Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

#102 Aug 19 2005 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not so much arguing that. In fact, I would have a hard time calling the "I'm going to leave you on Lookout Point unless you put out" scenario rape. My issue is with Gbaji disregarding things such as intoxication, drugging, real threat of physical harm, etc because they don't meet his definition of violent assault. Or his insulting definition of date rape as merely "*** where she changed her mind later". Add to that his insistance that "date rape laws" have dramatically changed the legal battleground when few, if any, bona fide "date rape" laws exist. He fails to make any case that the rise of the term has done anything to change existing laws, much less -- God forbid -- provide a cite that shows this.

****, even the original story doesn't show this. In the original story it says: the officer admitted that initially Sarah had said that she was crying and pushing Jamie away from her when the incident happened. We don't know if she claims that Jamie threatened to beat the sh[/i]it out of her, if he grabbed her hair, or what she claimed. From the sound of it, her claim [i]wasn't that he threatened to abandon her in the playground (which would be a pretty silly threat). She gave a story in which she was compelled, obviously against her will, to give Jamie oral ***. Any other details are anyone's guess unless someone can find a copy of her police reports. There is no evidence here that the law would support "was going to leave her" as a case for rape nor that the arrest in her situation was due to some "slippery slope" of rape law reform.

Really, Gbaji has an axe to grind and is making up definitions that no credible source would agree with, creating illusions of laws that don't exist and speaking from a position of false authority in his desire to grind that axe. Even when called on it, you can see him trying to weasel out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Aug 19 2005 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
AngryUndead wrote:

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".


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".


Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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 *** 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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Aug 19 2005 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
To be honest, every singly arguement we have in here is sexist. The women's argument, the men's argument; what's the point? All that matters is that none of us are rapists, that none of us falsely accuse others of rape, and that we all be mindfull of the differences each gender has.

So fu[/b]cking what, Gbaji has his own opinion and definition for the grey areas of what is rape and what falls through the rape filter. If you don't like his explaination or opinion, okay, make some self-righteous post, pointing out how wrong he is and how right you are. Try to "fix" the view/opinion/concern of someone; thinking you aren't just as bad, in that you're guilty of the exact same crime: having your own explainations, opinions, morals, and incentive to post against another's.

[b]OR!
, you can accept that it's simply something you don't agree with, and move the fu[b][/b]ck on. I'm well aware that if we all did this, anything of interest when it comes to discussion would be lost, but when it comes to something like this, where so many people have varied opinions, and you literally have one gender's view on something over another's, it's logically pointless.

For those of you with the attention span of a goldfish, I'll shorten all I'm trying to say into one sentence: GFY, cry rape, go to jail, see both ends of the schtick, and then come back here and you can justifiably say you aren't sexist in voicing your opinion or view on rape.

Cheers Smiley: boozing
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#105 Aug 19 2005 at 10:41 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
Quote:
So ******* what, Gbaji has his own opinion and definition for the grey areas of what is rape and what falls through the rape filter. If you don't like his explaination or opinion, okay, make some self-righteous post, pointing out how wrong he is and how right you are. Try to "fix" the view/opinion/concern of someone; thinking you aren't just as bad, in that you're guilty of the exact same crime: having your own explainations, opinions, morals, and incentive to post against another's.

OR!, you can accept that it's simply something you don't agree with, and move the **** on. I'm well aware that if we all did this, anything of interest when it comes to discussion would be lost, but when it comes to something like this, where so many people have varied opinions, and you literally have one gender's view on something over another's, it's logically pointless.

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
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#106 Aug 19 2005 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
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...
Or so you'd have us believe if it helps your story. Seriously, can you show a change in law? Do you have a cite? A single cite to show that in 1985 the police wouldn't have investigated a rape claim in the same manner? The OP says that the major point was that the rape law was changed to include non-consentual oral ***, not that it was changed to alter how the police investigated alleged violations of the law.

Quote:
That's my problem. It clearly was a problem in the OP.
Per the OP: The police also stressed that all allegations of sexual assault and rape are taken very seriously. This investigation was dealt with expeditiously with the named suspect arrested at an early stage and a decision made to halt proceedings as soon as the new evidence came to light.

We have no argument with this: all of it is absolutely as it should be for victims of rape.


Quote:
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.
Smiley: lol Well, if that doesn't prove cause and effect, nothing does.
Quote:
Date rape, while perhaps broadly defined as any rape by someone you know, changed only in that the "grey rape" idea was added.
You've already more than adequately shown you don't have a clue what date rape is. You already admitted you'd never even heard the term grey rape and suddenly it's always been the turning point of date rape. Find me a single source that defines date rape as you do. Really, a single one. You're using your imaginary definition od date rape as the basis for your entire arguement and you prove time and again that you don't even have a single clue how anyone defines the very thing you say in changing all these laws.
Quote:
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.
Again, you have yet to provide a single point of evidence that these changes occured or that they occured as a result of people using the term "date rape". In fact, almost every instance in which I've heard the term used in the past decade has been in conjunction with date rape drugs or else violent coercion.
Quote:
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.
Thanks for that, Captain Conjecture. Too bad you can't put forth even the slimmest bit of actual evidence to your guesses.

Edited, Sat Aug 20 10:48:05 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Aug 19 2005 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
The Thundercat Drinking the Smug Coffee wrote:
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.


You just keep drinking that smug coffee of yours. Smiley: lol


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.
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#108 Aug 20 2005 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,289 posts
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fu[/b]ucking hate labels
#109 Aug 20 2005 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Chand the Furtive wrote:
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.

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.

Mistress Nadenu wrote:
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fu[/b]ucking hate labels

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.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#110 Aug 20 2005 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
****
5,310 posts
Weren't the terms date rape and acquaintance rape coined to raise everyone's (including the police's) awareness that most rapes are committed by people who are known to the victim. A rape committed by a boyfriend is no less rape than one committed by a stranger, though it was often treated differently by law enforcement?

That's my recollection, anyway.
____________________________
"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
#111 Aug 20 2005 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
Quote:

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


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




Smiley: crySmiley: crySmiley: crySmiley: crySmiley: cry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ( v o)
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#112 Aug 20 2005 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,289 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Weren't the terms date rape and acquaintance rape coined to raise everyone's (including the police's) awareness that most rapes are committed by people who are known to the victim. A rape committed by a boyfriend is no less rape than one committed by a stranger, though it was often treated differently by law enforcement?

That's my recollection, anyway.


Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. (My other post was made while I was on the first cup 'o joe, so I wasn't quite clear, heh)

True, I'd be much more devastated if it was my husband or a relative that did the raping. But my main point was that no matter who does the raping, the way you feel (mentally and emotionally, mostly) will always be a bit altered.
#113 Aug 20 2005 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,492 posts
Chand wrote:
none of us are rapists
speak for yourself, ****.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#114 Aug 20 2005 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Weren't the terms date rape and acquaintance rape coined to raise everyone's (including the police's) awareness that most rapes are committed by people who are known to the victim. A rape committed by a boyfriend is no less rape than one committed by a stranger, though it was often treated differently by law enforcement?

That's my recollection, anyway.


Yeah, this is kind of what I was getting at. (My other post was made while I was on the first cup 'o joe, so I wasn't quite clear, heh)

True, I'd be much more devastated if it was my husband or a relative that did the raping. But my main point was that no matter who does the raping, the way you feel (mentally and emotionally, mostly) will always be a bit altered.

I either wasn't around when the term was coined or possibly busy playing with my Barbies, so I can't say for sure. Of course both victims will feel horrible and there is no difference to a victim, but health care providers, family, and law enforcement all play roles in recovery that can be aided by a distinction in the manner in which events occurred.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#115 Aug 20 2005 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
****
5,310 posts
It was more like "wait, he's your boyfriend, and you've had *** 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.
____________________________
"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
#116 Aug 22 2005 at 6:21 AM Rating: Default
*
97 posts
I hate the peaple in that story, Their son was acused of a crime for 4 friggin days and they act like victums.
#117 Aug 22 2005 at 7:15 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I hate the peaple in that story, Their son was acused of a crime for 4 friggin days and they act like victums

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.

Quote:
And it very definately was a legal change that came out of the "cause" to fight against date rape.


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 *** started if she realizes she made a bad choice and says no AFTER CONSENSUAL *** 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 **** 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 ****** at you or made a bad decision so Jophiel I give you my two finger salute and say **** you.
____________________________
Kao wrote:
I thought I banned you like six times?

The asylumites wrote:
Dammit why are you still posting here?

Barack Hussien Obama wrote:
We are 5 days away from fundamentally changing the USA

I don't see such change, and honestly I don't think I want to. I like capitalism, I like it a lot.
#118 Aug 22 2005 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Illinois Senate Bill 406:
(a) It shall be a defense to any offense under Section 12-13 through 12-16 of this Code where force or threat of force is an element of the offense that the victim consented. "Consent" means a freely given agreement to the act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct in question. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission by the victim resulting from the use of force or threat of force by the accused shall not constitute consent. The manner of dress of the victim at the time of the offense shall not constitute consent.
(b) It shall be a defense under subsection (b) and subsection (c) of Section 12-15 and subsection (d) of Section 12-16 of this Code that the accused reasonably believed the person to be 17 years of age or over.
(c) A victim may not be deemed to have consented to an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct if the victim initially consented to the sexual penetration or sexual conduct and later withdraws consent if the accused continues the act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct after the victim withdraws consent.


I'll actually give you this. The funny bit is that this was a bit of Republican legislation sponsored by S.Senator Dan Rutherford) and we all know how much Gbaji hates to admit the Pubbies were wrong on anything. Personally, it doesn't much bother me. It merely makes into law what most people would assume: if the female tells you to stop, the *** is no longer consentual. The law itself was placed after a California court case dragged out for a couple years only to decide the same thing. Anyway, the bill was signed into law a couple years ago (July 25, '03) and I've yet to hear it making any waves (in fact I had forgotten about it altogether after hearing people talk about it on the radio after it was introduced). While I'm all for stiffening criminal penalties for falsely claiming rape (certainly beyond just that of filing a false police report), I have a hard time saying we need to restrict the conditions under which a woman may claim to have been raped.

Even for the law in question, I'd have a hard time saying it suddenly made it easier to claim sexual assault. The option to claim threat of force has always been there and can easily justify not having bruises, tears, etc. Which is why the legal system puts the onus of proof on the accuser and not the accused.

And thanks for the salute!

Edited, Mon Aug 22 10:06:33 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Aug 22 2005 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
Quote:
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 sh*t 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 @#%^ed the **** 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 ****** 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 the mediocre are always at their best.


#120 Aug 22 2005 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
NaturalDisaster the Silent wrote:
Its called the "Big Picture". If you and Gbaji could see past your own fu[/b]cking cocks you just might be able to undersand that.

I think that's more approprite.
____________________________
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.
#121 Aug 22 2005 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
**
707 posts
Quote:
Does it suck that stuff like what happened to you and the young man in the OP happens? ******* right it does! Deal with it you ******* pansy! Get a pair and realize that **** ******* happens in life. 1 day in jail... cry me a ******* river.



By your BRILLIANT logic, my response should be this:


Does it suck that these women are getting raped for Real? ******* right it does! DEAL WITH IT, you ******* weak ******** Get some tits and realize that this **** happens in life. Boohoo, four guys doing you in the park without your consent....cry my a ******* river.

See the reverse there? Some men take advantage of women. Some women take advantage of men. The true key is being able to see both sides of an issue, not just assume that all women are innocent, or vice-versa. It's like you all can't admit that some women are coniving ******** (see: gold-diggers)

Also, all you need to get off of Gbaji's case...he brings up several good points, and you are all ignoring them, calling him an idiot, etc.

Women have the power to use and abuse the rape laws. Admit it. ******* ADMIT IT. Not all men are evil, scumbag horndogs looking to get in your panties, and that's the misconception these feminists live with...and take advantage of.

All the proof is in the OP. 13 year old boy was almost sent to jail because some ***** sucked him off and was left with a bad aftertaste in the morning. How is that justice? How are the "gray rape" or "date rape" (or whatever) laws fair, if it's that easy to get away with?


Before you feminazi's get on my case, don't. I don't want to hear you ***** about your rape specifics, or what does/does not constitute rape. I know what it means, and i DEFINATELY know the difference between a girl who was drugged, a girl who was violently raped, and a girl who decides, after dinner, a movie, and some backseat action, that she didn't infact say 'yes' and therefore was raped.

____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#122 Aug 22 2005 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
All the proof is in the OP. 13 year old boy was almost sent to jail because some ***** sucked him off and was left with a bad aftertaste in the morning. How is that justice? How are the "gray rape" or "date rape" (or whatever) laws fair, if it's that easy to get away with?
Almost sent to jail? The case never went to trial. Any guesses at what would have happened if the case had gone to trial are just that on either side -- guesses. And I don't even want to make a guess at how the British court system would have handled the case since I know nothing of British law in the regard aside from blindly assuming it's much like US law.

One of the OP's issues is that they claim the police should have acted more "perceptively" and delved into the teenage mind and decided this wasn't really a rape. I disgaree. That should be the task of the courts. If she came in with an accusation that fell under the legal guidelines for rape, the police should act upon it. Another of the OP's issues was how the police handled the initial arrest. I can sort of agree with that, not having been there. From their remarks it does seem to have been done a bit more harshly than it would require. Finally, they have issue with the lack of repercussions towards the accuser. That I fully agree with. The choice by the police not to pursue the matter was a poor one and that is what helps allow punitive false accusations, not the mere fact that a woman is allowed to claim rape without having been beaten to an inch of her life.

Edited, Mon Aug 22 11:20:21 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Aug 22 2005 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts
Quote:
In Illnois a woman can charge you with rape AFTER consesual *** started if she realizes she made a bad choice and says no AFTER CONSENSUAL *** STARTED.

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


____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#124 Aug 22 2005 at 11:00 AM Rating: Decent
**
707 posts
Quote:
That should be the task of the courts.


What if the girl had gone with? What if there was no cold feet, and she decided to take this boy to court?

Based on what i've been reading in this thread, this boy would be in jail. Let's review.

No physical harm to the girl: that's cool, there doesn't need to be evidence of that. According to you all, women can be pressured mentally, or even threatened, to do a man's bidding. She doesn't need bruises to be raped.

DNA traces: She had her mouth around his lil' general. They can probably dig something up, as the exchange did take place.

She told him to stop:she made this up. luckily her whorish concience came to the surface. Otherwise, he'd be pinned.

They were in a remote area, away from others: Much like the 'lookout point' situation, he could have 'left her alone in the park if she didnt give him bo-bos.'

I could go on. The point is, folks, that no matter how much you want to argue that women are innocent victims in this world and men are out to get them....give your head a shake, and admit that there are two ways to look at things.

If this were left up to you, every girl and their mother would be accusing men of rape. Hey, we can get laid, get paid, and not have to see the guy in the morning, or ever again! All the benefits of being a prostitute, 50% less street corner!

____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#125 Aug 22 2005 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
According to you all, women can be pressured mentally, or even threatened, to do a man's bidding. She doesn't need bruises to be raped.
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.
Quote:
DNA traces: She had her mouth around his lil' general. They can probably dig something up, as the exchange did take place.

She told him to stop:she made this up. luckily her whorish concience came to the surface. Otherwise, he'd be pinned.
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).
Quote:
They were in a remote area, away from others: Much like the 'lookout point' situation, he could have 'left her alone in the park if she didnt give him bo-bos.'
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.
Quote:
If this were left up to you, every girl and their mother would be accusing men of rape.
Oh, absolutely Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Mon Aug 22 12:53:15 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Aug 22 2005 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
"No? I thought she was saying 'Oh, Oh, OH!' "
"When she said 'Get off me' I thought she was saying 'Get me off' "

So what else would stand up in court?
____________________________
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.
#127 Aug 22 2005 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
**
707 posts
Quote:
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.


You give no reference to anywhere besides Illinois - besides, that furthers my point that a woman doesn't need that type of physical evidence on her body to be considered a rape victim.

Quote:
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.


makes no difference where it happens; my point is that excuses, regrdless of how absurd, can be used as 'reasons' for being forced into sexual acts. You seem to have missed the point of my post. A threat is a Threat, according to these 'laws' you keep referring to; therefore it's left to the discression of the court. In U.S. history, even you can't argue that your legal system is consistently and severly flawed. there's nothing that indiciates any difference when dealing with rape charges. Un-biased legal opinions never exist - from judge to jury, no one can resist or deny a teary-eyed 15-year-old accusing a large, strong man of forcing her into ***.

Quote:


Oh, absolutely (insert eye rollie smiley face here)


Good counter. An eye roll and sarcasm are always considered good feedback in my books...especially following a post that is entirely Law driven. Did you not understand what I was getting at, friend?

The LAW is the problem, and women can easily take advantage of it. Jesus, it's like you don't read what you're responding to; you're only regurgitating the same points over and over, as if it makes you correct.



____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#128 Aug 22 2005 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,252 posts
Quote:
While I'm all for stiffening criminal penalties for falsely claiming rape


*snarf*

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#129 Aug 22 2005 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
It was more like "wait, he's your boyfriend, and you've had *** 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.
^
Smiley: grin
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#130 Aug 22 2005 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
You give no reference to anywhere besides Illinois - besides, that furthers my point that a woman doesn't need that type of physical evidence on her body to be considered a rape victim.
Where would you like to argue the law for? Again, in the OP's case, it's Britian and, unlike you, I'm not claiming to assume how the British courts would rule. But if you'd like to give a geographic area, we can look up the laws and see what they say. I used Illinois because (a) I had the law already quoted and (b) the Illinois "No means No" bit was already pointed out as the decline of rape laws so I felt it was worth pointing out that earlier IL law already allowed for a claim of rape without obvious evidence of violence.

As for the point that you can claim rape without obvious evidence of physical violence -- are you demanding it be otherwise? That a woman held at weaponpoint or drugged or otherwise raped without the use of brutal physical force be unable to claim rape? I'm not sure exactly why the fact that "threat of force" can be used in a rape case upsets you so much.
Quote:
makes no difference where it happens; my point is that excuses, regrdless of how absurd, can be used as 'reasons' for being forced into sexual acts. You seem to have missed the point of my post. A threat is a Threat, according to these 'laws' you keep referring to; therefore it's left to the discression of the court.
Threat of force. Unless you can show that the courts consider abandonment to be the same as physical violence, threat of abandonment is not the same as threat of force. Of course she can make any absurd claim she wants, the question is how the courts will react and what the law says is required for an act to be considered rape. Again, I'm talking IL law here, but there's nothing to indicate that the threat of abandonment would be considered jusitification in a rape trial.
Quote:
Un-biased legal opinions never exist - from judge to jury, no one can resist or deny a teary-eyed 15-year-old accusing a large, strong man of forcing her into ***.
(A) the "man" in the OP's case was a 13yr old boy. (B) You're making guesses again. You have, of course, the right to make guesses at how the hypothetical trial would have turned out but don't present those guesses as evidence to support your claim.
Quote:
Good counter. An eye roll and sarcasm are always considered good feedback in my books...especially following a post that is entirely Law driven. Did you not understand what I was getting at, friend?
I suppose I could have just sat here and chanted "*****" over and over. Was I supposed to respond to a sensationalist slippery slope argument like "You'd have every woman crying rape!" with a reasoned and balanced retort?

Quote:
The LAW is the problem, and women can easily take advantage of it. Jesus, it's like you don't read what you're responding to; you're only regurgitating the same points over and over, as if it makes you correct.
Why, because I'm not agreeing with you? Yes, any woman can go into a police station and fill out a police report claiming rape. You are, I assume, aware that filling out a report is not the end of the legal process, yes?

Edited, Mon Aug 22 13:42:49 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Aug 22 2005 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
**
707 posts
Quote:
As for the point that you can claim rape without obvious evidence of physical violence -- are you demanding it be otherwise? That a woman held at weaponpoint or drugged or otherwise raped without the use of brutal physical force be unable to claim rape? I'm not sure exactly why the fact that "threat of force" can be used in a rape case upsets you so much.


So can you finally agree to my initial point? here, this is what i wrote in my first post:

Some men take advantage of women. Some women take advantage of men. The true key is being able to see both sides of an issue, not just assume that all women are innocent, or vice-versa. It's like you all can't admit that some women are coniving ******** (see: gold-diggers)


It's not that i'm denying some women can be threatened into ***. I'm sure there are poor, defensless women out there who get taken advantage of. I'm not saying that there are no rapists out there!

The point is that the way the system works means that THERE DOESNT HAVE TO BE PROOF IN ORDER FOR A MAN TO BE ACCUSED OF, OR PUT ON TRIAL FOR, COMMITING RAPE. And women will, and DO, take advantage of that. Face the facts. OP is perfect example.


Quote:
(A) the "man" in the OP's case was a 13yr old boy. (B) You're making guesses again. You have, of course, the right to make guesses at how the hypothetical trial would have turned out but don't present those guesses as evidence to support your claim.


The article itself said the boy was tall, bigger than normal. When I was 13 I was 6'1. I am now just under 6'4, at 21. When i was thirteen, from behind, and on the phone, I was, to everyone else, a full grown man.

I'm also not making guesses; this is common sense. A jury can be easily swayed - I'm sure even you can agree that the courtrooms are fallable at best.

Quote:
Why, because I'm not agreeing with you? Yes, any woman can go into a police station and fill out a police report claiming rape. You are, I assume, aware that filling out a report is not the end of the legal process, yes?


If you think FOR A SECONDthat an accusation does not have an adverse effect on a man then you are sadly mistaken. There was a poster a little earlier who mentioned the effect an accusation had on him...
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 sh*t from the of every girl in the whole school


So whether or not the legal process ends there is beyond the point. How little does it take for a man's reputation in life to be tarnished? What about his own self-image? his friends? family? potential girlfriends?

An accusation can be just as severe as a prosecution - not to mention the money and time involved.
____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#132 Aug 22 2005 at 12:43 PM Rating: Default
******
20,654 posts
Here is a PM gem


gbaji wrote:
bhodisattva wrote:
Remember the time you said date rape didnt count?

That was hilarious.


No. Actually I don't. I said that something is either rape, or it isn't. Date rape; includes actions that I do not consider to be rape. Those actions that are rape are rape. Those that are not constitute the remainder of the date rapes, and are *not* rape.

Are you deliberately slow?



What an c[b][/b]unt
Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Bode - 90 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#133 Aug 22 2005 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Is gbaji really implying that, if you go on a date, you're obliged to have ***, whether or not you really want to?
____________________________
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.
#134 Aug 22 2005 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,289 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not sure exactly why the fact that "threat of force" can be used in a rape case upsets you so much.


Because that really throws a wrench into his weekend plans.
#135 Aug 22 2005 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,492 posts
Debalic wrote:
Is gbaji really implying that, if you go on a date, you're obliged to have ***, whether or not you really want to?
. . . which now makes me feel insecure that he didn't put out on our first date.

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#136 Aug 22 2005 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
The point is that the way the system works means that THERE DOESNT HAVE TO BE PROOF IN ORDER FOR A MAN TO BE ACCUSED OF, OR PUT ON TRIAL FOR, COMMITING RAPE. And women will, and DO, take advantage of that. Face the facts. OP is perfect example.
Use more bold text. I think the problem is that you're not using enough.

You have one of two options. You can either remove the means by which a woman without obvious physical evidence of force may use the legal system to pursue a rape claim or else you can encourge a system which punishes women who abuse the legal system. Personally, I'm leaning towards the second option and have said so several times now. Which option do you prefer?

Quote:
I'm also not making guesses; this is common sense. A jury can be easily swayed - I'm sure even you can agree that the courtrooms are fallable at best.
Unless you're citing cases where it has happened, you're making guesses. Unless you're basing your comments off of some sort of evidence that you can actually point to, you're making guesses. It's fine to make guesses, but don't expect anyone here to say "Well, Entreri said the court would rule against the suspect so it must be true." Are you saying 100% of rape cases end in a guilty verdict? 'Cause if you're not, you're saying that sometimes that jury says "Hey, the evidence here does not support the plantiff's accusations beyond a reasonable doubt."

Quote:
So whether or not the legal process ends there is beyond the point. How little does it take for a man's reputation in life to be tarnished? What about his own self-image? his friends? family? potential girlfriends?

An accusation can be just as severe as a prosecution - not to mention the money and time involved.
Which, again, means that we should encourage a system where false accusations may be punished swiftly and harshly. Not that we should encourage a system where women may be forced into *** without recourse because they weren't "lucky" enough to be bruised when it happens.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Aug 22 2005 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
PottyMouth wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Is gbaji really implying that, if you go on a date, you're obliged to have ***, whether or not you really want to?
. . . which now makes me feel insecure that he didn't put out on our first date.

Oh, you probably did, just don't remember. Roofie coladas for teh win!
____________________________
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.
#138 Aug 22 2005 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fu[/b]ucking hate labels


And this is *exactly* what I've been trying to get across. Rape is rape, regardless of whether you know the person or not. My issue with "date rape" is that in the process of adding the classification, we added in other things that never were rape.

And it's not just in the legal classifications. It's also in the public perception as well. Does Joph's example law define Ambrya's "left out in the woods" scenario as rape? No. It doesn't. Why then does Ambrya think it *should* be rape?

I'm not just looking at one particular law, or one particular scenario. I'm looking at a general direction that this issue has been going in and becoming more and more disgusted by it. Realize that the perceptions and beliefs of the public are what push for laws to be changed. 25 years ago no one would consider Ambrya's scenario to be rape. Today, many people will think it's rape, and perhaps some of them will try to change the laws to reflect that.

That change in perception has come about largely as a result of lobbying by various groups against the whole "date rape" set of crimes. Again. It's not just what laws have been passed, but in what ways the perception of rape and sexual responsiblity have changed over time. It's my personal opinion that this change has not been to the benefit of either ***. Men are more at risk of arbitrary rape allegations. Women are put in yet another social catagory that assumes they are unable to take care of themselves.


It's about the trend. You're all trying to be way to literal here, and missing what I'm saying. In your haste to look up definitions and laws, you're missing the point. It's about *how* the laws and perceptions about rape have been changing. It's about looking at those changes and seeing a pattern. To me, it's an obvious one. We've been steadily removing the responsiblity of *** from the shoulders of women and putting it on the men. If you want freedom and equality, then it goes both ways. You must also take responsibility for the decisions you make and the actions you take. That goes for *both* sexes. A man is responsible for how he treats a woman, and vice versa. But currently, the public perception, and in many cases the law, are biased towards the socially percieved "victim ***": women. The bias and the perception are *both* wrong IMO.


And sure Joph. I'd agree with you that punishing women who cry rape falsely would be a good idea. But guess what? It almost never happens. The reason it never happens is because one of the fundamental concepts behind the whole issue we're arguing is that if women feel they there's a risk to backlash upon themselves for charging a man with rape, many women might not do it. Or do you remember all the statistics about how many women are raped and don't come forward out of fear, not just of their attacker, but of a society that might not believe her, but label her as a **** instead? The very women's rights groups who pushed for those changes in the first place are just as opposed to what you're suggesting. That's why you rarely see women suffer any punishment for wrongly accusing a man of rape.

And honestly, I can understand it. One of the points I've been making is that in some cases, rape is simply impossible to determine. While you guys can call me callous for this, let's be honest. If there are no physical signs of rape, and no witnesses to the act, any trial automatically becomes one person's word against another. Either way, it's going to be unfair, and many mistakes will be made. And odds are, you aren't going to get a conviction in that case. While the laws have only changed to a slight degree, the willingness of DAs to press charges in those cases has increased dramatically in the past 15 years.


That's where I see the problem lying. The current situation does *nothing* to increase the rate of convictions for rapists. All it does is make it easier for women to falsely accuse men of rape. And along the way, we've got more people redefining rape in ridiculous ways (Ambrya's scenario). And yeah. This all came about during and as a result of the "date rape" craze. So that's what I'm going to blame for it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Aug 22 2005 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
**
707 posts
Quote:
Which, again, means that we should encourage a system where false accusations may be punished swiftly and harshly. Not that we should encourage a system where women may be forced into *** without recourse because they weren't "lucky" enough to be bruised when it happens.


I really liked this. Despite you poking at my use of caps (I was making it clear what was being overlooked, was not intending to sound rude) I can actually agree with this statement.

I still do think that there are flaws in the system, maybe because I have a cynical view towards women...the ones that take advantage of men, or play on their strengths/weaknesses. A woman who knows and abuses the power she can hold over a man, or over a group of men, is a scary thing indeed, and more people are succeptible to it than you may think. I do however see your point that altering the system for a few bad apples is not the way to go.

I guess you cannot regulate another person's conscience, or lack of moral standards...only your own.
____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#140 Aug 23 2005 at 1:51 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
Its kind of sad that that some people seem to need to scrutinize things without being at all solution oriented. I mean Jesus Christo, no sh[/i]it some laws are flawed. Nearly every law that exists has potential for some wrongly accused person to fall through the cracks, and yes... that really sucks. That thread about the cop dying while chasing someone comes to mind.

All I hear here though, is juvenile complaints. Here is a little advice... when presented with a dilemma it works really well to not only analyze the situation and your problems with it, but also to theorize about healthy alternatives to said dilemma. Otherwise you just come off as a whiney, juvenile, tw[i]
at.

I mean, the "Some women can abuse the system therefore it sucks Smiley: mad" argument is pretty fuc[/i]king retarded. Nobody here has disagreed that some women can, and do, abuse the system so you can put down your flaming sword about that Captain Obvious. I agree with Joph though, I think a great solution would be to crack down on the women that do this. Rightfully so, they should have some consequences for there actions.

Lastly, being accused of rape is not the end of the world. This thread actually reminded me that when I was around 20 or 21 I was accused of rape. It's kind of funny that memory is gone like a **** in the wind. That is how unimportant it is to me, it took a thread on the interweb to even remember it happening. I remember the looks I got. I also remember not being guilty, having enough dignity, integrity, and self respect for it to not be a big deal at all. Sure, shi[i]
t can happen and that is unfortunate... how you deal with it is up to you though.




Edit: Grammar then swearing.

Edited, Tue Aug 23 02:51:49 2005 by NaturalDisaster

Edited, Tue Aug 23 03:01:50 2005 by NaturalDisaster
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#141 Aug 23 2005 at 7:44 AM Rating: Decent
**
707 posts
Quote:
I mean, the "Some women can abuse the system therefore it sucks " argument is pretty ******* retarded.


I suggest, while you're cleaning your mouth out with soap, you scroll up and re-read what you're commenting on. Gbaji's last post made alot more sense than you're giving credit for...which leads me to believe you either (A) are a rapist, (B) have a lack of reading/comprehension skills, or (C) just don't care as long as you can call people retarded and flame their posts.

Gbaji wrote: That's where I see the problem lying. The current situation does *nothing* to increase the rate of convictions for rapists. All it does is make it easier for women to falsely accuse men of rape. And along the way, we've got more people redefining rape in ridiculous ways (Ambrya's scenario). And yeah. This all came about during and as a result of the "date rape" craze. So that's what I'm going to blame for it.

and this is what I was also trying to point out to Jophiel.




Quote:
Lastly, being accused of rape is not the end of the world. This thread actually reminded me that when I was around 20 or 21 I was accused of rape.


I'm proud of you for shrugging it off so easily. Most people would find the effects of the accusation quite damaging. It's not about dignity at that point, it's about trying to get your story heard, and your name clean. How old are you now? Meaning, how long ago were you accused of rape?
____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#142 Aug 23 2005 at 8:08 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
Quote:
I suggest, while you're cleaning your mouth out with soap...


I suggest having a clue where you are before making statements like that. Complaining about swear words... take a look around buddy.

Let me clue you in on something else. Gbaji knows nothing. What you quoted in your last post, is Gbaji back pedaling. Get him to provide cites backing his claims I fu[i][/i]cking dare you. He just found one thing the opposition was suggesting that he agreed with, that is all.

Quote:
I'm proud of you for shrugging it off so easily. Most people would find the effects of the accusation quite damaging. It's not about dignity at that point, it's about trying to get your story heard, and your name clean. How old are you now? Meaning, how long ago were you accused of rape?


Thank you, and it wasn't easy really but not a whole lot that is worth doing is. I am 26 and my name was clean to the people that mattered. Anyone who didn't start off believing it was just a cry for attention on her part wasn't going to change their mind no matter what I did or said. So I washed my hands of the people I needed to and didn't look back.
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#143 Aug 23 2005 at 8:18 AM Rating: Decent
**
707 posts
Quote:
I suggest having a clue where you are before making statements like that. Complaining about swear words... take a look around buddy.

Let me clue you in on something else. Gbaji knows nothing. What you quoted in your last post, is Gbaji back pedaling. Get him to provide cites backing his claims I ******* dare you. He just found one thing the opposition was suggesting that he agreed with, that is all.


I guess I just felt the profanity wasn't necessary. In my opinion, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Besides, swearing is alot more effective if you use it sparringly; then, when you do swear, people will know you're serious ^^


I don't know if you did read his full post, come to think of it. He also addressed what you all keep beating on him about, and that's 'references' and 'sources'.

You don't need to reference an opinion, last time I checked. You also do not need to source common sense. Jophiel was doing the same thing to me, asking constantly for me to cite where I got my information, to "back up" my opinions, saying without physical evidence i'm only making "guesses".

Gbaji wrote:
You're all trying to be way to literal here, and missing what I'm saying. In your haste to look up definitions and laws, you're missing the point. It's about *how* the laws and perceptions about rape have been changing. It's about looking at those changes and seeing a pattern. To me, it's an obvious one. We've been steadily removing the responsiblity of *** from the shoulders of women and putting it on the men.

There's no possible way anyone can cite personal observation and understanding. there is no "big book of valid opinions" that we can check for you and put you at ease. Saying that the system is flawed, that woman can abuse it, that things and perceptions are changing...you shouldn't need confirmation to admit that it's the truth. Just step outside, live in the real world for a bit and see it for yourself.

Stop trying to shut down an argument by using 'lack of sources/citations' as a reason. this is a discussion forum, and while some comments are less than educated, others have very interesting points to make. We're not writing a graduate thesis here, and if you need a book to tell you that something is correct, than I feel quite sorry for you.


You dont believe everything you read anyway, right?



____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#144 Aug 23 2005 at 8:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,860 posts
little girls who cry false rape should be send to a jail where men havent seen a girl in 30 years, and chain her up in the bathroom naked. now girls who cry during real rape should be helped and symphazised or whatever that smart-people word is
____________________________
My last moments of EQOA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yco7spSF9rM&feature=youtu.be
#145 Aug 23 2005 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EntreriSeraph wrote:
You don't need to reference an opinion, last time I checked. You also do not need to source common sense. Jophiel was doing the same thing to me, asking constantly for me to cite where I got my information, to "back up" my opinions, saying without physical evidence i'm only making "guesses".
The reason I was after Gbaji about those things was because he was pretending to speak from a position of authority and posit his opinions as fact. He did not say "I don't think it's rape unless...", he said "You guys don't know what date rape really is so let me inform you." Unfortunately, the term already has an accepted definition among the medical and legal community and Gbaji's reinterpretation fell way outside that. Likewise, he didn't say "I think the concept of date rape has has weakened what we view as rape", he started going off about how there's a bunch of date rape laws on the books -- something that is either factually true or it isn't. When someone gives the impression something is factual, it's not beyond the pale to ask them for a cite. And when he's basing an entire argument around his reinterpreted phrase, I don't think it's unfair to call him on it.

This isn't the first time Gbaji has done this. It's not even the second, third or fourth time. He continually acts as if he's in the know and then spews forth paragraph upon paragraph of tripe based solely on his own guesses but puts them forth as though they were absolute fact. When he's finally cornered on it, it turns into a game of "You guys are looking too hard at my words and not what I meant!" You'll notice he still never really admitted that his definition of date rape was way outside the norm; he tried to make it sound like his was the 'real' definition by saying it's only because he's including all the angles those pesky health, social and legal agencies don't include. Maybe he thinks he's saving face but he only looks more and more desperate.

The only place I saw me asking you for a cite was when you did much the same thing; you acted as if it was an absolute that a court case would side with the plantiff ("I'm not guessing, it's common sense"). Really, my asking for a cite was more an attempt to reinforce the fact that we don't know how any case would go and our layman guesses aren't worth a lot. Either of us can make up a hypothetical case where the evidence or lack thereof would suit our purposes, if we want to make a strong point it makes a lot more sense to use an existing case and see how it was actually ruled.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Aug 23 2005 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent
**
707 posts
Quote:
He continually acts as if he's in the know and then spews forth paragraph upon paragraph of tripe based solely on his own guesses but puts them forth as though they were absolute fact.


I can understand that. However, when I read over his long posts over the last few pages, I gave him 'the benefit of the doubt' on his factual sources, simply because I was interested in what he had to say. Sourced or not, he brings up some VERY valid points.

I think what I was drawing on was his comments that were formed of opinion, not the ones he based on his "facts". (since this is my first time in the Asylum forum, perhaps I'm not accustomed to Gbaji's style of argument. You say he's done this before, and if that's the case I can understand your scepticism.)

Quote:
The only place I saw me asking you for a cite was when you did much the same thing; you acted as if it was an absolute that a court case would side with the plantiff ("I'm not guessing, it's common sense"). Really, my asking for a cite was more an attempt to reinforce the fact that we don't know how any case would go and our layman guesses aren't worth a lot. Either of us can make up a hypothetical case where the evidence or lack thereof would suit our purposes, if we want to make a strong point it makes a lot more sense to use an existing case and see how it was actually ruled.


My point was not a factual one; not did I play it off as such. What i was basing my comment on was my own personal knowledge and observations; not any particualr statistic or citation. There are 101 ways around the justice system, and as many loopholes to run through once your locked in. (no, I won't cite the 101 ways around the system, so don't ask =P ) I have seen in the media, heard from word of mouth, and witnessed scenarios where someone is allowed to walk free due to lack of evidence, and we've all heard stories of people being falsely accused and prosecuted. Once more, I can't provide actual dates (more because i'm at work, and it's bad enough I'm browsing these forums >.>)

I watched a BBC special a few weeks ago about a Thailand prison, and foreigners who are held captive there. One american prisoner had befriended a chinese man, who was accused of being involved in a drug ring. the american confided to the cameras that late at night, he's had discussions with this man, who insists, beyond anything, that he is an innocent man. the american believed him whole-heartedly, saying that sometimes the accused would even shed tears, speaking about the life he so unjustly lost. Things like that open my eyes to the world of 'justice', and sometimes no matter how much we want to believe that things are working fine, there are still serious flaws in any part of the world.

the rape issue is one of those flawed systems, and that is Gbaji's point that I focused on.
____________________________
Life is adventure...or nothing.
Entreri
Server: Seraph
COP 08/20/06 <3
75THF /75BRD - Rank:10 Windurst
~X's Knife 2/2~
#147 Aug 23 2005 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,252 posts
The problem with the "swift and harsh punishment" for women who "accuse falsely" (i.e., report a rape of which the accused is not convicted) is that it would put a complete and total chill on the reporting of real cases of rape.

It is not up to a woman to bring charges. She is a witness, only. Once she reports a rape, it is entirely up to the district attorney (in the U.S., obviously) to pursue the case or not based on the evidence.

This is the system. If you all are seriously proposing that a woman who reports a rape that the DA does not consider to be winnable due to lack of evidence should then be punished by law, you're going to take us straight to a Pakistani-style system of justice in this area.

Maybe that's what you want, I dunno. All I'm doing is pointing out that no one is ever going to report a rape again unless she has uninvolved witnesses. After all, rough consensual *** can leave bruises too.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#148 Aug 23 2005 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
If you all are seriously proposing that a woman who reports a rape that the DA does not consider to be winnable due to lack of evidence should then be punished by law
Punished by law should the courts find beyond reasonable doubt that she intentionally filed a false rape report with malicious intent. Which is different from the court finding the suspect innocent and the baliff hauling away the plantiff to the stocks. Actually, I'm not even looking for special "anti-rape claim" laws* -- it's already around a one year jail term/$1000 fine for filing a false report depending on where you live. But, going back to the OP, the police basically shrugged and said "Yeah, we know she filed a false claim, she admitted it and we're not really interested despite the fact that we'd have happily arrested your son and sent him through the courts". That I have a problem with. In fact, forget the prison for a 15yr old girl but I bet a couple hundred hours community service in a woman's shelter might open her eyes to what real rape is and does.

*I think I said earlier I thought the punishment should go beyond that of filing a false report. At the time, I thought the punishment for filing said report was less. If nothing else, I'd like to see the typical sentance for it in such a case be closer to the maximum penalty than the minimum
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Aug 23 2005 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,252 posts
I'm sure a judge would have a pretty wide range of latitude in assigning punishment.

I'm not sure why filing false claims isn't prosecuted consistently. Too much paperwork, I suspect.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#150 Aug 25 2005 at 12:39 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Quote:
And it's not just in the legal classifications. It's also in the public perception as well. Does Joph's example law define Ambrya's "left out in the woods" scenario as rape? No. It doesn't. Why then does Ambrya think it *should* be rape?


Because in some situations, threat of abandonment is tantamount to threat of physical harm.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense over the age of five knows that it is dangerous to be out alone after dark, especially in unlit rural areas, and especially for a woman--and both of those conditions were met in my example. I have already listed at least twice the plethora of dangers, but just in case you somehow managed to miss them with your remarkably acute selective comprehensive ability, I will do it again:

  • She could become ill or die of exposure (depending on the climate and the distance she has to go.)

    She could become lost without food or water or shelter (Depending on her familiarity with the area.)

    If the roads are poorly lit, she could easily be struck by a car. Or she could easily injure herself stumbling around in the dark.

    She could encounter someone with no interest in giving her the dubious "choice" her date is "offering" her.

  • Someone referred to such a walk as "character building" which is just lame. If it were five blocks of well-lit streets she would have to traverse to get to the nearest payphone and call a cab, then certainly the "choice" she is offered does not equate to a threat of physical harm. But that is not the case in my example; I made it clear that the woman in question was going to be abandoned in a rural area that was poorly lit and a great distance from a safe location. In that case, being forced to walk home would potentially be life-threatening, and we have already established that the threat of death or physical violence against oneself or one's loved ones qualifies as rape. This qualifies as threat of physical harm--it's just passively committed rather than actively.
    ____________________________
    "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 ***, 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
    #151 Aug 25 2005 at 12:55 AM Rating: Decent
    **
    858 posts
    What is coming of our world these days?

    I don't get why people just do this and just beleive any ol person that comes along. (You know beleive first person who says something.)
    ____________________________
    My ffxi story
    http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=51&mid=1116130867279062503&num=7

    "Music is not an end in itself, but a means of addressing humanity - Modest Mussorgsky"


    No one ever survived by giving their life for their country, It was by letting the other dumb ******* give their life for their country!
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
    Almalieque, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (54)