Attitudes to rape

[Prince_James]

Bells:

So if the woman were a lesbian, it'd be more of a crime to you or she should somehow be more affected than a heterosexual woman? Your arguments get more and more pathetic.

Yes, as her promiscuity would not extend to men. She would thus have a very real reason for why she did not want to have sex with that man.

I see. So you know many rapists amongst your acquaintances? A man can be as vulnerable as he wants to how a particular woman looks. It still is not an invitation by her to be raped. It is still for him to exert control over himself and not the other way around. It is for the man to not rape.

I do not associate with men who would rape, no. I have known women who have been subjected to such, though.

And I agree, of course he mustn't rape. However, women can do things to not inspire weak willed men.

Do you make it a habit to put liquor infront of a drunkard? Do you put heroin before a recovering addict?

Read through your whole post. Better yet, have a woman you know read what you've stated in this thread. If she has half a brain cell, she'll be able to point it all out to you. She may also castrate you, but you should give it a go regardless. If you really feel justified in what you have said in this thread, have your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, etc read what you've said and see if they agree whole heartedly with you. Better yet, go to a rape crisis centre and have a woman who's been a victim of rape read your words and see how well she agrees with you.

I woudl have no problem doing any of that. However, emotional responses from women who have been victims of certain crimes do not invalidate arguments.

Also, you didn't really answer my question: Where did I say that women are morally to blame for rape because they dress provocatively? In fact, I am sure you will find I -never- said that, and have -repeatedly- affirmed otherwise.

Show me the specific statistics which state that women who dress provocatively are raped more than women who who dress conservatively. You are assuming that younger women dress more provocatively and the link you have provided says nothing at all to support your claim.

Considering many websites do affirm that a common defense is "she was dressing provocatively", and this is also a common belief, it would seem to imply that many cases have some provocatively-dressed element to them. Moreover, inferring from statistics based on the knowledge of how people of a certain age are more likely to dress, is as valid as inferring that women aged 50-60 are more likely to be taking medication related to menopause compared to those 10-20.

Until you can show the exact statistics from a reputable site (eg police statistics, State or National statistic Bureau's, from an educational study - as in from a university study or thesis which shows a distinct figure that women who are dressed provocatively are raped more than other women) which gives the figures that show that women who dress provocatively are raped more than women who do not, then you basically do not have an argument or a leg to stand on.

http://www.eastandard.net/archives/cl/hm_news/news_s.php?articleid=2905&date=13/10/2004

Rape in Kenya in areas where women are more likely to wear scanty dress are significantly higher than in areas where such is not the case, according to the above.

Again, be sure to tell her that once that ring is on her finger, she's no longer allowed to say the word "no" because you happen to want some and she does not. Be sure to tell her that because she's married to you, she no longer has any rights over her own body and that you own her sexual organs, just as much as she owns yours. And then pray to whatever it is you believe in that you don't wake up one morning and find your dick and your balls in a jar on your bedside table after you've forced yourself on her.

Actually, she'd have the same rights of mine. And to I'd have no intent to "force myself" on her.

Ah so you've managed to find some women who accept the fact that they no longer have any rights over their bodies or sexual organs once they are involved with you and that you effectively now own her? My how lucky you must be. So most huh? What happened to the others? Did they run a mile when they saw you coming? Or have you learnt now to just keep quiet about how you really feel and just find women too stupid to realise what kind of bastard you really are?

And yes, that was an honest statement as to how I actually view you as an individual. I actually think you no better than a pathetic runt and a piece of turd left out to try on a sidewalk. But that's a matter for another thread.

Blahblahblahirrationalwomanblahblahblah.

So you think that in gratifying your own sexual needs by forcing yourself on your wife, you are somehow 'honouring' her? My god you are a pathetic human being. So "one flesh" also includes the clause that the woman has no rights over her own body and cannot say not to sex? My god your interpretation of what constitutes a marriage is warped in the extreme.

No, one flesh implies that -neither- has the right to their own bodies at that point.

Yes it used to be for the woman. Thankfully society evolved past the primitive notions of viewing women as forms of property and came to realise that a woman has rights not only over property, but also over her body as well. It's a shame you've failed to catch up on the rest or society, isn't it.

Well the very notion really destroys marriage in a true sense, so...whatever. If you want to live in a half-marriage that has no foundations for the social role marriage continues to play, that is your business.

Kant's words to be exact were stated in The Science of Right:

"The latter is marriage (matrimonium), which is the union of two persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties."
Please take note of the fact that he also saw it as being something that was 'reciprocal'. I even highlighted the word for you.

Have I not affirmed -repeatedly- that I do not mean a subjugation of women beneath men in regards to access to one another's genitals?

Kant also argued that everyone has a moral duty to respect others as persons, and that such duty is derived from our dignity as rational beings. Now in light of that, do you think he'd agree with you that a man can force his wife to have sex with him whenever he so chooses, without her consent.. do you think Kant would argue that such an act was a sign of respect to the wife?

He technically had a problem with marriage as a whole. In fact, that is one of the reasons he never married. He claimed that the sex act objectifies another person.

Of course, one is met with then a huge difficulty in regards to the Categorical Imperative: One could not universalize "never have sex" as this implies global suicide.

TheoryOfRelativity:

Pj, as a promiscuous guy (lets assume for arguments sake you are) is it thus ok for you to be raped by another man, you wouldn't care?

I never said it was okay for a promiscious woman (or man) to be raped, only that I cannot see why they would care.

In the case of homosexual encounters, the caring would be focused on the fact that an act one does not engage in (homosexuality) is involved. As I have noted in response to others. I can see the legitimate qualm one would have.

You would not feel violated, abused, dirty, fearful of recurrance, worried about STD's, worried (not in your case obviously) about pregancy and subsequent abortion? You would not feel ashamed and afraid to tell your closest family/friends?

Considering one would all ready be promiscious, I don't imagine one would really care for any of these things. Promiscious men and women all ready run the risk of all these things.

Rape is more than physcial harm PJ it is emotionally damaging. There is ahuge diff. between allowing and consenting to penetration and having a stranger force it upon you, possibly with a threat to your life.

I also noted a non-violent encounter with the rape of the promiscious woman.

 

[TW Scott]

First i would like to say that to me most rapists are scum, lower than dirt. I few were heavily intoxicated or drugged up I would consider them not capable of rational thought or action and if truly penitant then perhaps they deserve a small break.

My problem comes from how the charge of rape suddenly shifts our legal process. It's nothing official, mind you, but it happens. Suddenly when the accusation of rape is leveled the defendant has to prove his innocence. The prosecution gets a cake walk. This is a total reversal of the way we handle everything else in criminal law. It's just not right.

 

[iam]

i don't know what country you live in but in america it is extremely hard to get a conviction and it is the accuser who has to prove guilt. There is no cake walk for anyone but usually for the guilty especially for molestation or rape cases of minors because of time factor and many cases are not brought to light right away due to the fact most victim knew the rapist and were threatened, confused and guilty of bringing justice. Thats where the bulk of rape cases truly occur and most go unreported. That is sad. You have it 360 backwards.

 

[mountainhare]

Prince James:

I never said it was okay for a promiscious woman (or man) to be raped, only that I cannot see why they would care.

You are aware that guys tend to differ? They aren't clones?

Even a promiscious male would not want to have sex with a fat, hairy walrus of a woman.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Why? Seriously, why wouldn't you be surprised?

Why can't men control themselves? Why are some men that weak? Why do some men feel the need to control, have power over and demean others to such an extent that they rape them? Because that's what rape is. It's not just about sex. So what would a woman walking down the street naked have to do with such men who are so lacking that they think raping a woman will make them feel like a true man?

I've never bought that "rape isn't about sex" BS. When I see an atractive woman, I want to have sex with her in the same way I want to eat a juicy steak when I smell someone cooking one. I don't rape the attractive woman for the same reason I don't steal the steak and eat it. It would be wrong. It is illegal. But were I to steal the food or rape the woman it would be to satisfy the physical need, not for some BS psychological reason.

Everyone knows there are many weak and evil men who would gladly take that which is not theirs to satisfy their needs and desires. Placing oneself in the position where such men can take advantage is stupid. It does not excuse their actions, but it is stupid.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Please respond to the poll.

Which (if any) of the factors listed do you think might mitigate the responsibility of a rapist?

In other words, if the person who had sex with a woman was charged with rape, should he "get off" or have his penalty reduced if any of the listed circumstances apply?

(Edited to clarify

The assumption here is that all the legal requirements for a rape conviction have been met. It is established that the man has had sex with the woman without consent. The question is then: should any of the above circumstances exonerate the man and either get him off the charge or result in a reduced sentence, as a general principle?

Rape is rape, murder is murder, if someone commits these sorts of acts, they are commiting a deliberate act of aggression. If a person does not have enough self control to prevent themselves from raping people, how do you know they have enough self control to prevent themselves from killing random people out on the street?

Rape is one of those types of offenses that you can only commit if you have absolutely no empathy at all, and are extremely aggressive and violent. Most people are not this combination of traits and as a result are not capable of rape or murder, it takes a specific set of traits. So it's not just a matter of thinking about something and being able to do it, most people can have whatever fantasy they want, but when it comes ot actually raping a woman, and shes screaming and crying and begging saying no, how can anyone ignore all of this and think it's okay?

In my opinion, it's a horrible act that I'd personally never be able to commit. It does not matter if I were drugged, it does not matter if the girl asked me to role play it out, it's just not something I could be okay with, even acting.

I consider myself open minded when it comes to sexual fantasies, but there are some things that I could never do even if it were roleplaying with my wife. If a woman wants to roleplay a rape scene, the answer is always no. And thats just do to my uncomfortableness about it.

 

[TW Scott]

i don't know what country you live in but in america it is extremely hard to get a conviction and it is the accuser who has to prove guilt. There is no cake walk for anyone but usually for the guilty especially for molestation or rape cases of minors because of time factor and many cases are not brought to light right away due to the fact most victim knew the rapist and were threatened, confused and guilty of bringing justice. Thats where the bulk of rape cases truly occur and most go unreported. That is sad. You have it 360 backwards.

What is funny is you say 360 backwards which means that I am correct.

For an example look at the Duke Lacrosse team. One woman;s accusation that she was raped was enough to get a case going where DNA proved not one of them was involved and that other dancer working the same party says that nothing like what the accuser said happened. These three men were proght up on charges on evidence so thin it didn't even exist outside the accusers words.

Another example the Judge in the Mike Tyson case did not allow the defense to bring in crucial eyewitnesses when they came forward. This has never been done to a defense case. She allowed the 911 call but forbade defense attorneys from revealing when the call was made: (3 days later). Now we learn later the 'victim' had a history of doing things like this.

Or how about the man who was convicted of raping a woman and served twelve years despite having both of his testicals. The woman had report that her rapist had one testical. Now tell me how that happened if not a sort of double standard.

Now, legally it is the burden of the state to prove and most of the ime I do not fault the legal system. What I fault is juries. It's like they hear rape and suddenly their mindset changes. Instantly burden of proof switches in their mind. It's not a concious thing. It just happens.

 

[iam]

360 is meant as a metaphor..lol switch accused/victim

The reality still is that for all the cases that go wrong as you mentioned AND as in ANY criminal FELONY CASE SUCH AS MURDER, ASSAULT ETC, THERE ARE MUCH, MUCH MORE THAT JUSTICE IS NOT SERVED FOR THE VICTIM, ESPECIALLY IN RAPE OR MOLESTATION CRIMES. COMPRENDE?

 

[madanthonywayne]

For an example look at the Duke Lacrosse team. One woman;s accusation that she was raped was enough to get a case going where DNA proved not one of them was involved and that other dancer working the same party says that nothing like what the accuser said happened. These three men were proght up on charges on evidence so thin it didn't even exist outside the accusers words.

Apparently, not even that, since the district attorney prosecuting the three Duke lacrosse players has admitted that he and his assistants have not even interviewed the accuser about the facts of the case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701633.html

 

[TW Scott]

360 is meant as a metaphor..lol switch accused/victim

I more fitting metaphor woul have been 180 assuming you are correct. As 360 is right back where you were. So you slipped a bit and put out the truth.

 

[iam]

Its you who doesn't want to acknowledge the truth it seems as you are partial to the small percentage of men who you believe are falsely accused of rape which is still rare because it is one of the most humiliating things to come forward with both male and female. Injustice happens in every type of criminal case and for you to sit on the fact that you believe men are being unfairly represented across the board in rape cases is a load of crock. lol

 

[TW Scott]

Its you who doesn't want to acknowledge the truth it seems as you are partial to the small percentage of men who you believe are falsely accused of rape which is still rare because it is one of the most humiliating things to come forward with both male and female. Injustice happens in every type of criminal case and for you to sit on the fact that you believe men are being unfairly represented across the board in rape cases is a load of crock. lol

Why is a load of crock, that I point out that in these instances that the accused is stripped of their rights. Now I am not saying it is intentional and I am not saying it is the only time such things happen, but you hear it more in rape cases. It's an emotional and social pressure. We dodn't dare question the victim's integrity becuas they have suffered enough, so the defense is hindered. The fight an up hill battle when they are supposed to be secured in the keep until prosecution tears down the castle. All too often that happens, more-so in rape cases than any other kind.

Oh and by the way I use rapist and victim becuase female rape of men is entirely possible.

 

[redarmy11]

Everyone knows there are many weak and evil men who would gladly take that which is not theirs to satisfy their needs and desires. Placing oneself in the position where such men can take advantage is stupid. It does not excuse their actions, but it is stupid.

It's been pointed out time and time again that rape victims can vary from 70, 80, 90-year old women to 4, 5, 6-year-old boys, and even to babies still in their prams (there was a well-publicised case of the latter in Britain not so long back). Are all these victims to blame? Or conspiring in their own downfall? Do you not see how weak and pathetic and pointless it is to advocate that women should voluntarily restrict their freedoms just because certain men can't control themselves? Common sense should tell you that the vast majority of women these days do take steps to avoid putting themselves at risk. Some of them still get raped. Does this not suggest to you that the victims aren't the problem?

 

[redarmy11]

Why is a load of crock, that I point out that in these instances that the accused is stripped of their rights. Now I am not saying it is intentional and I am not saying it is the only time such things happen, but you hear it more in rape cases. It's an emotional and social pressure. We dodn't dare question the victim's integrity becuas they have suffered enough, so the defense is hindered. The fight an up hill battle when they are supposed to be secured in the keep until prosecution tears down the castle. All too often that happens, more-so in rape cases than any other kind.

This is mostly conjecture. It may have had some basis in reality before the news about false accusations really started to hit the headlines but there is no basis for thinking nowadays that rape cases are anything but balanced - or that they're judged on different criteria from any other court case. Advances in forensic science make an unjust outcome increasingly unlikely.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Are all these victims to blame? Or conspiring in their own downfall? Do you not see how weak and pathetic and pointless it is to advocate that women should voluntarily restrict their freedoms just because certain men can't control themselves? Common sense should tell you that the vast majority of women these days do take steps to avoid putting themselves at risk. Some of them still get raped. Does this not suggest to you that the victims aren't the problem?

Did I ever say the victims were the problem? I was responding to Bell's statement that one should be surprised if a woman walking naked thru a bad neighborhood was raped.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Absane:

"Maybe I read into what you said improperly. Forgive me if I did."

Not a problem.

To clarify: I do not think it is right to rape a woman no matter what the nature of her clothing is, only that women ought to know better than to think that they can wear any clothing they desire and not raise the risk for rape. That is to say, women ought to dress and act with an intent to not be raped, specifically if the likelyhood is higher than normal, such as if she lives in a bad neighbourhood.

Basically, there are things women can do to lower their risk of rape by making themselves less appealing to those more likely to rape. Wearing provocative outfits or otherwise inticing can be a sure fire way to get oneself raped, even if the moral blame resides solely in the rapist.

Women should be able to walk around naked if they want to. If a man does not respect women, he does not respect women and it won't matter what she wears. If a man has no sense control and is violent, he will be violent no matter what the individual is wearing.

I dont think violence has anything to do with clothing and I know that rape has nothing to do with sex drive, it's violence and lack of empathy.

Every guy has thought about or had fantasies about having sex with that hot chick, but only a few guys actually will literally force her into it and rape her, and it takes a certain kinda person to use force to make someone do that, a very controlling person.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

PJ

promiscuous women do care if they are raped, it is no different. They have been violated, possibly dragged off the street by a stranger at knife point, forced to fulfill vile acts that they do not consent to. Why do you think they would not care? Promiscuous women select their sexual partners, there is an attraction, they consent and are prepared for the act, contraception, condom, etc. Rape is no less damaging to a promiscuous woman than not, hence the yrs of therapy and counselling that follow. This is not a myth PJ it is reality.

There is also no such thing as non violent rape, if the woman is not sexually
aroused, penetration hurts a lot, hence they can tell if a woman is raped generally by the 'damage' that occurs internally and the bruising etc. Doctors find smear testing very difficult on tense women for this very reason. If the woman is tense, the instrument which is not as wide as a cock hurts the female much. The Dr can't get it in. Fact not fiction PJ.

The act of sex requires relaxation in order to be comfortable, with a hysterical and frightened female fearing for her life (I think fearing for ones life is reason enough to care..don't you PJ?) the muscles of the viginal wall will be very tense, almost impenetrable, hence harm occurs when forced entry takes place.

I would rather be beaten PJ than raped. Thus violence towards me is preferable. Women do not deem rape lightly just because they enjoy consenting sex with multiple partners.

I understand this is hard for men to understand, afterall you have to be a woman to know what it feels like to be a woman. Men and women are not the same. I ask you though to consider rape for what it is, it is not SEX, it is a violent assault on the womans most intimate part of the body. The rest of the body may be unharmed but her vagina has been assaulted. Thus she CARES PJ.

She will also wonder if she was to blame somehow, be afraid to go outdoors for fear of recurrance, possibley becoming agrophobic. It will affect future sexual relations as the act of sex will remind her of the assault. She may never live a normal life again. Fact not fiction PJ. Women who are raped regardless of their sexual nature care. The proof is in the fact that not a single woman raped has ever said, they Do not care...ever.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

iam

It is NOT nice experiencing the 'looks' that you describe, but the reality is men are like this, they will look if they can, some more than others, some very subtly so you will not notice. If you make eye contact with a guy doing this very obviously, look him in the eye and imagine takimng an axe and cutting his cock off. He'll get the message and stop looking. Power of thought is very powerful.

 

[Baron Max]

It is NOT nice experiencing the 'looks' that you describe, but the reality is men are like this, they will look if they can, some more than others, some very subtly so you will not notice. If you make eye contact with a guy doing this very obviously, look him in the eye and imagine takimng an axe and cutting his cock off. He'll get the message and stop looking. Power of thought is very powerful.

That sounds like something I've heard fat, ugly women say when they don't get the looks of admiration that the pretty girls get. Jealousy is a powerful sensation, huh?

Baron Max

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity:

They have been violated, possibly dragged off the street by a stranger at knife point, forced to fulfill vile acts that they do not consent to.

Again: Note I assumed a non-violent rape. Again, no knives and the like.

Moreover, they commit "vile acts" with men all the time. Why should they care with this?

Rape is no less damaging to a promiscuous woman than not, hence the yrs of therapy and counselling that follow. This is not a myth PJ it is reality.

I never claimed that it wasn't reality, I just cannot at all conceive of why she would care. There is nothing at stake here that I can gather.

There is also no such thing as non violent rape, if the woman is not sexually
aroused, penetration hurts a lot, hence they can tell if a woman is raped generally by the 'damage' that occurs internally and the bruising etc. Doctors find smear testing very difficult on tense women for this very

Penetration can hurt indeed, but I hardly imagine that the pain is so extensive that it is a life-changing experience.

The act of sex requires relaxation in order to be comfortable, with a hysterical and frightened female fearing for her life (I think fearing for ones life is reason enough to care..don't you PJ?) the muscles of the viginal wall will be very tense, almost impenetrable, hence harm occurs when forced entry takes place.

The fearing for one's life out of the entire thing is reasonable, yes, as the activity could progress to violence.

I would rather be beaten PJ than raped. Thus violence towards me is preferable. Women do not deem rape lightly just because they enjoy consenting sex with multiple partners.

What about the act itself is that different from being beaten? In that one area is being focused upon instead of others?

I understand this is hard for men to understand, afterall you have to be a woman to know what it feels like to be a woman. Men and women are not the same. I ask you though to consider rape for what it is, it is not SEX, it is a violent assault on the womans most intimate part of the body. The rest of the body may be unharmed but her vagina has been assaulted. Thus she CARES PJ.

I do not see why someone would care about one part of their body and not the other.

She will also wonder if she was to blame somehow, be afraid to go outdoors for fear of recurrance, possibley becoming agrophobic. It will affect future sexual relations as the act of sex will remind her of the assault. She may never live a normal life again. Fact not fiction PJ.

The same thing could happen if she was mugged or a thousand other things.

But as I noted: This is not a moral consideration. MOrally it is still wrong. I just cannot myself at all appreciate why she'd care if she screws everything that moves.