|
|
|
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040320/NEWS/103200007&
Avis=&Dato=&Kategori=&Lopenr=&rs=3
As a woman, it is very disconcerting to see articles published on your
website by vicious, man-hating women (Lorraine Dusky, Wendy Murphy, Cynthia
Stone, etc.).
All I ever read in their columns is a bunch of whining and complaining
because a man is given the right to defend himself.
I was so glad too finally see that even the Supreme Court feels that this
rape (screw the man's rights) shield law may be at best, unfair. I really
hope that when all is said and done, not only will this law be struck down
and overturned as unconstitutional, but every man serving time for rape at
this moment in your state has his case reviewed and retried.
I am sick of the attacks on Kobe Bryant's attorney, Pamela Mackey. She is
doing exactly what she should be doing. Anything less would be shirking her
duty to her client, whom she obviously believes is innocent. These vicious
women are merely trying to intimidate and shame her because they believe she
should be on the woman's side regardless of guilt or innocence. I applaud
Ms. Mackey's courage and principles.
If this so-called victim was so worried about her reputation in the first
place, perhaps she should have acted in a more lady-like manner. ...
I have two sons and would expect them to be given every opportunity to
defend themselves against a potentially vindictive or psychotic woman,
hell-bent on revenge because everyone says, "Oh look, it's just a poor
woman. If she says she was raped, she obviously was.
I don't expect you to publish this as it would go against your Kobe-bashing
paper, but I cannot believe you would act so irresponsibly and allow all of
the lies and emotional nonsense in these women's articles to be published
time and again.
|
| |
| |
(snip)
S quoted article:
I am sick of the attacks on Kobe Bryant's attorney, Pamela Mackey. She is
doing exactly what she should be doing. Anything less would be shirking
her
duty to her client, whom she obviously believes is innocent. These vicious
women are merely trying to intimidate and shame her because they believe
she
should be on the woman's side regardless of guilt or innocence. I applaud
Ms. Mackey's courage and principles.
So do I. It is a defense attorney's duty to do the best he/she can to
defend his/her client to prove innocense...just as it is the prosecuter's
job to prove guilt. Where all this leads remains to be seen.
And any woman who falsely claims rape hurts other women who really may have
a case to make. The more women lie about being raped, the less likely a
real rape victim will be believed. Lying about being raped often leads to
innocent men being punished, while the real perpetrators could end up
running loose in the community. I wish these lying women would take a look
at just how much damage they do to society when indeed they do lie.
Now, having said that, people also have different ideas of what constitutes
rape! Argghhh....So, what, iyo, *is* rape?
Take care,
Heidi
|
| |
| |
"Heidi Graw" <heidigraw@shaw.ca> wrote
So do I. It is a defense attorney's duty to do the best he/she can to
defend his/her client to prove innocense...
Innocence is immaterial- a finding of 'not guilty by insufficient proof' is
plenty.
And any woman who falsely claims rape hurts other women who really may
have
a case to make.......I wish these lying women would take a look
at just how much damage they do to society when indeed they do lie.
Absolutely.
It's a relatively new crime, as regards rape.
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman of
color; a husband couldn't 'rape' his wife; a whore couldn't be 'raped', and
a woman caught in the company of a man overnight was assumed to have been
compromised- but probably not 'raped'.
Now, having said that, people also have different ideas of what
constitutes
rape! Argghhh....So, what, iyo, *is* rape?
Exacting sex by coercion- effectively a criminal extortion, whether or not
accompanied by a physical assault. Of course there are degrees and special
circumstances within the generality.
Chas
|
| |
| |
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040320/NEWS/103200007&
Avis=&Dato=&Kategori=&Lopenr=&rs=3
As a woman, it is very disconcerting to see articles published on your
website by vicious, man-hating women (Lorraine Dusky, Wendy Murphy,
Cynthia
Stone, etc.).
All I ever read in their columns is a bunch of whining and complaining
because a man is given the right to defend himself.
I was so glad too finally see that even the Supreme Court feels that this
rape (screw the man's rights) shield law may be at best, unfair. I really
hope that when all is said and done, not only will this law be struck down
and overturned as unconstitutional, but every man serving time for rape at
this moment in your state has his case reviewed and retried.
I am sick of the attacks on Kobe Bryant's attorney, Pamela Mackey. She is
doing exactly what she should be doing. Anything less would be shirking
her
duty to her client, whom she obviously believes is innocent. These vicious
women are merely trying to intimidate and shame her because they believe
she
should be on the woman's side regardless of guilt or innocence. I applaud
Ms. Mackey's courage and principles.
If this so-called victim was so worried about her reputation in the first
place, perhaps she should have acted in a more lady-like manner. ...
I have two sons and would expect them to be given every opportunity to
defend themselves against a potentially vindictive or psychotic woman,
hell-bent on revenge because everyone says, "Oh look, it's just a poor
woman. If she says she was raped, she obviously was.
I don't expect you to publish this as it would go against your
Kobe-bashing
paper, but I cannot believe you would act so irresponsibly and allow all
of
the lies and emotional nonsense in these women's articles to be published
time and again.
There are all kinds of talks here about making rape easier to prove,
requiring less evidence and the like.
Rape is the MOST FALSELY ACCUSED CRIME OF ALL, and EVEN HIGHER in countries
with victim's compensation like ours.
So yeah, let's make it easy for these women to get a free paycheck and for
innocent men to be jailed!
FUCK THE COURTS AND THE MEDIA!
|
| |
| |
(snip)
her
she
So do I. It is a defense attorney's duty to do the best he/she can to
defend his/her client to prove innocense...just as it is the prosecuter's
job to prove guilt. Where all this leads remains to be seen.
And any woman who falsely claims rape hurts other women who really may
have
a case to make. The more women lie about being raped, the less likely a
real rape victim will be believed. Lying about being raped often leads to
innocent men being punished, while the real perpetrators could end up
running loose in the community. I wish these lying women would take a
look
at just how much damage they do to society when indeed they do lie.
Do you think they @$#*ing care? They will sink to any low for money or just
to get back at a guy who spurned them.
Now, having said that, people also have different ideas of what
constitutes
rape! Argghhh....So, what, iyo, *is* rape?
I'll tell you what it isn't.
* Regretting consentual sex later on when things don't turn out how you
expected.
* Consenting to sex when you are drunk/on drugs. You chose to drink/take
drugs in the first place, you are still responsible for what you do.
* Changing your mind mid way through.
* I'd also say leading a guy on to the point where he feels entitled to have
sex with you, even if you don't want it, I don't think that should be
considered rape. If you can provoke a "justifiable homicide", there should
be justifiable rape too.
Rape is when a guy beats you and forces you down while he forces himself
inside you. She must fight ALL THE WAY, resisting verbally and physically,
for it to be rape. If she doesn't resist, out of fear or whatever, then it's
not rape. She is giving consent. You can't expect men to read minds.
|
| |
| |
Absolutely.
It's a relatively new crime, as regards rape.
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman of
color; a husband couldn't 'rape' his wife; a whore couldn't be 'raped',
and
a woman caught in the company of a man overnight was assumed to have been
compromised- but probably not 'raped'.
I agree with all of these.
Exacting sex by coercion- effectively a criminal extortion, whether or not
accompanied by a physical assault. Of course there are degrees and special
circumstances within the generality.
Some women believe seducition = coercion. And that could mean it's rape if
the guy used "I love you" to get her into bed, but later showed that he
didn't love her. That wouldn't be rape. Rape is being PHYSICALLY FORCED, and
never "emotionally tricked" into having sex.
|
| |
| |
In article <c3lp42$28ni4d$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Darkfalz <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote:
Absolutely.
It's a relatively new crime, as regards rape.
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman of
color; a husband couldn't 'rape' his wife; a whore couldn't be 'raped',
and
I agree with all of these.
You believe that there's no such thing as rape between a white man and
a woman of color? What stagecoach dropped you off in the 21st century?
|
| |
| |
in article c3lp1b$29c6g0$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de, Darkfalz at
darkfalz@xis.com.au wrote on 3/21/04 8:11 PM:
I'll tell you what it isn't.
* Regretting consentual sex later on when things don't turn out how you
expected.
* Consenting to sex when you are drunk/on drugs. You chose to drink/take
drugs in the first place, you are still responsible for what you do.
I agree so far.
* Changing your mind mid way through.
* I'd also say leading a guy on to the point where he feels entitled to have
sex with you, even if you don't want it, I don't think that should be
considered rape. If you can provoke a "justifiable homicide", there should
be justifiable rape too.
Good point. These have to be distinguished from forcible rape. If he can't
control his sexual urge to finish, that's one thing. There should be an
*added* legal consequence if he goes on to beat her into submission.
Rape is when a guy beats you and forces you down while he forces himself
inside you. She must fight ALL THE WAY, resisting verbally and physically,
for it to be rape. If she doesn't resist, out of fear or whatever, then it's
not rape. She is giving consent. You can't expect men to read minds.
I agree that she must resist all the way for there to be rape. I can't agree
with you position on not resisting out of fear. I don't think we can expect
men to read minds, but I do think we can expect them to read faces and body
language. Even if she's told you she likes it rough, you should be able to
tell if she crosses the line into fear and it's no longer a game. If you
can't you have no business being alone with women.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
I agree that she must resist all the way for there to be rape.
I think that one can submit to intimidation and still consider it 'rape'.
As an hypothetical; if a woman was threatened by a giant professional
athlete- taller by a foot, outweighs her by 75 lbs., highly trained and
skilled in close physical contact; would you expect her to take a whipping
from him, as well as getting raped?
We had a local case of a woman kidnapped by a gang; taken to a remote spot
and raped for hours. They didn't have to beat her up; she was thoroughly
intimidated and tried to acquiesce and keep from being killed. Does her
'lack of resistance' mitigate their crime?
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:11:12 +1100, "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@xis.com.au>
wrote:
And any woman who falsely claims rape hurts other women who really may
have
look
Do you think they @$#*ing care? They will sink to any low for money or just
to get back at a guy who spurned them.
seems like some of them are doing that, sho' nuff.
one issue with this Kobe case is, she loses, will it send even more
signals to real rape victims that it's pointless to accuse rape,
because of the way your life and/or identity may be dragged thru
society's mud? Hell, it may already be sending that signal.
constitutes
I'll tell you what it isn't.
* Regretting consentual sex later on when things don't turn out how you
expected.
* Consenting to sex when you are drunk/on drugs. You chose to drink/take
drugs in the first place, you are still responsible for what you do.
* Changing your mind mid way through.
wait a minnit, why not that last one? no one can change their mind and
want to stop, once it starts? I honestly wonder if maybe that is what
happened with the Kobe case.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3kq0v$eqv@dispatch.concentric.net>...
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040320/NEWS/103200007&
Avis=&Dato=&Kategori=&Lopenr=&rs=3
As a woman, it is very disconcerting to see articles published on your
website by vicious, man-hating women (Lorraine Dusky, Wendy Murphy, Cynthia
Stone, etc.).
All I ever read in their columns is a bunch of whining and complaining
because a man is given the right to defend himself.
I was so glad too finally see that even the Supreme Court feels that this
rape (screw the man's rights) shield law may be at best, unfair. I really
hope that when all is said and done, not only will this law be struck down
and overturned as unconstitutional, but every man serving time for rape at
this moment in your state has his case reviewed and retried.
I am sick of the attacks on Kobe Bryant's attorney, Pamela Mackey. She is
doing exactly what she should be doing. Anything less would be shirking her
duty to her client, whom she obviously believes is innocent. These vicious
women are merely trying to intimidate and shame her because they believe she
should be on the woman's side regardless of guilt or innocence. I applaud
Ms. Mackey's courage and principles.
If this so-called victim was so worried about her reputation in the first
place, perhaps she should have acted in a more lady-like manner. ...
I have two sons and would expect them to be given every opportunity to
defend themselves against a potentially vindictive or psychotic woman,
hell-bent on revenge because everyone says, "Oh look, it's just a poor
woman. If she says she was raped, she obviously was.
I don't expect you to publish this as it would go against your Kobe-bashing
paper, but I cannot believe you would act so irresponsibly and allow all of
the lies and emotional nonsense in these women's articles to be published
time and again.
I personally haven't been following the Kobe story since I don't care
for Kobe, but I also personally think man-haters are bitter old
skanks. That said, if he raped her, he deserves to go to jail; and
that is all there is to it. Then, as your next reply asks, is what we
need to clearly define without any further re-definition: What is
rape?
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman of
color;
Absolute bull#@($. "The last hundred years" takes you back only to
1904. Gimme a cite for your claim that white men could not be arrested
or prosecuted (anywhere in the US, presumably) for raping a "woman of
color" in the early 20th century.
|
| |
| |
In article <c3nkfe$97b$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Chas wrote:
Absolute bull#@($. "The last hundred years" takes you back only to
1904. Gimme a cite for your claim that white men could not be arrested
or prosecuted (anywhere in the US, presumably) for raping a "woman of
color" in the early 20th century.
Prosecuted, or successfully prosecuted?
Legally speaking, I think in many states this would have been two crimes,
not none. Actual practice is a whole other question.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
In article <c3nkfe$97b$1@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
Prosecuted, or successfully prosecuted?
Gimme a cite, either way. Not innuendo.
|
| |
| |
in article yKGdnbx7yq85gcLdRVn-tA@comcast.com, Chas at
chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net wrote on 3/22/04 9:04 AM:
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
I think that one can submit to intimidation and still consider it 'rape'.
As an hypothetical; if a woman was threatened by a giant professional
athlete- taller by a foot, outweighs her by 75 lbs., highly trained and
skilled in close physical contact; would you expect her to take a whipping
from him, as well as getting raped?
The context shows that my emphasis in the above sentence was on whether or
not the resistance started at the beginning of the encounter, not on it's
form. BTW the words "intimidation" and "threatened" are very emotion packed
and are not equivalent. Many people find intimidation sexually stimulating.
We had a local case of a woman kidnapped by a gang; taken to a remote spot
and raped for hours. They didn't have to beat her up; she was thoroughly
intimidated and tried to acquiesce and keep from being killed. Does her
'lack of resistance' mitigate their crime?
Again, from the context you would see that I was so liberal as to say that
even fear itself on the part of the victim would amount to resistance and
would define rape. My question to these two women would be, Were you afraid?
Quite possibly the first would answer no, and the second would answer yes.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman
of
color;
Absolute bull#@($. "The last hundred years" takes you back only to
1904. Gimme a cite for your claim that white men could not be arrested
or prosecuted (anywhere in the US, presumably) for raping a "woman of
color" in the early 20th century.
You don't cite a negative, Mike. If you know of a case wherein a white man
was prosecuted for raping a woman of color, trot it out.
And of course, that ignores my qualifier completely.
Do you maintain that white men were routinely prosecuted for raping women of
color?
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:04:03 -0800, George Evans <georgee@pe.net>
wrote:
in article yKGdnbx7yq85gcLdRVn-tA@comcast.com, Chas at
chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net wrote on 3/22/04 9:04 AM:
The context shows that my emphasis in the above sentence was on whether or
not the resistance started at the beginning of the encounter, not on it's
form. BTW the words "intimidation" and "threatened" are very emotion packed
and are not equivalent. Many people find intimidation sexually stimulating.
So a person can never change their mind you mean? Once they've said
"yes" or gone along with it for a while that's it? Three hours later
they still can't call a halt to it? What about 12 hours later or 3
days later? Can they ever claim this person raped them after they
once said yes to them?
We had a local case of a woman kidnapped by a gang; taken to a remote spot
and raped for hours. They didn't have to beat her up; she was thoroughly
intimidated and tried to acquiesce and keep from being killed. Does her
'lack of resistance' mitigate their crime?
Again, from the context you would see that I was so liberal as to say that
even fear itself on the part of the victim would amount to resistance and
would define rape. My question to these two women would be, Were you afraid?
Quite possibly the first would answer no, and the second would answer yes.
Your terminology makes me smile. "so liberal as to say that even fear
itself... would define rape"... how generous of you!
Sometimes our emotions are very weird. The feeling of really
believing (knowing really) that you are about to be killed need not be
a feeling of fear. It can be a very calm feeling. It's a most odd
feeling that I can't adequately describe. I wouldn't however say that
because the person didn't feel fear, there was no attack. What
defines the attack is what the attacker does and not what the victim
does or feels.
Ann
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman
of
color;
Absolute bull#@($. "The last hundred years" takes you back only to
1904. Gimme a cite for your claim that white men could not be arrested
or prosecuted (anywhere in the US, presumably) for raping a "woman of
color" in the early 20th century.
You don't cite a negative, Mike. If you know of a case wherein a white man
was prosecuted for raping a woman of color, trot it out.
Nonsense. You're the one making an assertion -- that white men
*COULD NOT* be arrested for rape. There's absolutely no reason
why you can't be asked to back up that assertion.
And of course, that ignores my qualifier completely.
Do you maintain that white men were routinely prosecuted for raping women of
color?
I maintain absolutely nothing. You're the one making an assertion;
I'm the one asking you to back it up. Happy I could clear that up
for you.
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Nonsense. You're the one making an assertion -- that white men
*COULD NOT* be arrested for rape. There's absolutely no reason
why you can't be asked to back up that assertion.
Actually, I qualified it.
But, if you oppose it, post a few cites of white men prosecuted for raping
women of color- enough to make it a more common occurrance than the reverse.
I maintain absolutely nothing. You're the one making an assertion;
I'm the one asking you to back it up. Happy I could clear that up
for you.
One can't cite a negative- that's silly, Mike.
But hey, you knew that, didn't you?
Chas
|
| |
| |
Ann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:04:03 -0800, George Evans <georgee@pe.net>
wrote:
So a person can never change their mind you mean? Once they've said
"yes" or gone along with it for a while that's it? Three hours later
they still can't call a halt to it? What about 12 hours later or 3
days later? Can they ever claim this person raped them after they
once said yes to them?
We had a local case of a woman kidnapped by a gang; taken to a remote spot
and raped for hours. They didn't have to beat her up; she was thoroughly
intimidated and tried to acquiesce and keep from being killed. Does her
'lack of resistance' mitigate their crime?
Your terminology makes me smile. "so liberal as to say that even fear
itself... would define rape"... how generous of you!
Sometimes our emotions are very weird. The feeling of really
believing (knowing really) that you are about to be killed need not be
a feeling of fear. It can be a very calm feeling. It's a most odd
feeling that I can't adequately describe. I wouldn't however say that
because the person didn't feel fear, there was no attack. What
defines the attack is what the attacker does and not what the victim
does or feels.
I thought what defines the attack is the consent - or lack of it - of the
victim, and the intention of the attacker?
What about couples who practice edgy - but consensual - sexual roleplays?
Consider a man who brandishes a knife and orders his trembling wife to strip
as a part of an intimate roleplay. Next consider a man who brandishes a knife
and orders a strange woman in an alley to strip. The "attacker" is *doing*
the same thing in each case, isn't he? The difference is in his intention and
the volition of the "victim", isn't it?
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Actually, I qualified it.
But, if you oppose it, post a few cites of white men prosecuted for raping
women of color- enough to make it a more common occurrance than the reverse.
You're not listening, Chas. It's YOUR assertion. YOU need to cite it.
I don't need to disprove it until you can show that there's something
to disprove.
One can't cite a negative- that's silly, Mike.
But hey, you knew that, didn't you?
A statement that you can't substantiate is a null statement, Chas.
But hey, you knew that, didn't you?
|
| |
| |
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
You're not listening, Chas. It's YOUR assertion. YOU need to cite it.
I don't need to disprove it until you can show that there's something
to disprove.
Michael; one cannot prove a negative. My qualified assertion was that white
men weren't prosecuted, in general, for the rape of women of color. If you
disagree with that, you would needs cite instances- common instances at
that, of white men being so prosecuted.
I might cite that no cites rose to the search- but that would simply
reiterate that no instances of it being common reflect.
A statement that you can't substantiate is a null statement, Chas.
A negative statement is a concrete assertion; white men weren't prosecuted,
in general, for the rape of women of color. Unless you have some concrete
assertion to the contrary, and citations of men so charged, the generality
stands.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:37:33 -0700, "Chas"
<chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Actually, I qualified it.
But, if you oppose it, post a few cites of white men prosecuted for raping
women of color- enough to make it a more common occurrance than the reverse.
One can't cite a negative- that's silly, Mike.
But hey, you knew that, didn't you?
Chas
what difference does it make if an assertion is negative or not?
either you can prove it or you can't. and if you can't then making it
is silly. or downright stupid. which you obviously are.
in what sense is a negative statement unproveable? in a logical sense?
in a semantic sense? in a linguistic sense? in a phenomenological
sense? or just in the sense of you blowing hot air out of your ass?
whether a statement is negative or positive has nothing to do with
whether it can be proven, or cited. any myriad of negative assertions
can be substantiated in exactly the same way as positive assertions.
you made the original assertion: so prove it. it was your choice to
express your thought negatively. you could have expressed the same
thing positively. makes no difference as to its provability. so prove
it. otherwise shut up.
you constantly assert that women generally do NOT make false rape
accusations; that consensual sex is NOT the same as rape. that this or
that is NOT consistent with consent.
so now we know just how stupid you really are... even by your own
standards... or non-standards...
|
| |
| |
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
I think that one can submit to intimidation and still consider it 'rape'.
As an hypothetical; if a woman was threatened by a giant professional
athlete- taller by a foot, outweighs her by 75 lbs., highly trained and
skilled in close physical contact; would you expect her to take a whipping
from him, as well as getting raped?
Um, if that woman is stupid enough to be in a position where they are alone
together, in an intimate setting, then she has already consented to do
whatever he wants.
We had a local case of a woman kidnapped by a gang; taken to a remote spot
and raped for hours. They didn't have to beat her up; she was thoroughly
intimidated and tried to acquiesce and keep from being killed. Does her
'lack of resistance' mitigate their crime?
|
| |
| |
In article <c3lp42$28ni4d$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Darkfalz <darkfalz@xis.com.au> wrote:
Absolutely.
It's a relatively new crime, as regards rape.
Within the last hundred years, say, a white man couldn't 'rape' a woman
of
color; a husband couldn't 'rape' his wife; a whore couldn't be 'raped',
and
a woman caught in the company of a man overnight was assumed to have
been
compromised- but probably not 'raped'.
I agree with all of these.
You believe that there's no such thing as rape between a white man and
a woman of color? What stagecoach dropped you off in the 21st century?
No white man would want to rape a nigger.
|
| |
| |
in article yKGdnbx7yq85gcLdRVn-tA@comcast.com, Chas at
chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net wrote on 3/22/04 9:04 AM:
The context shows that my emphasis in the above sentence was on whether or
not the resistance started at the beginning of the encounter, not on it's
form. BTW the words "intimidation" and "threatened" are very emotion
packed
and are not equivalent. Many people find intimidation sexually
stimulating.
If I have sex with a woman I don't really like because I don't want to seem
like less than a man to her, because I'm scared of her telling her friends I
couldn't get it up or I was gay, can I accuse her of rape?
It's the same thing. It comes down to choice.
|
| |
| |
in article jhsu50d1smaj3i92avbs9snvb601tq9pnk@4ax.com, Ann at me@privacy.net
wrote on 3/22/04 3:26 PM:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:04:03 -0800, George Evans <georgee@pe.net>
wrote:
So a person can never change their mind you mean? Once they've said
"yes" or gone along with it for a while that's it? Three hours later
they still can't call a halt to it? What about 12 hours later or 3
days later? Can they ever claim this person raped them after they
once said yes to them?
We started out here with a post proposing various levels of from non rape
through a category he called "justifiable rape" and, finally, actual rape.
The above interchange is referring to the final category. Here is the
original post and my complete original response:
----------------------------begin quote------------------------------
Rape is when a guy beats you and forces you down while he forces himself
inside you. She must fight ALL THE WAY, resisting verbally and physically,
for it to be rape. If she doesn't resist, out of fear or whatever, then it's
not rape. She is giving consent. You can't expect men to read minds.
I agree that she must resist all the way for there to be rape. I can't agree
with you position on not resisting out of fear. I don't think we can expect
men to read minds, but I do think we can expect them to read faces and body
language. Even if she's told you she likes it rough, you should be able to
tell if she crosses the line into fear and it's no longer a game. If you
can't you have no business being alone with women.
-----------------------------end quote--------------------------------
We had a local case of a woman kidnapped by a gang; taken to a remote spot
and raped for hours. They didn't have to beat her up; she was thoroughly
intimidated and tried to acquiesce and keep from being killed. Does her
'lack of resistance' mitigate their crime?
Again, from the context you would see that I was so liberal as to say that
even fear itself on the part of the victim would amount to resistance and
would define rape. My question to these two women would be, Were you afraid?
Quite possibly the first would answer no, and the second would answer yes.
Your terminology makes me smile. "so liberal as to say that even fear
itself... would define rape"... how generous of you!
I don't know if you're still smiling after reading the reinserted context.
The liberality was my accepting fear as a substitute for physical or verbal
resistance. Most people seem to expect a woman who is being raped speak or
otherwise demonstrate her lack of consent. But what if she is too afraid to
do that? It's nonsense to say that that negates the rape.
Sometimes our emotions are very weird. The feeling of really
believing (knowing really) that you are about to be killed need not be
a feeling of fear. It can be a very calm feeling. It's a most odd
feeling that I can't adequately describe. I wouldn't however say that
because the person didn't feel fear, there was no attack. What
defines the attack is what the attacker does and not what the victim
does or feels.
The problem with rape is that what the attacker does during rape can be
exactly what that person might normally do during sex. That is precisely why
we want to know if the alleged victim said no.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:05:01 GMT, Chainsaw <noone@inparticular.net>
wrote:
Ann wrote:
I thought what defines the attack is the consent - or lack of it - of the
victim, and the intention of the attacker?
What about couples who practice edgy - but consensual - sexual roleplays?
Consider a man who brandishes a knife and orders his trembling wife to strip
as a part of an intimate roleplay. Next consider a man who brandishes a knife
and orders a strange woman in an alley to strip. The "attacker" is *doing*
the same thing in each case, isn't he? The difference is in his intention and
the volition of the "victim", isn't it?
Yes, the difference is that both parties consent. What defines the
attack is that the attacker acts without consent, and not that the
victim feels fear or tries to run away or whatever. I think we're
saying the same thing just using different words.
Ann
|
| |
| |
in article nf2dnSHvhMC6K8LdRVn-jg@comcast.com, Chas at
chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net wrote on 3/22/04 7:59 PM:
"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote
Michael; one cannot prove a negative. My qualified assertion was that white
men weren't prosecuted, in general, for the rape of women of color. If you
disagree with that, you would needs cite instances- common instances at
that, of white men being so prosecuted.
I might cite that no cites rose to the search- but that would simply
reiterate that no instances of it being common reflect.
A negative statement is a concrete assertion; white men weren't prosecuted,
in general, for the rape of women of color. Unless you have some concrete
assertion to the contrary, and citations of men so charged, the generality
stands.
Yea, and BTW AFAIK white men didn't wear underwear from 1900 to 1910 of
socks. Prove me wrong, Michael! ;)
|
| |
| |
in article u9qv50heckrc81m6m2gldk5s2fqam0d933@4ax.com, Ann at me@privacy.net
wrote on 3/22/04 11:43 PM:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:05:01 GMT, Chainsaw <noone@inparticular.net>
wrote:
Yes, the difference is that both parties consent. What defines the
attack is that the attacker acts without consent, and not that the
victim feels fear or tries to run away or whatever. I think we're
saying the same thing just using different words.
So how do you determine consent from the perspective of a jury? Especially
given that the wife might pretend to resist.
Let's say we set up an experiment to shed some light on this subject. We
hire an actor to be the attacker and an actress to be the victim. The idea
is to have them act out the scenario above with the knife and then question
them afterwards regarding what they felt. For realism we don't introduce
them ahead of time. We set up in an alley, ready to observe, but unbeknownst
to us the actress is waylaid and an actual stranger happens down the alley.
Frozen by surprise, non of us in the observation booth do anything to stop
what transpires as planned.
Obviously the woman was raped. But is the actor guilty? He did it, but did
he do it without consent? Who would the jury want to hear from most?
George Evans
|
| |
| |
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
Yea, and BTW AFAIK white men didn't wear underwear from 1900 to 1910 of
socks. Prove me wrong, Michael! ;)
He can't; you're right.
'As far as you know' is the perfect qualifier.
Chas
|
| |
| |
"agakhan" <agakhan@yahoo.com> wrote
what difference does it make if an assertion is negative or not?
The proofs are different. One can't support a negative as one would prove a
positive.
To prove a negative, one simply finds | | |
