So...Follow

FUck you.

No one "falsely accused of you of committing rape". You don't even know what that means.

As someone who has been to court as the falsely accused in a sex-crime, it's infuriatingly obvious you don't know what it means. Neither does Kao's dumb ***.

Don't equate someone posting that you're a rapist on an anonymous message board with being accused of rape, or I will hunt you down and kill you(metaphorically).

Yeah, Barkingturtle has the same story* but didn't turn into an ideological halfwit out to accuse women of being lying whores when they say they've been drugged or threatened.

Might want to put the game into overtime there pal. Or maybe you're just a liar whose claiming to have been falsely accused to score points. Kind of like those lying ***** "rape" victims, eh?

*I was assuming Gbaji meant "falsely accused" in real life but if he's referring to the Guenny post then it's even more pathetic...

Edited, Feb 8th 2011 5:51pm by Jophiel

I'm not arguing the extreme other end. I'm arguing *only* that the end that is fraudulent and impossible to prove or disprove in court is the wrong end of the issue to focus on. Yet, over the last 15 years or so that "end" of the issue has gotten the bulk of the attention, while the end that includes women being beaten and raped and scared to death is largely ignored in pursuit of a political agenda that has nothing to do with protecting and empowering women and everything to do with empowering womens rights leaders.



Yes. And do you think that convincing young women that "he gave me a glass of alcohol" qualifies a sexual encounter as rape and then encouraging them to press charges for rape under conditions where there is no physical evidence of a rape helps or hurts that statistic? It's yet another self-perpetuating statistic.




Do you also understand that by flooding the system with those sorts of accusations it weakens the claims of women who are forcibly raped? They're already the ones least likely to come forward out of a combination of trauma, fear, and embarrassment that goes far beyond what the girl who hooked up with a guy at a party after having a few too many drinks feels. The girl who's been forcibly raped will look at those statistics and think it's not worth the emotions of a trial. And whether we want to admit it or not, some people *will* lump her case in with all the other false ones, and be more likely to assume she's making a false or exaggerated claim since so many others do.


One of the biggest obstacles in the legal issue of rape is perception. The perception that the woman is somehow to some degree to blame for what happened affects this issue at every level. All we're doing by focusing on date-rape is perpetuating and strengthening that perception. We give credence to the sexist cop who might not investigate as hard as he should, or the DA who treats it as "just another case of a woman falsely accusing a man", to the juror whos first question when presented with a rape case is "What was she wearing?". All of those things are very real factors. Ask yourself honestly: Does re-defining rape in such broad terms help or hurt?


I believe it hurts. Women more than men, frankly.

Actually, good point about Barkingturtle. If you speak to him outside of his BT persona, you get to speak to a dissociative psychopath who spent years embroiled in serious legal charges, who none the less has caring, compassionate and logical community views, a great theoretical/practical respect for women, men and animals in Real Life, although he likes to verbally tease and aggravate for fun. Someone who is really ****** when he's playing, but is a totally good, kind, logical person when he's being serious and in his right mind.

But it's totally cool to accuse rape victims who were held at gunpoint of being liars who just want those sweet free federal abortions.

Funny how your mind works. In a sad sort of way.

WHat you are entirely missing out here in all these situations is the many many situations where a woman knows a man, is friendly with that man, but definitely doesn't want to have sex with him. However he takes the history of their relationship as an excuse to forcibly have sex with her, relying on the fact that their previous history of mutual trust together, whether long or short, means she is a vulnerable victim to forced sex, and will have a harder time proving rape, as he wasn't a stranger. THIS is date rape.

The circumstances surrounding rapes are irrelevant, no matter how much historical social bias is against the victim for whatever reason. The crucial question is whether sexual congress was mutually wanted. If it wasn't, it was rape, plain and simple. Just as a woman wearing sexy clothing is no excuse for forcing yourself upon her, instead of hanging back and admiring her from afar, knowing and being friendly with a woman is no excuse for forcing yourself upon her.

Society used to be chock full of perceptions which have been weeded out by prolonged argument, education and legislative changes. There is every reason for rape definitions to be broad and simple. No means No. Coercion means No. Unconsciousness or heavy impairment means No.

Are you kidding me? Do you think we're all just illiterate? When asked why a woman who was raped at gunpoint shouldn't qualify for aid, you said...

"Because any woman can claim to have been forced to have sex because some unnamed man aimed a death ray at her and told her to have sex with him."

That is what you said. We can't prove that a woman who says she was raped at gunpoint isn't lying about it so we should start with a presumption of lying on the part of any rape victim who can't prove it by overwhelming physical evidence and deny her aid.

I quoted what you said and the thread is right there for everyone to read (plus a link to the previous infamous thread). There's no twisting here aside form you trying to avoid admitting the truth of your own fucked up beliefs.

While I don't agree at all with his viewpoint, I'm compelled to take Gbaji's side on this. Even anonymously on a message board, it is not at all acceptable to accuse or even imply that one is a rapist without some sort of tangible evidence. And if such evidence is in the possession of the accuser, they should not be posting it all over the internet but should be going to the authorities instead.

Sure. And do you see how this is not in anyway something I'm arguing isn't rape? And, just to be topical, is not something excluded from the definition of rape as used when determining if an abortion may be funded either.

My point is that there are other cases in which no force or threat of force is used which are also labeled "date-rape". It's those cases I'm talking about. And in case you're still confused as to why this is an issue, ask yourself why anyone would consider limiting abortions for rape victims to those who suffer "forcible rape" to be a "re-definition" of rape? It can only be a re-definition if the existing definition is assumed to be broader than that. Yet, when coming up with an example, you came right around to one involving clear forcible rape.

You're arguing in circles. My definition of rape isn't any different than yours. The only difference is that I'm willing to argue against those who's definition of rape *is*, while you can't seem to get past the label, even when it's clearly being used in a way you don't yourself agree with.




I agree. But can we also agree that there's a difference between what *is* and what can be legally proven? And can we agree that when there is this issue of perception, that focusing on the cases where there isn't sufficient evidence to prove anything is a bad idea? A jury can't possibly know if that woman actually said no, or if she was actually unconscious. Baring some physical evidence of force or witness statements or a rape kit showing non-consensual sex, it comes down to one persons word against another, and by principle our legal system should always defer to the defense in that case, right?


I agree that in a perfect world, things like this wouldn't happen. But I also realize that we don't live in that perfect world and by giving women false encouragement to make charges when they aren't going to stick, we're not doing anyone any favors. And when that may fuel the perception about false allegations of rape, it harms others who might have been able to convict their rapist if only they hadn't been scared off by the statistics, or the assumptions of those too used to rape allegations being false or unprovable, and even potentially by the rapist who may be emboldened by those very facts.


Also... Young women may make poor choices about their sexual activities because they are emboldened by all the people telling them that if a guy gets her drunk and has sex with her, it's rape. She might be less careful about putting herself in certain situations under the false belief that the legal system will protect her from the consequences. So instead of taking control of her own outcomes to the best degree possible, she puts her faith in a system which will certainly fail her if something does happen. And that's before even getting into the well documented guilt-avoidance aspect of this. The broadening of date-rape feeds right into that and is IMO incredibly harmful to young women who are already prone to it. We're literally creating more victims here and no one is being helped.

Edited, Feb 8th 2011 5:53pm by gbaji

You were serious about that? I assumed you were playing your usual word games again, given that the case you provided doesn't actually fall outside the definition of "forcible rape" and especially when you hammed it up with mention of a death ray (edit: Apparently, I inserted that myself. Whatever!)

I was making a completely separate point about the difference between what can be claimed, and what can be proven in court. Um... But for the record, if it can be established that someone did point a gun at a woman and forced her to have sex with him, then that does qualify as "forcible rape", and thus would qualify her for federal funding for an abortion if she wants one.

Happy?

Edited, Feb 8th 2011 5:41pm by gbaji

Correct. No way to know for sure.

Are you f'ing kidding? Here's what she said:



She is very specifically and directly claiming two things:

1. That I have committed a form of rape.

2. That Varus thinks about committing rape on a regular basis.


It is completely clear cut with no other interpretation. Trust me, I looked for an alternative meaning. I tried to think of any way to read that other than that she was saying that I'd committed a rape. I tried to look for any hint of joke or humor which might explain it away and allow me to just dismiss it as an internet jibe. I couldn't find any. Can you?


I have no intention of suing anyone over this. Kao is required to make certain legal statements when something like this happens. I did not ask him to on my behalf. He's covering his employer's butt is all. All I did was report the post as a violation of the posting rules. I did this only after voicing my problem with the post in question and asking the poser to retract the statement and apologize for making it. In other words, I attempted to handle it within the context of a discussion among a group of reasonable mature adults. But instead of getting a mature and reasonable response, I got a dismissive blow off.

Regardless of how you feel about me, or my positions on various issues, or even the specific topic at hand, the correct response I'd expect from most people would be some form of "Yeah. That was a bit too far". Instead, I saw people leaping to the defense of the accuser, attacks on me for mentioning it in the first place (apparently, I'm supposed to just let people say I'm a rapist and not defend myself), and most bizarrely people like you who try to claim that she didn't actually accuse me of anything in the first place!


Is "us vs them" so strong that you can't be objective on anything at all?

Satire's a *****, douche bag.

No sh:t.

If you were less of a douche bag, you might get more sympathy. As it is, take your ration of sh:t like a man and move on. I'm sure we'll all forget about this in short order.