Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

#52 Aug 17 2005 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
730 posts
And yet another topic dissolves into a flame war...it`d be enough to make me lose my faith in mankind, if I had any.
____________________________
Shadowvincent: Purple Wall of Fairy.
RIP The Golden Age of Dragoon, 28/8/07-28/8/07.
#53 Aug 17 2005 at 11:21 PM Rating: Default
******
20,650 posts
shadowvincent wrote:
And yet another topic dissolves into a flame war...it`d be enough to make me lose my faith in mankind, if I had any.


/nod and it wasnt even skillfully done Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#54 Aug 17 2005 at 11:22 PM Rating: Default
**
535 posts
ElderonXI the Wise wrote:
proofeleven wrote:
ElderonXI the Wise wrote:
proofeleven wrote:
Interview me bi[b][/b]tch, I have raped 100's of little boys.



Fixed.


You only count as one


Weak sauce. Come on you can do better than that. Oh wait... maybe you can't.


You're just not worth it

____________________________
Quote:
Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy **** costume and beat you with a warm squash
#55 Aug 17 2005 at 11:27 PM Rating: Default
**
535 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
shadowvincent wrote:
And yet another topic dissolves into a flame war...it`d be enough to make me lose my faith in mankind, if I had any.


/nod and it wasnt even skillfully done Smiley: disappointed


And you can do better?
____________________________
Quote:
Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy **** costume and beat you with a warm squash
#56 Aug 17 2005 at 11:39 PM Rating: Good
****
5,310 posts
Bhodi wrote:
Doesnt matter if he is talking politics, religion, cheques or date rape. He figures if he has a enough words and cites that its somehow right.
When was the last time Gbaji provided a cite? His sources are usually that he claims to know someone whose roomate's aunt took a class in college about it, thus granting he, Gbaji, intimate knowledge and understanding of the topic at hand.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#57 Aug 18 2005 at 2:58 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Is anyone actually surprised that a guy like Gbaji takes the position "Date rape doesnt count"?


Disgusted, yes. Surprised, no.

I think Amrya rocked him with her examples too. Sh[i][/i]it Gbaji, I know you hide behind you monstrous posts and nit picking misinterpretations but I never thought you were this big of a moron.
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#58 Aug 18 2005 at 4:23 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts

I am both laughing and cringing. I realized all this a couple months ago, and is why I vowed never to respond to a Gbaji post again. It's hard to kick the habit at first, but once you do you'll be much happier.


Edit: I used to keep responding to him because I felt it was my duty to dissolve any notion that he might be correct, and prevent him from swaying fence-sitters to his position. But after this, that's no longer a worry. Smiley: laugh




Edited, Thu Aug 18 05:36:14 2005 by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#59 Aug 18 2005 at 5:01 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
I used to keep responding to him because I felt it was my duty to dissolve any notion that he might be correct, and prevent him from swaying fence-sitters to his position.


This pretty much gets to the heart of it for me. I feel like, if I leave his bulls[i][/i]hit out there unanswered, then somehow it might be interpretted as credible. But this...this is just beyond the pale. This is more like the sort of trolling varrus does.



____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're gay, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky **** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#60 Aug 18 2005 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Anything Gbaji has ever posted reeks of misyogenism and objectification. Short of going back in time and kicking his pregnant mother in the stomach, nothing will ever fix this. I just hope he's sterile.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#61varrussword, Posted: Aug 18 2005 at 10:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Rape...date rape...
#62 Aug 18 2005 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
*****
12,561 posts
Patrician wrote:
Persoanlly, I think that girls who are proven to have falsely accused rape (i.e. the man was undoubtably somewhere else) should be given a rape level sentence for perverting the course of justice.


I 100% agree. It is a travesty to the legal system when someone can use justice as a weapon without any repurcussions.
____________________________
Blah
#63 Aug 18 2005 at 10:48 AM Rating: Default
******
20,650 posts
Varus hows it going sexy,

Wanna f[b][/b]uck?
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#64 Aug 18 2005 at 11:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,188 posts
Bhodi, you scare the living daylight out of me.
____________________________
Leondol
75 WHM PUP COR
Ifrit Server
French Toast and Pop-Tarts
#65 Aug 18 2005 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
13,880 posts
proofeleven wrote:
You're just not worth it


Ha! Show's what you know. Clairol told me I am, so there!
#66 Aug 18 2005 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,754 posts
Leonjerome wrote:
Bhodi, fu[b][/b]ck the living daylight out of me.


I say hit it.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#67 Aug 18 2005 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,288 posts
ElderonXI the Wise wrote:
proofeleven wrote:
You're just not worth it


Ha! Show's what you know. Clairol told me I am, so there!


I think you mean L'Oreal.
#68 Aug 18 2005 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
******
20,650 posts
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
Leonjerome wrote:
Bhodi, fu[b][/b]ck the living daylight out of me.


I say hit it.


No my eye is on Varus, I won't stop till I am inside of him. What do you say Varus, you can put on a short skirt I will take you out for some drinks then pull the car oversome where and "force" myself upon. We can test and see if you get any bruises or marks

Edited, Thu Aug 18 12:41:38 2005 by bhodisattva
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#69 Aug 18 2005 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
*****
13,880 posts
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
ElderonXI the Wise wrote:
proofeleven wrote:
You're just not worth it


Ha! Show's what you know. Clairol told me I am, so there!


I think you mean L'Oreal.


Yes, them too. Furthering my argument. Smiley: grin
#70varrussword, Posted: Aug 18 2005 at 12:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Bhodi,
#71 Aug 18 2005 at 12:36 PM Rating: Default
******
20,650 posts
Oh yeah I came in my pants when you quoted the Lords Prayer.

Thank you Varus.
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#72 Aug 18 2005 at 12:42 PM Rating: Default
**
535 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
Leonjerome wrote:
Bhodi, fu[b][/b]ck the living daylight out of me.


I say hit it.


No my eye is on Varus, I won't stop till I am inside of him. What do you say Varus, you can put on a short skirt I will take you out for some drinks then pull the car oversome where and "force" myself upon. We can test and see if you get any bruises or marks

Edited, Thu Aug 18 12:41:38 2005 by bhodisattva


Im sure he wont feel a thing
____________________________
Quote:
Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy **** costume and beat you with a warm squash
#73 Aug 18 2005 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,776 posts
I remember a friend back in high school that was got **** at her boyfriend that she claimed that he raped her. Her parents got involved and he was charged with sexual assault and battery. Nothing came of it and the case was dropped, but the aftermath of it was horrendous. No parent ever let their daughter around this guy because "you never know" and he ended up going to a college across the country after we graduated.

But after reading Gbaji's post, I think his date rape reasoning is somewhere along the lines of "when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
#74 Aug 18 2005 at 4:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
NaturalDisaster the Silent wrote:
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
Is anyone actually surprised that a guy like Gbaji takes the position "Date rape doesnt count"?


Disgusted, yes. Surprised, no.

I think Amrya rocked him with her examples too. Sh[i][/i]it Gbaji, I know you hide behind you monstrous posts and nit picking misinterpretations but I never thought you were this big of a moron.


No. She really didn't. I haven't been online since then.

Her scenarios are nice, and they do illustrate her point, but they don't disprove mine either.

First off, the first scenario is incredibly incredibly rare. I don't think I have *ever* heard of that happening. A man sneaking in quietly, hearding the woman in to a back room with a gun, threatening to kill her children if she doesn't have **** with him? Find me a single example of that happening. It's the kind of thing you might see on a movie of the week, but doesn't happen in real life. Maybe one in a thousand rapes happen that way, and I'm being generous.

The second senario is *not* rape. She made a choice. She was offered the choice of calling a cab, or having **** with someone. That's not rape. It's not incredibly nice of the guy, but that's a far cry from rape. She was not forced. She was given a choice. Can you seriously tell me that walking home is worse then being raped? I'm sorry, but no woman would make that choice if she really thought that was rape. That's unfair pressure, to be sure. But that's *not* rape! I can't even believe anyone bought that one.

The vast majority of rapes are exactly as I described. They are violent. Women are grabbed, tossed around, beaten, and then raped. While I certainly can accept the possiblity of someone being raped without a mark being left, it's going to be the exception and not the rule.



Exactly how many people do you know of who've been raped, where they actually had *no* choice about it (ie: not your bogus second example), and they weren't beaten or bruised or hurt in any other way?


My point is that we can come up with example after example of women abusing the broadness of our current definition and legal approach to rape. The OP is just one. It's hardly the first, and not even close to likely to be the last. Show me that the rate of women raped with no physical signs of it is greater then the rate of men unfairly accused of rape as happened in the OP. If you can't, then how can we justify a system that punishes men randomly so that an incredibly small number of woman can press charges when they might not have been able to otherwise. Doubly silly since legally you'll have a **** of a time proving rape without any physical signs anyway, right? Are we helping those rare cases at all with this? I don't think so. But we are doing a heck of a lot of harm...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Aug 18 2005 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
I don't think I have *ever* heard of that happening.
Well, hell... that convinced me. We all know Gbaji's perceptions and experiences are what shape reality.

Again, numbers? Cites on your claim that the vast majority of date rape cases are actually post-sex regrets? I already assume you're as qualified as my lawn is to say what rapes are rare or extremely rare or whatever. So should I assume when you say something is rare, you're just making sh[i][/i]it up to suit your arguments?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Aug 18 2005 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,754 posts
Quote:
So should I assume when you say something is rare, you're just making **** up to suit your arguments?











Ummm psst. That's what we all do.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#77 Aug 18 2005 at 4:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And we call one another on it as well. Gbaji is the master at making up stuff and then proclaiming it to be fact and basing his entire argument off of his own fantasies. No reason to waste time chipping away at details when you can show the entire foundation to be a dream.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Aug 18 2005 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
******
20,650 posts
In this case however its more than likely if Gbaji admitted that he was wrong he just wouldnt be "wrong" he would probably be "guilty".
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#79 Aug 18 2005 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,754 posts
Yeah, the "My experience is my citation" argument doesn't hold up too well.

You can argue logic behind experiences, but not experiences as definitive proof.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#80 Aug 18 2005 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
What, you guys didn't know that gbaji is a crime scene investigator and forensic pathologist? I thoguht that much was obvious at least...
____________________________
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.
#81 Aug 18 2005 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Quote:
She was offered the choice of calling a cab, or having **** with someone.


Reading comp is your friend. You've got nothing, so now you are making up sh[/i]it. "Calling a cab" was never an option. She was out in the middle of nowhere in the example. Unless she had a cell phone (which, hard is it may be to believe, not everyone does) then she had no choice.

As for the first option being rare, I can think of at least three different cases I've heard of where variations on that theme came into play (in one case, it was a carjacker who told the woman if she didn't cooperate, he would kill her baby who was in the back seat. In another case, someone followed a woman into her home when she left the door open while bringing in groceries--try watching [i]America's Most Wanted
sometime.)

So no, it's NOT extremely rare. You are talking out your **** on a subject you know absolutely nothing about, trying to justify letting bona fide rapists go scot-free. Just stop. You're completely full of sh[b][/b]it and everyone here sees that except for you (and Virus, and, I mean really, the fact that Virus is the only one backing you up should tell you something about the supportability of your claim.)

The "vast majority" of rapes are NOT violent assaults. If you spent even a week working a rape crisis line you would know that.

Quote:
Exactly how many people do you know of who've been raped, where they actually had *no* choice about it (ie: not your bogus second example), and they weren't beaten or bruised or hurt in any other way?


Well, let's see...

My mother lost her virginity at 14 to a guy who threatened her with a pocket knife if she didn't put out. Her "choice" was submitting to sex, or getting stabbed. Are you going to say she wasn't raped because she was given a "choice"?

I was the first one on the scene, the one who called the cops, when my sister's husband got drunk at a wedding reception and pinned her down on the bed and forced himself inside her. She never had any bruises either. As I said, some women don't bruise easily even when there is physical force.

I really have to wonder about the mental stability of someone who is bending over backwards to justify rape. You seem to be about the percentages, well the percentage of girls who abuse existing rape laws to make false allegations is miniscule compared to the number of actual rapists who would go free if bruises and signs of physical struggle were our criteria for determining if someone was actually raped.



Edited, Thu Aug 18 17:58:30 2005 by Ambrya
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're gay, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky **** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#82 Aug 18 2005 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

Quote:

In 1995, 354,670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault. (NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

<snip>

Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)

<snip other stuff>

According to the U.S. Department of Justice: (All statistics are taken from: Violenceagainst Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)

One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage.

31% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.

68% of rapes occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

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

In 29% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.

In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.

75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.


So, if 29% of rape is "acquaintance rape" that means that according to Gbaji's logic, over 100,000 women just "made a bad choice."

53% of women who are raped have no other injuries (i.e. bruises, or that all-important "sign of a struggle") that means that 187,975 women would not be able to "prove" rape. Nearly 200,000 rapists would walk free if Gbaji had his way.

Getting an accurate number of how many rape allegations are deemed false is difficult, because there's propagandizing both on the part of ultrafeminists and the radical anti-feminist movement. According to an article about those wildly diverging statistics concerning how many rape allegations are actually false in the Columbia Journalism Review we get this statistic from the FBI:

Quote:
the FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available) ... The agency's guidelines define a report as false when an investigation determines that no offense occurred. A complainant's failure or refusal to cooperate in the investigation does not, by itself, lead to a finding of false report.


Assuming that the FBIs statistic is the closest to being accurate as we are going to come, then that means 28,373 men are falsely accused.

Let's see...187,975 actual rapists walking free if Gabji's criteria were adopted by law enforcement, or 28,373 men whose lives are inconvenienced by a miscarriage of justice. Looks like a gimme to me.

I feel awful for the men who are falsely accused. I think there should be extremely stiff penalties handed down for women who are proven to have filed false rape allegations. Reparations to their victim, jail time, community service, public humiliation...I'm fine with that. But the idea of letting potentially 200,000 rapists walk free just because they didn't manage to injure their victim is insupportable. Gbaji needs to be deeply ashamed of himself.

____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're gay, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky **** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#83 Aug 18 2005 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
I'll respond to Ambrya in a minute...

Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I don't think I have *ever* heard of that happening.
Well, hell... that convinced me. We all know Gbaji's perceptions and experiences are what shape reality.

Again, numbers? Cites on your claim that the vast majority of date rape cases are actually post-sex regrets? I already assume you're as qualified as my lawn is to say what rapes are rare or extremely rare or whatever. So should I assume when you say something is rare, you're just making sh[i][/i]it up to suit your arguments?


Aside from Ambrya (who I'll respond to), no one else has put any numbers out there either.

However, anecdotally, since the OP was about a case of *exactly* that happening, I'd say that the fact that women *do* claim rape for a variety of reasons without a rape actually occuring. I don't have to cite numbers since we're talking about that scenario occuring. I need only point to the article in the OP.

It would seem to me that the burden is on others to show that my argument is invalid. I'm saying that our rape laws make it too easy for the situation in the OP to occur. I'm saying that this is largely due to the reclassification of "date rape", and the host of ambiguities that brings to the entire issue.


Is that wrong? I'm pretty sure that if our standard for rape was that it had to be provably forcible sexual assualt, then this case would never have gotten past a basic physical examination of the victim.

Would that leave some legitimate rape victims out in the cold? Maybe. But my argument is that we're not talking about a very large number. By Ambrya's own stats, 75% of rape victims required medical attention. We have to assume that a higher percentage had marks/bruises/etc that were sufficient to establish a rape had occured, but didn't actually require medical attention, right?


I'm simply suggesting that the scenarios being created to justify the "no evidence" rape charge are pretty darn rare, but our current rape laws go to the exception rather then the rule, and IMO end up causing more pain then they resolve. You're not going to have any greater chance of a conviction in a rape case with no evidence regardless of how "seriously" the police are required to treat it. However, you will end up with situations exactly like the OP, where someone uses a charge of rape either to get back at someone, or just to avoid an unpleasant situation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Aug 18 2005 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
It would seem to me that the burden is on others to show that my argument is invalid.
Umm... no

The onus is on you to support your arguments, not on us to accept your "facts" out of hand. When your "facts" are questioned, you don't try to turn it around by saying "prove I'm wrong!". Get some cites and numbers to support your "facts" or else admit you're making them up.

To wit:
Gbaji wrote:
What "date rape" is, is when a woman has **** with someone but says she didn't really want to. There's no way to tell if a woman had **** 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 **** with someone, but instead of refusing go along with it, and then after the fact feel they've been taken advantage of.


Find a credible site that supports this claim yet? 'Cause that's not what I read when I looked for info on date rape. Or did you just decide you'll redefine the term and act as if you have some credibility in doing so? 'Cause so far, your argument has been "This is what it is 'cause I said so! Prove me wrong!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85proofeleven, Posted: Aug 18 2005 at 7:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're being trolled by gbaji, thats sad
#86 Aug 18 2005 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts
Quote:
Or did you just decide you'll redefine the term and act as if you have some credibility in doing so? 'Cause so far, your argument has been "This is what it is 'cause I said so! Prove me wrong!"

It's identical to the way he likes to refer to 1750 definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," and call people wrong for using their modern-day meanings.



____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#87 Aug 18 2005 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
proofeleven wrote:
You're being trolled by gbaji, thats sad
I wish I was Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Aug 18 2005 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Ambrya wrote:
So, if 29% of rape is "acquaintance rape" that means that according to Gbaji's logic, over 100,000 women just "made a bad choice."


You're playing semantic games and claiming that every rape that occurs by someone who is an acquaintance is the same as "date rape". Lots of men abuse their wives/girlfriends (and vice versa, but let's ignore that for right now). You cannot assume that every woman raped by an acquaintance was the victim of "date rape", or that they recieved no bruises or beatings in the process of being raped by someone they knew.

By "date rape", I'm talking about when someone has **** with someone they know, shows no physical signs of trauma at all, and claims they didn't consent to the sex. Now, maybe they were forced, and maybe not. My point is that there's no way to possibly know. Are you seriously trying to argue that every single rape by an acquaintance includes no violence? If not, then your point and your statistic is totally irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

Nice little bit of rhetoric to imply that I don't care about 100,000 raped women. Totally false of course. First off the number of "date rapes" is lower then that, and my opinion is that it's *not* rape at all. If you physically have a choice to avoid **** and don't do it, then by definition it's consentual. You keep dragging in all these other scenarios like a women held at knifepoint. If that's the case, then she *doesn't* have a choice. Not a reasonable one at least. But the woman given the choice of walking him versus having **** does. And that's the situations that I'm talking about. My point is that that's what distiguishes rape from date rape in the first place. That's what I have a problem with. Our laws have changed such that "coersion" is incredibly wide in the legal context. To me, unless there is physical violence, or the direct threat of physical violence, then it's not rape.

Quote:
53% of women who are raped have no other injuries (i.e. bruises, or that all-important "sign of a struggle") that means that 187,975 women would not be able to "prove" rape. Nearly 200,000 rapists would walk free if Gbaji had his way.


Um. Not to be obvious or anything, but you are totally misreading the stastics. 53% of women have no "other injuries", then that from the rape. It's not saying that 53% have "no injuries". What that means is that 47% of women who are raped are injuried in a way other then the rape itself (beaten, stabbed, cut, dragged behind a car, whatever). That statistic says nothing about how many women in total were injured. We can assume that it's *more* then 47% though, right?

I find it really amusing that you took this number and twisted it around, but totally missed the one in the same quote that said that 75% of women required medical care. Um... Doesn't that imply that the rate of injuries from rape is much higher then you're trying to say?

Quote:
Quote:
the FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available) ... The agency's guidelines define a report as false when an investigation determines that no offense occurred. A complainant's failure or refusal to cooperate in the investigation does not, by itself, lead to a finding of false report.


Assuming that the FBIs statistic is the closest to being accurate as we are going to come, then that means 28,373 men are falsely accused.


Again with the horrible statistical analysis for two reasons:

1. That's the number that were discovered to be false after police investigation. That does not include any where the victim did not follow up, or dropped the charges herself, etc. I understand that we can't assume anything about those because many women are afraid to follow up with a rape case, but we're excluding *all* of them. This is the number we can "prove" were false claims. Some percentage of the remainder are going to be false as well, but were never investigated for one reason or another.

2. Also. That's specificly the statistics of false accusations in cases of "forcible sexual assault". Many states have separate rules for date rape. Remember, that the whole point of date rape is that you weren't forcibly assaulted, but were talked into having sex, or coerced in a manner other then physically. Thus, that statistic completely misses the date rape phenomenon.

I really think you keep automatically translating "date rape" into "rape", and swapping definitions willy-nilly. They really are two different things. I'm talking about the trend that started in the mid 90s (which might explain why these statistics don't account for them), in which states would charge rape in cases where there wasn't even an allegation of force of any kind. That's what date rape is. It's not someone on a date being raped. It's someone charging rape because they had **** but didn't want to, but they weren't physically forced to (usually there's some psychological pressure or something claimed).

Quote:
Let's see...187,975 actual rapists walking free if Gabji's criteria were adopted by law enforcement, or 28,373 men whose lives are inconvenienced by a miscarriage of justice. Looks like a gimme to me.


Where did you get that number?


Ok. Follow along with me very very slowly...

I'm talking about situations where the woman was *not* raped. Get it? So we're not talking about any "actual rapists" walking around free. The cases I'm talking about are *not* guys running around holding women at knifepoint and raping them. That's rape. I'm talking about the cases where there's not even an allegation of physical force being used, and the "threats" are so vague and unprovable that there's no possible way to determine if a rape actually occured.

How many times do I have to keep explaining the defintion? Women who are most victimized would not be negatively affected at all, and might actually gain greater protection if we focused our efforts on the violent rape cases instead of one's like in the OP. I'm sorry, but if you'd rather have **** with someone then walk home, then it's not even in the same ballpark as someone being raped. That's *not* rape IMO. You can say it is, but I'll disagree with you every time.


Quote:
But the idea of letting potentially 200,000 rapists walk free just because they didn't manage to injure their victim is insupportable. Gbaji needs to be deeply ashamed of himself.


Again. I'm not arguing that we let any rapists "walk free". I'm simply suggesting that if we focused on the violent rapists instead of trying to see if we can get a rape charge against some guy when the only evidence of rape is the womans word, maybe we'll get a lot more results and a lot fewer false charges.

I'm not ashamed. I'm disgusted at women who use rape in such a cavalier way. Rape is the absolute worse thing a man can do to a woman. Far worse then making her walk home by herself. A woman who's actually been raped would be disgusted by someone claiming rape in that case. I don't argue this point because I'm an uncaring male who feels women shouldn't **** about stuff like that. I argue this because I do care. A lot.


When you've been beaten half to death and are held with a gun to your head while two guys drag your screaming girlfriend into a room and take turns with her, you can tell me I should be ashamed about my feelings about rape. I've seen it first hand. I can still remember the look on her face. The despair. The pain. That is rape. So excuse me if I don't place the same freaking weight on a situation where the woman made a choice between walking home and having **** with her date and feels that it was an unfair situation to be put in. I'm sorry, but I don't shed a lot of tears for someone in that situation. She chose to go out with that guy. She chose to get into a car with him. She chose to go off alone with him without any other friends around. And she even chose to have **** rather then extricate herself from the situation on her own.

That's not rape. That's a woman not even making the most remote effort to use her brain and stand up for herself. Sorry. That's not even remotely in the same catagory, and I'm disgusted by anyone who tries to argue that it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Aug 18 2005 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Quote:
If you physically have a choice to avoid **** and don't do it, then by definition it's consentual. You keep dragging in all these other scenarios like a women held at knifepoint. If that's the case, then she *doesn't* have a choice. Not a reasonable one at least. But the woman given the choice of walking him versus having **** does.


And this is, again, where I say "bullsh[/b]it." In the example I used, the threat of having to walk home was TANTAMOUNT to a threat of physical violence, because walking home was dangerous, and I stated why. Getting hit by a car, getting lost, succumbing to exposure if it's cold, or encountering someone who won't care to offer you such a dubious "choice." In the city, it might have been even worse, because your chances of encountering someone who might harm you are even greater. This sort of "persuasion" is the kind that is applied to thousand of victims, and it IS rape. When the "choice" you offer is "have **** with me, or be faced with an alternative that is MORE dangerous/injurious/undesirable than having sex" then it IS rape.

Quote:
What that means is that 47% of women who are raped are injuried in a way other then the rape itself (beaten, stabbed, cut, dragged behind a car, whatever).


Exactly...which means that 53% are NOT injured in that way. Which means that your claim that people who are not injured in the course of rape are "extremely rare" is 100% fictitious. Your claim that the "vast majority" of rapes occur after the man has tossed the woman about and beaten her up is 100% fictitious. In other words, you don't know shi[b]
t about shi[/b]t. Accept it.

Quote:

I find it really amusing that you took this number and twisted it around, but totally missed the one in the same quote that said that 75% of women required medical care. Um... Doesn't that imply that the rate of injuries from rape is much higher then you're trying to say?


As someone whose field of medicine is gynecology, I can tell you the "rape injury" itself means vaginal bruising or tearing. The 75% of hospitalizations are mainly for the purpose of obtaining a rape kit for the purpose of facilitating a criminal investigation, or to obtain morning-after medication and HIV/STI counselling, or for psychological trauma.

Quote:
1. That's the number that were discovered to be false after police investigation. That does not include any where the victim did not follow up, or dropped the charges herself, etc. I understand that we can't assume anything about those because many women are afraid to follow up with a rape case, but we're excluding *all* of them.


Untrue. The actual text I quoted (again, reading comp is your friend, do look into it) stated that the women who dropped the charge or who didn't follow up weren't excluded on that basis ALONE. Which means that those who dropped a charge that was later shown to be false ARE still included.

Quote:
2. Also. That's specificly the statistics of false accusations in cases of "forcible sexual assault". Many states have separate rules for date rape. Remember, that the whole point of date rape is that you weren't forcibly assaulted, but were talked into having sex, or coerced in a manner other then physically. Thus, that statistic completely misses the date rape phenomenon.

I really think you keep automatically translating "date rape" into "rape", and swapping definitions willy-nilly. They really are two different things. I'm talking about the trend that started in the mid 90s (which might explain why these statistics don't account for them), in which states would charge rape in cases where there wasn't even an allegation of force of any kind. That's what date rape is. It's not someone on a date being raped. It's someone charging rape because they had **** but didn't want to, but they weren't physically forced to (usually there's some psychological pressure or something claimed).


Here's the problem, Gbaji...the only person holding your definition of "date rape" is...you. I can't argue with some fantasy you have made up on your own Neanderthal proto-brain and then decided to crusade against. I can just thank God that the rest of the world is more reasonable. To the sane and rational and civilized among us, the psychological choice between "sex and something worse" is no choice at all, and therefore is rape.

That said, in no way does it say anywhere that that statistic excluded "date rape". So again, you are now making things up because you don't have a logical leg to stand upon.

Quote:
Where did you get that number?


Math is your friend. Even a calculator will do. What you do, see, is you take 354,670 (the number of rapes in 1995, which is the source of the statistics) and you multiply it by .53 (53% of those rapes where the victim did not have any other injuries) and you get...wait for it...187,975! Now go back and do the same thing using the 8% number (the number of allegations found to be false). See...math is good fun for all of us!

Quote:
How many times do I have to keep explaining the defintion?


You don't, so feel free to stop at any given time. The "definition" is not a definition recognized by anyone except you. It's all in your head. Seek help.

Quote:
That's *not* rape IMO. You can say it is, but I'll disagree with you every time.


PRECISELY. [b]IN YOUR OPINION
! Luckily, your opinion doesn't matter, as the law is made by non-trogs who actually do recognize that psychological coercion can be just as compelling as physical violence. The law is that way for a reason.

As a man, you have the luxury of spouting off about rape only applying to those who have been the victims of a violent assault because that's the only definition of rape that could ever apply to you personally. To a woman, we recognize that the dangers that apply to us are much more widespread. That like my sister's husband, there ARE men out there who can hold a woman down and force intercourse upon her without roughing her up in the process. That attempting to PROVE it happened will mean walking a gauntlet of public humiliation and exposure, of having our lives, our sexual histories, and the choices we made leading up to the assault (including the clothes we wore and the fact that we might have chosen to go out to dinner with the guy) publically thrown into question for everyone's perusal and possible censure.

It's very easy for you to run your mouth about a subject that will never devastate you personally.

Quote:
Again. I'm not arguing that we let any rapists "walk free". I'm simply suggesting that if we focused on the violent rapists instead of trying to see if we can get a rape charge against some guy when the only evidence of rape is the womans word, maybe we'll get a lot more results and a lot fewer false charges.


You ARE talking about letting rapists walk free. Under your definition, only a minority of all rapes would ever be prosecutable. In other words, any rapist that was considerate enough not to leave a mark on a woman would walk free. And that is MUCH more damaging to society in general that the unfortunate minority of men who find themselves victims of an unscrupulous woman. Men who rape frequently have a serial pathology. As I said before, it's about control, it's about subjugating someone else. That is what gets them off, not the **** itself, but the power. If they get away with it, they will do it again. And "date rapists" are even worse, because these are the guys who may think that they did nothing wrong by forcing a girl who at one point seemed to like them to have sex, so why WOULDN'T they do it again?

The **** with that. As much as I feel for the men who are falsely charged, they are dwarfed by the numbers of those who would walk away free if we suddenly lived in the World According to Gbaji.

You've got your memory of your girlfriend, you say. I've got my memory of my sister cringing in a corner behind the door in her nightshirt and no panties, looking up at me with hollow eyes as her husband rampages in the other room and whispering, "he raped me." And by your definition, my sister would receive no justice, because she had no injuries. IYour "crusade" against the injustice of false rape allegations would mean that a much larger injustice would prevail. I can only thank God we DON'T live in a world where you make the rules.



Edited, Thu Aug 18 22:16:13 2005 by Ambrya
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're gay, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky **** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#90 Aug 18 2005 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The onus is on you to support your arguments, not on us to accept your "facts" out of hand. When your "facts" are questioned, you don't try to turn it around by saying "prove I'm wrong!". Get some cites and numbers to support your "facts" or else admit you're making them up.


Huh!? I'm pointing to a case where a woman was able to make a claim of rape with no evidence other then her word. I'm stating that the changes in our rape laws that allow women to make such claims without any evidence is the reason we're seeing such things.

How do I have to "prove" this? If we didn't allow it, then the OP would never have happened. It's that simple. What is there to prove? Clearly, it's possible for a woman to charge a man with rape with out any rape have occured. I'm simply arguing that this happens because we have lowered the burden of proof in cases like that. Isn't that obvious?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Aug 18 2005 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I can only assume you're being intentionally obtuse to avoid having to make any actual cites. I quoted the portion I had been questioning all along and asked you to defend your imaginary definition of date rape.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Aug 19 2005 at 3:24 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
I could rape my girlfriend without leaving a mark. She is tineh.

I mostly just wanted to chime in and say that Gbaji is a piece of sh[b][/b]it though. That is all.



Edit: Unless of course, Gbaji proves me wrong...

Edited, Fri Aug 19 04:31:43 2005 by NaturalDisaster
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#93 Aug 19 2005 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,293 posts
Next time i lace my dates drink with triazolam i now can party all night long with a clear conscience!

Thanks Gbaji!
#94 Aug 19 2005 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
Here in the US, as the younger party, he could probably have had her arrested under Statutory. Yay.

Ambrya wrote:
she had no choice


This is silly.

Wikipedia wrote:
Choice is that mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one for action.


Princeton wrote:
Choice- the act of choosing or selecting, one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen.


Just because it was a bad idea or a bad choice doesn't remove it from being a choice. I wish it did. People have bad ideas and make bad choices every day. I just decided to make this my first post in the Asylum... see, point.

Now, lets actually go somewhere and grab a deffinition of date rape, or what I prefer... multiple deffinitions. I'll try (unlike others) to keep them in context as well.

Start here. but ignore the last, it is out of context or at least not in direct reference to the deffinition of date rape, but just rape.

I think that this will do. They cite sources and links at the bottom somewhere.

(Note: "Grey Rape" scares me. From a society standpoint)

Ok, the Wikipedia deffinition brings in duress. I'm not looking that one up for you folks, but I think you can manage.

I'll tell you that pain is one of the most effective motivators available. In your face pain, not the threat but intimate knowledge of that pain, is an amazing short-term motivator. I should say... avoiding the pain. Thats the goal.

(Switching to the date-rape context. It is assumed the victim and rapist meet the conditions of that)

Offering a choice of Pain or Sex... or even the suggestion of Pain or Struggle and most members of society will choose sex. Moreover complicated by miscommunication between two parties. "No means no" is lost on men, mostly. I grasp it as a concept. Alongside things like "Is somthing bothering you Honey? "... "No." where "No." means "Yes." it is easy to see where an idea fostered and took root.

As for a woman having a choice when it is her being raped or the death of her children... it may be a bluff but even if it isn't she makes the choice. It is rape and it isn't her fault but she made the (good) choice of saving her children's lives and allowing a man to have **** with her. It is rape because of the duress involved.

In the car in the middle of nowhere... how do you know somthing bad will happen to her? How does she know? Her own imagination working against her. She decides that it would be better to have **** and get a ride home rather than tough it out. I think of it as mildly character building. Of course if she choses to have **** she's probably building bad character.

I think the problem involved is that if Jack and Jill get drunk and have **** and Jack thinks it was a bad idea, tough sh[/u]it. If Jill thinks it was a bad idea then instead of saying "Well, oops, life lesson." she can say "Rape!" Then Jack gets raped in jail. All over a bad choice. Ignoring all common sense I will pretend that is what gbaji is getting at.

That case goes back to personal responsibility but I'll avoid opening that topic now.

I doubt I contributed much, but at least I'll say that I put some deffinitions in and such.

If you're wondering where I learned about the Jack/Jill problem... I was given about 30 hours in education on Rape/Sexual Assault/Sexual Harassment. Seems pretty da[u]
mn unfair to me.

Hope you got somthing.

(First Edit... added the thing about the car)

Edited, Fri Aug 19 11:59:40 2005 by AngryUndead
____________________________
65MNK | 37WAR | 20THF | 20BST
#95 Aug 19 2005 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm making it easy for Gabji to understand what I'm questioning by adding it to my sig.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Aug 19 2005 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,492 posts
Nobby wrote:
If gbaji fell over in the forest and there was nobody there, would he still type 250 paraghraphs to describe the sound?


gbaji - nice troll. Even varus couldn't convince us he's as dumb as the arguments you posted here.

Bravo.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#97 Aug 19 2005 at 2:24 PM Rating: Default
******
20,650 posts
Just thought I would mention that this is the best thread about rape ever! Even more surreal its because of Gbaji.

____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#98 Aug 19 2005 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Look guys. I'm make it really simple for you. We can argue about statistics all day long. We can also argue about the definition of date rape all day long as well.

I remember all the debates over this back in the day. You have to remember that the definitions you're looking up and finding are the redefinitions after the fact. Before then, a women raped by an acquaintance was "raped". No one made a distinction. We knew that statistically many women were raped by someone they knew, but no one tried to make a new term for it.

Date rape includes rapes commited by someone the victim knows, but they didn't stop there. They added in "rapes" in which the coersion was non-physical. When I talk about "date rape", that's specifically the portion I'm talking about. Those which match the traditional definition of rape are "rape" whether commited by someone the victim knows or not. Those more like the case Ambrya brought up (she's given a choice of having **** with him or walking home), are *not* rape in the traditional sense.

That's what changed. That's what I'm **** about. And the legal changes that came along with the creaction of the date rape classification are largely what is responsible for false claims like the one in the OP. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? If you change your laws to allow for less evidence to be required for a charge of rape, you're obviously going to get some women who'll realize that they can claim rape and have a better chance of **** over some poor guys life.


So maybe my definition of date rape doesn't match the textbook definition. But that's because I'm only including the deltas. What was "added" to the rape classification to make it "date rape". Since the simplistic "raped while on a date" fell under the catagory of rape before they came up with the date rape classification, that's *not* what I'm talking about. That's not what *changed* in the law with regards to date rape. What changed was that non-physical forms of coersion were considered "force" for the purposes of rape. The result is cases like that of the OP, and people like Abrya today coming up with a scenario like the woman in the woods and comfortably calling that rape.


Again. I don't buy those changes. They're bogus. The really sad thing is that they don't even help women or the cause of women's equality either. They hurt them. The inherent assumption in Ambrya's scenario is that the women had no choice because the woman is just a weak female who can't figure out how to manage to get home without a man to take care of her. Clearly, she's reliant for him to "save her" from the mean evil nightime. She clearly can't find a phone, or walk a couple miles on her own, so we must charge the man with a crime because she'd rather submit to **** then have to do things that any normal sane person would have no problem doing.

Yeah. Score one for women's rights on that one...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Aug 19 2005 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Look guys. I'm make it really simple for you. We can argue about statistics all day long. We can also argue about the definition of date rape all day long as well.
Is this your way of admitting there's no way in **** you'll find a credible source to agree with your asinine notions of what rape is?
Quote:
So maybe my definition of date rape doesn't match the textbook definition.
Or that of any sane person. Just admit that you're full of misogynistic sh[/i]it. It's not as if anyone will be suprised.
Quote:
But that's because I'm only including the deltas.
Oh, of course. Your definitions don't match because yours are the advanced version, not the plebian version of date rape the rest of us commoners use Smiley: rolleyes
Quote:
What was "added" to the rape classification to make it "date rape". Since the simplistic "raped while on a date" fell under the catagory of rape before they came up with the date rape classification, that's *not* what I'm talking about. That's not what *changed* in the law with regards to date rape
There are (almost) no laws specific to date rape. There's just rape laws. None that I know of anyway; feel free to prove me wrong with cites. My own searches only turned up the phrase "date rape" in conjunction with "date rape drug" and laws against their use*. I'd be tempted to say there are NO laws specific to date rape vs. 'traditional' rape except one source said "Most jurisdictions, however, make no legal distinction between date rape and rape that is committed by strangers." That would imply someone out there does, even if the laws are rare enough that I can't find them. On the other hand, at least one other legal site says "Date rape is a [i]nonlegal
term for forcible sexual activity between people who know one another during a social engagement." (Emphasis mine) In short, your **** that "date rape laws" have changed things is either based on your imagination and/or complete crap.

"Date rape" is a term used by groups to focus on a particular subset of rape: that by people you know as opposed to random violence. Namely to remind females that rape isn't just something that happens in dark alleys. You'll note that said groups don't claim date rape is a woman having **** and then regretting it later.

*As well as some BBC story from '02 which I've no idea how it turned out and was about a potential law, not existing US law

Edited, Fri Aug 19 21:39:51 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Aug 19 2005 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Is it ok, Pat, is it bad if little girls cry while being raped?

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#101 Aug 19 2005 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,254 posts
I've got to support your points Jophiel.

I do, however, think I get what gbaji is driving at.

Basically he doesn't like the words we're using.

He wants different deffinitions for the words. This is basically the same reasoning that lead to the creation of PC and the term Date Rape in the first place I'll wager.

This tactic is fairly weak minded.

Imagine a biiiiig circle. This big circle is Rape. This circle has many circles inside it. They are labeled:
Forced - Physically holding the victim in place
Under Duress - Psychological/situational stress
By Aquaintance
By Stranger
Violent - Physical/Physiological stress, punishment by application for non-compliance.

These are not mutually exclusive, except Stranger/Aquaintance. Well I guess afterwords you know the person, in a particular sense... but thats more there than here. Also every one of the inner circles must actually be a part of the Aquaintance or Stranger circle. I'm sure most of you in a Stats or Math Modeling class have seen the graph I'm talking about. Even a Discreat Math course. Someone could probably whip it up in a program real quick. Of course we can't use the stats from before except loosely. They didn't give us a quite complete picture... which gbaji tried to capitalize on earlier.

I think what you want to do is remove the "Under Duress" outside of the circle and into a "Bad Sexual Descision" circle... except for the parts where it intersects with Violent or Forced as those would fit your definition of "Rape".

I think that what you fail to address though is the most critical element of most rape cases. Consent. Consent must be given and if it comes down to a case where it must be implied... you're fuc[u][/u]ked.

If you're with your wife, you both get wasted, go home, and have **** you're okay if she wanted to. But if she never said "yes" or otherwise gave verbal consent... then even she, your loving wife, could have a case. **** could: does.

This is the problem I have with current Rape law. I'd discuss it with anyone who has the time or the compunction.

If none of that is what you're thinking gbaji then I guess you're a moron.

Again, Cheers.


(OMG I AM T3H SP3LLING N00000BLAR!)
____________________________
65MNK | 37WAR | 20THF | 20BST
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT