the context of the main point is somewhat irrelevant, right? But that's exactly what you and most of the others here did.
Quote:
But it ain't necessarily so. Some of us DO remember what you started out arguing, and it isn't what you claim it is.
Funny. Your memory must not be as good as you think it is...
[i]Edited, Tue Aug 30 22:53:58 2005 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Sadly reading these posts is more entertaining than watching the "Alexander" DVD I rented. God what a boring-*** movie. Started trolling the boards midway through that piece of crap.
Feel sorry for the kid, but he's lucky he's a minor. An adult would have had his name and picture broadcast on the local news, and despite the "no crime" finding, four days later, his life would have been totally screwed. The accusation is always front page news, while the retraction get buried somewhere on page 11. As it stands, there will likely be those who still call him a rapist, regardless of the facts in the case.
Feel sorry for the kid, but he's lucky he's a minor. An adult would have had his name and picture broadcast on the local news, and despite the "no crime" finding, four days later, his life would have been totally screwed. The accusation is always front page news, while the retraction get buried somewhere on page 11. As it stands, there will likely be those who still call him a rapist, regardless of the facts in the case.
Quote:
I seldom agree with an imbecile, but in this I agree.
Great minds think alike....errr, or occasionally you think like a great mind.
Tacosid
Great minds think alike....errr, or occasionally you think like a great mind.
Tacosid
Hey, Taco.
I agree to an extent. I think they should have to prove that the false accuser knowingly mislead police or investigators. Otherwise, you could have an instance where rape actually happened but evidence supporting it wasn't enough to charge or convict.
So, in a "he said, she said" case, police would have to prove that the woman conspired to mislead them to purposefully hurt the defendant.
Grady
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Recent Visitors: 391
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (391)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Little girls that cry rape are bad
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC