Another poll on attitudes to rape

[Randwolf]

Again, anyone with an inch of sense can see that it is a load of BS.

:worship::cheers::bravo:

That did it for me!

 

[Randwolf]

Again, anyone with an inch of sense can see that it is a load of BS.

So which of those points do you actually disagree with? I can only find one point to object to, but the thing is that somewhere, a rapist has used that point as a defense.

Bells, pass on the news...

 

[Randwolf]

I'm a feminist and I find it insulting that people calling themselves feminists can actually crap on like this woman does. She is a fundamentalist and a loon.

Seriously, we are in agreement here. Remember I didn't create the source, I just quoted it.

Furthermore, I was resurrecting another thread that I thought was banned out of hand, because the moderator didn't agree with the content. Whatever. Point is, radicals are radicals, of any stripe. F**k em....

 

[visceral_instinct]

Funny that the misandrist piece of shit was talking about how if there were a few drinks involved that there was no legal means of consenting a few pages ago. Though who cares when you can just be a good feminist and have all kinds of double standards, right?

Don't throw that shit at me. I don't think it's automatically rape if you have sex with a drunk woman. If she was out of it to the point that she is semiconscious and does not know what she is doing, ya, rape. But if she's sober enough to be horny, NO, it's not rape. Now, for fuck's sake, just act like a human being for five minutes and stop doing my head in.

 

[angrybellsprout]

Yes, because real feminists call their sites Biting Beaver and describe themselves as:



Ya, really credible. You're taking as fact a list written by a woman who wants to kill her own son because he is male? It's amazing how you and others like you, as well as stupid women (the supposed feminazis), take this as being fact. Look at where it's stemming from. It's akin to believing and following a self proclaimed prophet because he says he speaks to Jesus in his bowl of cereal every morning.

Are you retarded or something? Because if you weren't retarded, then you would have known that the link that you posted was making fun of that idiot and how sexist it is.

Again, anyone with an inch of sense can see that it is a load of BS. Those who follow her fundamentalist feminist ideals are like those people who would believe in the asshat who claims to see Jesus in his cereal.

Anyone with an inch of sense could have seen that encyclopedia dramatica is a satire website, but you were a little too slow to catch on this. So really, how can you talk about how much sense others have?

Also, it is pretty easy to just simply claim that everything is 'radical' when there is plenty of feminist propaganda that fits in quite well with that list.

I'm a feminist and I find it insulting that people calling themselves feminists can actually crap on like this woman does. She is a fundamentalist and a loon. I mean honestly, what in the hell kind of woman wants to kill her son because he is a normal male teenager?

I think most thinking feminists would recognise her as being a loon and anyone who believes what she says, and holds it as absolute fact, are also loons.

For god's sake, if you want to discuss feminism, at least use credible resources, instead of someone who refers to herself as "Biting Beaver".

Anyone who uses the term feminist to describe theirself is obviously a sexist loon. All you have to do is read some feminist literature, walk into any women's studies' department, confront the idiots that join groups such as NOW, and so on for proof of this. They are full of nothing but double standards and injustice.

Well there is a tiny group that people like Christina Hoff Summers fall into that call themselves the individual feminists, and they are generally about equality. I don't understand why they bother throwing up the term feminist in their name when they spend so much time attacking feminism, though they describe everyone else as 'gender feminists'. In general though, the majority of people who actually support equality will refuse to self identify with the sexist idiots that use the term feminism.

 

[Bells]

Are you retarded or something? Because if you weren't retarded, then you would have known that the link that you posted was making fun of that idiot and how sexist it is.

I'm sorry. You're telling me she does not have a blog or discussion site called "Biting Beaver"? I understand that is her screen name.

Yes, the link posted was making fun of her idiotic idealogy. But I think the fact that she calls herself and her blog "Biting Beaver" should be a pretty good indication that she is in fact a loon. You're so caught up in "feminazi" ideology that you can't tell the difference between the rantings of a lunatic and actual feminism.

Anyone with an inch of sense could have seen that encyclopedia dramatica is a satire website, but you were a little too slow to catch on this. So really, how can you talk about how much sense others have?

Also, it is pretty easy to just simply claim that everything is 'radical' when there is plenty of feminist propaganda that fits in quite well with that list.

No numbnuts. Unlike you, I decided to look into it more. I didn't just post the list from a satire site and take it as fact that all feminism think sex = rape.

And the feminist propaganda who fit into that mold are deemed radical, fundamentalist feminists. There's a difference. I'd suggest you actually learn of that difference before you start spouting your fecal matter across these boards.

Anyone who uses the term feminist to describe theirself is obviously a sexist loon. All you have to do is read some feminist literature, walk into any women's studies' department, confront the idiots that join groups such as NOW, and so on for proof of this. They are full of nothing but double standards and injustice.

Says he who has such a problem against women, he'd probably run screaming from the sight of a vagina. I have read feminist literature. I have walked into women's studies departments. And I can assure you, those who believe like the Biting Beaver are in the extreme minority because their views are so extremist and at times, down right violent.

But lets look a bit deeper at why the Biting Beaver has such issues. She's from a system that denied her emergency contraception when the condom broke. She's from a system and a time who suffered at the hands of anti-feminist propaganda. She's one of those unfortunate individuals who turned to fundamentalist feminism and grabbed onto it with both hands.

And yes, retard, I am a feminist. In the classical sense. I am a feminist who believes in equal rights, regardless of what you happen to have between your legs. You're a person who grabs onto extremist views and then tries to claim it applies to one and all.

Well there is a tiny group that people like Christina Hoff Summers fall into that call themselves the individual feminists, and they are generally about equality. I don't understand why they bother throwing up the term feminist in their name when they spend so much time attacking feminism, though they describe everyone else as 'gender feminists'. In general though, the majority of people who actually support equality will refuse to self identify with the sexist idiots that use the term feminism.

To understand the term feminism, you need to understand where the need for the term arose. It is a shame that asshats have twisted it to fulfill their own political agenda, on both sides of the equation.

 

[James R]

Asguard:

The problem with that list is its gender specific, the law isnt. Every single one of those is a crime if a man is the victom just as much as if the women is

There's no problem with the list being gender specific. If you want to make a similar list about men, go right ahead. What I'm interested in, in particular, is angrybellsprout's and his friends' disagreements with what's on this particular list. After all, he is the one who self-proclaimedly describes the entire list as a joke.

I'm interested how in a modern society, some men are still apparently living in the stone age.


redarmy11:

The first fails to specify exactly how drunk. So no, I couldn't possibly agree with that. ... Bit vague? The proposition doesn't even mention sex. ... We're being left to assume an awful lot here.

Rather than reading each item in isolation, I suggest to you and other readers of this thread that you read the items in context. They are all talking about sex without consent, although they do not all explicitly make that same point over and over again.

I find it particularly interesting that the "mens' rights" apologists in this thread all seem quite willing and able to take things out of context in order to try to justify their archaic patriarchal views that some kinds of rape are really acceptable.


angrybellsprout:

It doesn't matter because if she gives consent it is rape and if she doesn't give consent it is rape.

Nowhere in this list does it say that.

You are Exhibit A among the men here who apparently cannot understand what this list is about. What it is about is this, ABS: it is a message to you - an attempt to wake you up to certain facts about consent - to jolt you out of your complacency and tacit support of violence against women.

I specifically talk about individuals who give verbal consent and remain active and participatory during the acts...

Then you'll agree with every single item on the list, won't you, since none of them contemplate verbal consent to sex.

Though it is pretty telling that they don't want to talk about what happens when both individuals have had a few drinks, as that would go against their world view that all men are rapists and women are simply innocent victims.

As Bells has explained to you quite clearly, if two people are a bit tipsy and agree to have sex (i.e. both give informed, free consent) then there is no rape (unless consent is removed by one party at some point).

You complain about straw men, but constantly harp on your own strawmen.

Also, it has long been the burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact innocent, as opposed to ever having to really prove that you are guilty.

This is incorrect, as a matter of law.

Another good question is how many other things can you simply say, oh but I was drunk, and get away with? Is it really your fault if you are too drunk to consent to driving yourself home? Can you honestly be held liable if you shoot someone when you can't even recall your own name? It is obvious that anything that you say yes to and then actively involve yourself in after a few drinks cannot be held against you.

These matters are best kept for another thread. The issues are complicated. Let's stick to our discussion of rape here, please.

Anyone who uses the term feminist to describe theirself is obviously a sexist loon.

And here we see your incoherent hatred of women in general. You don't know what a feminist actually is, so I presume that "feminist" to you is really just code for "woman". In short, you consider all women to be "sexist loons".

You need help. That much is clear.


Bells:

The original list itself appears to have been written by a retard, intent to inflame. And for some reason, other retards appear to have taken all of it at face value and as the absolute truth. No, if someone has a few drinks, are in possession of their faculties and then consents to sex, it's not rape. But if someone has a few drinks (or a lot of drinks), becomes completely incapacitated (like me for example.. three glasses of wine and I can't even spell my own name.. four glasses and I pass out cold) to the point where they can't walk or talk anymore, they are in no position to consent to anything at all. That is where it might be considered rape.

I do not agree that the list was written by a retard.

I do agree that it was written with intent to make a point (see my comments to ABS, above).

I can only repeat that the items should not be read in isolation. Instead, ask yourself (and this is not directly specifically at you, Bells) what the point of the entire list is. What message is it trying to send?

Several men, at least, have missed the point in this thread, and in the original thread. Which is worrying, to say the least.


Randwolf:

What's hard for me to understand, is who judges these things? Who decides if someone is too inebriated to be of sound judgement?

Judgment and discretion happen at all points in the criminal justice system. The victim decides whether to make a complaint. The police decide whether the complaint is valid. The public prosecutor decides whether or not to prosecute. The judge or jury decides whether a crime has been committed.

In making these judgments, the entire circumstances of the incident are examined by multiple parties, and are subject to challenge by any defendant.

The standard of proof required is onerous: a charge of rape must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The examples of someone who is comatose are obvious. However, on a related thread it was pointed out that the actual law of the land has changed, and it is no longer necessary to prove force as an element of rape. In fact, quite the contrary.

A woman might, for example, be so fearful of her attacker that she will verbally agree to sex, or remain silent and allow sex to occur, even though there is no apparent application of force. So, the law makes perfect sense in that regard. Of course, such fear and so on would need to be established to uphold the charge.

I think this is what ABS is going on about. Can a person, male or female, decide retroactively, as in the next morning, "Oh, I was drunk last night, so even though I said please fuck me, I was actually incapacitated, so, therefore, you will be spending the next 20 years in prison." Is this right?

No, it is not right. It would never stand up in a court.

 

[James R]

By the way, for angrybellsprout and others who don't know what a feminist is, like Bells, I too am a feminist.

So, if you're talking about feminists, I suggest you ask us what we think, rather than assuming.

 

[draqon]

what do you think James R., as a feminist?

 

[James R]

And one other thing...

Why haven't angrybellsprout, Randwolf and others responded to the poll?

Are you scared to have your views on record?

 

[draqon]

And one other thing...

Why haven't angrybellsprout, Randwolf and others responded to the poll?

Are you scared to have your views on record?

I as not a feminist and sure they are not feminists as well...would answer that for you...because the choices in the poll are biased and unfair.

 

[Asguard]

James, i find your atitude insulting to say the least, you want to dump all those who belive in "mens rights" (whatever the fuck that means) in the same boat as much as ABS wants to dump feminsts in the same boat.

Yes im a suporter of mens issues especially in the health sector because they dont get anywhere NEAR enough resorces. Bells and i also surport mens right to a safe home enviroment free from domestic vilonce.

How is that wrong?
I surport a womens right to a home enviroment free from abuse as well.

But you seem to think that anyone who pushes the right to be free from domestic vilonce and sexual assult should only focus on women.

I wonder how you would think if your wife got drunk and stabbed you 40 times with a kitchen knife
Or if you were that paraplegic whos wife poored petrol around the room and LEFT TO BURN

 

[James R]

draqon:

I as not a feminist and sure they are not feminists as well...would answer that for you...because the choices in the poll are biased and unfair.

Not at all. There are 26 statements, each of which you are invited to either agree or disagree with. If you agree with all of them, select the last option. If you disagree with some of them, select those you disagree with.

Why do you think the poll is biased and unfair? What particular aspects are biased or unfair? Explain, or do not accuse.


Asguard:

James, i find your atitude insulting to say the least, you want to dump all those who belive in "mens rights" (whatever the fuck that means) in the same boat as much as ABS wants to dump feminsts in the same boat.

Not at all. I have made no general statements about advocates for "mens' rights". I have only referred to certain people who have mentioned that issue in this thread.

Yes im a suporter of mens issues especially in the health sector because they dont get anywhere NEAR enough resorces. Bells and i also surport mens right to a safe home enviroment free from domestic vilonce.

Good for you. I support that view, too.

But you seem to think that anyone who pushes the right to be free from domestic vilonce and sexual assult should only focus on women.

Let me be clear: I do not think that. If I have given an impression to the contrary, I apologise.

 

[James R]

Moderator message: Off-topic discussion of draqon's personal life has been deleted.

Please conduct that conversation by PM or in a thread in "Free Thoughts" or perhaps "About the members".

 

[Bells]

I do not agree that the list was written by a retard.

Read up a bit on her blog. The woman is scary to be honest. As a feminist, a woman and a mother of two boys, I find a lot of what she has to say to be offensive. I can understand why she has her views, but she is in the extreme and radical range of feminism.

I do agree that it was written with intent to make a point (see my comments to ABS, above).

One of my biggest gripes about that list was that it was so vague. And that people reading it would take it to heart in that they would assume it is correct as a whole. I understand the point she was trying to make. She did, for example, use a lot of rape awareness literature out there to compile a lot of it. But she approached it from the standpoint that sex (all sex) somehow amounts to rape due to the dominant nature males have in the sexual act itself.. the intrusion into the female body (after all, what female would consent to that?).. etc. And that's where she went wrong. The vagueness of that list leaves the way for people like many in this thread, to grab it with both hands and completely misunderstand rape in and of itself. Her list did not just create discussion, it created a hell of a lot of confusion for a lot of people.

I can only repeat that the items should not be read in isolation. Instead, ask yourself (and this is not directly specifically at you, Bells) what the point of the entire list is. What message is it trying to send?

My opposition to that list is because of where it is coming from and its vagueness has resulted in a lot of confusion and angst and rabid finger pointing and generalisation.

To me, it appears to have been written by a radical for her fellow radicals. And radical anti-feminists, like some in this thread, have grabbed onto it as being the be all and end all. They won't look into each point and try to work it out. They will simply take it at face value and assume that it applies to all. One of the worst things with such fundamentalists is that there are no grey areas. It is all either black and white.

Several men, at least, have missed the point in this thread, and in the original thread. Which is worrying, to say the least.

You will always get that in rape threads though. Can't really be surprised. We've been around long enough to know that some people just don't get it and never will.

 

[shorty_37]

I think from looking at the poll results some members are confused. It looks like they are ticking off the statements they agree with, not disagree with.

 

[Randwolf]

And one other thing...

Why haven't angrybellsprout, Randwolf and others responded to the poll?

Are you scared to have your views on record?

Because, James R, you have subtley changed the wording to some of these points. That is fine, but my position is very simple. People, and of course this includes women, are responsible for their own actions. You and your condescending feminist friends belittle women, and blame men for all problems. This attitude is no more correct than that of the true misogynist. Grow up, admit that we are all adults, and all of us should take responsibility for what happens.

When did you get elected arbiter of all morals? The list is BS, you know it, I know it, and 75% of the SF members know it. They have stated their case. Why are you the lone voice in the wilderness crying foul? Were you raped as a child? Sex without consent is wrong. What constitutes consent is a topic for debate. Sure, the topic brings out the squirrels. So what? The squirrels allow us the opportunity for self examination. I just do not understand why this topic, above all, can raise everyone's hackles in this way. However, it is quite a bit of fun...

Oh, and polls are stupid.

 

[Asguard]

i havent responded because i agree with all or non depending

Basically its quite symple

actually shorty i dont think either group is qualifided to write what is concidered rape and what isnt. I was thinking it should more come from a lawyer with experiance in the area. This is OVIOUSLY biased because it says "if a WOMEN..." if it was a legal point of view it would say "if a PERSON..."

And your right i could chop it down a bit

"if they say no, its rape"
"if you use fraudulant means to coherse the person, including but not limited to, misleading about your or there identity or marital statice or the act itself including but not limited to misleading the person that its for medical or hygenic reasons or through any other fraugulant means its rape"
"if they are unable to concent due to drugs, achole, mental incapacity, being asleep, or unconcious its rape"
"if you use blackmail, threat of force or actual force to coherse the person then its rape"

So i guess your right i could cut it down to 4 quite easerly and still cover the whole list

Take that as my vote james

 

[Bells]

Because, James R, you have subtley changed the wording to some of these points. That is fine, but my position is very simple. People, and of course this includes women, are responsible for their own actions. You and your condescending feminist friends belittle women, and blame men for all problems. This attitude is no more correct than that of the true misogynist. Grow up, admit that we are all adults, and all of us should take responsibility for what happens.

What you and others just can't seem to grasp is that sometimes people (be they male or female) are too incapacitated to give consent. That such individuals cannot be held responsible for something that is done to them without their knowledge or understanding. Yes, people are responsible for their own actions. But it is not so black and white as that.

There was a big story not so long ago in Australia where a mentally disabled girl was gang raped and sexually abused by a bunch of school boys. She apparently said yes (eg supposedly consented) to the attack on her body. Would you say she should be held responsible for her actions? In that she said yes, therefore tough titties? Or does the fact that she was mentally disabled and unable to understand what she was consenting to come into play? The same applies to people who are so drunk or drugged that they do become mentally incapacitated. Such individuals are unable to understand what they are consenting to have done to their person.

 

[Asguard]

bells, a question i thought of at that paticular time.

A different set of legislation (actually the concent to medical treatment act and the guardianship act) says that the right to sexual activity and the right to procriate SPECIFICALLY are fundemential human rights. So taking that spirit how do we make sure the mentally disabled are able to concent to sexual activity in an informed way?

Im not saying that case in particular was informed concent because it clearly wasnt but that and a couple of other things including a fictional case where a mother wanted the courts to force her daughter to have an abortion and sterilisation made me think about it