Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

*snarf*

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.
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.
(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.
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?

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

Here is a PM gem





What an c[b][/b]unt

Because that really throws a wrench into his weekend plans.

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?

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."

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 sex without recourse because they weren't "lucky" enough to be bruised when it happens.

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 sex. 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 sex 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 sex": 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.

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 " 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 fart 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

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.



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.

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

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.)



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.

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

Gbaji wrote:



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.