Gbaji wriggled once more:
I state that the reason this is happening more often is because of a change in both social perception and laws resulting from the "date rape" movement in the 1990s. I show conclusively that these social changes have occured. I show conclusively that there have been changes to the laws as a *direct* result of that movement.
To be accurate (a trait you yourself seem to lack), your point starting out in this thread was NOT that the change in social and legal perception of what constitutes rape was leading to more and more false accusations.
Actually. The first sentence I wrote in this thread was this:
Not really surprising though. We headed down this "slipperly slope" when we started putting weight in the idea of date rape.
That's the point I made at the very beginning. It was meant in a broad sense to address the trend of false accusation for rape.
I then *added* this statement:
I'm sorry, but if there's no signs of struggle, you weren't raped. You just made a bad choice. Deal with it...
And you're right. This is pretty questionable, and I've already ammended it by accepting that it's possible to be raped without any physical signs being left (the knife to the throat scenario). I'm still not thoroughly convinced that a forensics exam couldn't establish a degree of force involved in the rape (no amount of holding a knife to a womans throat is going to make her completely accepting of sex, and I'd expect that to show in excessive bruising and tearing during a rape exam), but I'll accept the argument that some women maybe wont show physical signs.
But that's still somewhat tangental to the point I was making.
When I wrote that second statement, I was *specifically* referring to the case in the OP. In that situation, no threat with a weapon was alleged. She simply claimed that the guy forced her to give him a blow job. In that case, one would expect some form of physical evidence to being physically forced to perform such an act. Yet there was no indication that they even looked for it, or that it was used as any determinant of a rape having occured.
Your point was that if a woman didn't have bruises, she wasn't raped. Period. You went on for several posts about how all TRUE rapes were committed in violence and always left some sort of physical signs. You pretended to know about the medical and forensic details of such attacks, but in the process patently proved that you actually knew no such thing.
Again. I don't necessarily agree with that assertion. While I'll accept that my second statement was a bit broad, it's broadness does not cancel out the initial statement at all. Coming up with scenarios where a woman can be raped without leaving any physical signs does not counter the statement that our definition of date rape and the adoption of many of the concepts therein within our legal system has made it easier for many women to charge rape in situations where no "real" rape has occured.
Only when you had been called upon these facts and told, flat out, that you were a fu[/i]ckwit for proposing that only bruises could be considered an indicator of rape did you attempt to change your tact. You attempted to demonstrate then how rapes laws were changing to include women who changed their minds after the fact of intercourse. When challenged to demonstrate exactly what laws were setting this precedent, you were unable to do so.
But you're looking at this wrong. You're looking at it in a "If I prove one thing wrong that gbaji said, then everything he said is wrong" manner. That's bogus logic. You can look at my orinal post as a statement and a supporting argument (it wasn't originally intended that way, but I'll accept if you intepret it that way). If you counter the supporting statement, then is it not perfectly acceptable for me to produce additional supporting statements? Is it not acceptable for me to counter that the conditions underwhich my supporting statement is *not* valid do not counter my original statement?
My point was about the "slipperly slope" of broadening the definition of rape within the context of "date rape" and how that has resulted in false accusations like that in the OP. I made one statement in semi-support of that contention. Yes. It was a poor one. I admit that. I honestly was only thinking about situations like in the OP. However, introducing cases where someone was held at knifepoint and forced to perform some sexual act does *not* counter my original contention. What's happening is that we're seeing charges filed in cases where no physical force is alleged at all
, or cases where physical force is alleged but no evidence of that force can be found. So you can come up with a scenario where a threat of force is used, so that a woman is raped with no physical evidence on her body. Well bully for you! I'll be the first one to say that the threat of violence is rape in those situations (and I have stated that repeatedly in this thread).
I'm specifically talking about the set of situations where we charge rape in situations where no physical force was used or alleged to be used and in which no "extranious" threats of violence were issued. That's the crux of the whole date rape movement. It contends that non-physical coersion counts as rape as well. Forcing a woman to have sex by threatening her with a weapon was rape before the date rape issue came up, and is still rape after. I'm talking about the changes in the definition of rape.
So, with your habitual ability to perform more spins than a prima ballerina, you then moved on to the social perception of rape, and now are claiming that this has been your stance all along.
Except I didn't "move on" to the social perception of rape. I started my whole argument with that point. You chose to ignore the point and argue the particulars of a secondary statement. What exactly did you think I was referring to when I said that the date rape phenomenon was partly responsible for the situation in the OP? Did you just skim over that point? I wrote it first and the other part second for a reason. Unlike some people here, I write in a relatively "classical" way in which I present the main point first, and then supporting statements afterwords. Attacking the supporting statements without looking at them in the context of the main point is somewhat irrelevant, right? But that's exactly what you and most of the others here did.
But it ain't necessarily so. Some of us DO remember what you started out arguing, and it isn't what you claim it is.
Funny. Your memory must not be as good as you think it is...
[i]Edited, Tue Aug 30 22:53:58 2005 by gbaji