rape is always violent.
Attitudes to rape
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
PJ
Would you not find a strange and threatening man forcing his cock into your mouth and anus worse than a punch on the nose?
It is worse for many reasons PJ, one because of the associations with that area which we are indoctrinated with since birth. Also because unlike a punch on the nose, intercourse within a relationship is normal, thus this violent assault may disrupt the womans ongoing sexual life for reasons already stated. This will thus affect her relationship with her partner, have ramifications for any children they share (if the parents separate etc) so on and so forth.
Also the pain could be potentially worse than that of a beating.
As a man you cannot comprehend the pain sensors in that area as you do not possess them.
Regarding vile acts which you say promiscuous women undertake anyway. They are not VILE acts PJ if consentual, they are vile when not consentual and forced. Unless you consider blow jobs and intercourse vile acts when in the context of consenting sex?
However I see you are anti rape, what is becoming clear though in your posts is your deep loathing and lack of respect for promiscuous women. Life experience may be responsible for this attitude so I shall not pass judgement but I will say a promiscuous woman is no more loathesome than a promiscuous male afterall the promiscuous woman is having sex with someone is she not?
Would you not find a strange and threatening man forcing his cock into your mouth and anus worse than a punch on the nose?
It is worse for many reasons PJ, one because of the associations with that area which we are indoctrinated with since birth. Also because unlike a punch on the nose, intercourse within a relationship is normal, thus this violent assault may disrupt the womans ongoing sexual life for reasons already stated. This will thus affect her relationship with her partner, have ramifications for any children they share (if the parents separate etc) so on and so forth.
Also the pain could be potentially worse than that of a beating.
As a man you cannot comprehend the pain sensors in that area as you do not possess them.
Regarding vile acts which you say promiscuous women undertake anyway. They are not VILE acts PJ if consentual, they are vile when not consentual and forced. Unless you consider blow jobs and intercourse vile acts when in the context of consenting sex?
However I see you are anti rape, what is becoming clear though in your posts is your deep loathing and lack of respect for promiscuous women. Life experience may be responsible for this attitude so I shall not pass judgement but I will say a promiscuous woman is no more loathesome than a promiscuous male afterall the promiscuous woman is having sex with someone is she not?
Thankyou
meanwhile I have this to add
I have not read all this thread but I note clothing issues come up. Men desire women (straight ones) regardless of what they wear but
in this culture men think that women in sexy/scant clothing are deliberately dressed that way to invite male sexual attention. I am not going to go into detail about this misconception (though in some cases no doubt it is correct) but it is a misconception.
Now I do not critisise men for this misconception. The ways of women are indeed strange and complex in these matters.
But while women should be able to dress how they please, the reality is certain dress will attract certain attention, not because they LOOK more attractive BUT because they look more AVAILABLE. Sexually available.
This is the point I believe PJ was trying to make but got jumped on.
Personal example re me:
I was a virgin until I was 19yrs old and was in a very well established relationship before I gave it up, thus I was not a slag and not easy.
BUT this did not stop me from dressing (a short phase) like (I can now describe it this way as I am older and can SEE better) a hooker at age 17.
I could not understand that while my dowdy mate got asked on dates, I seemed to attract more 'lewd' offers (which I declined) I was naive, totally inexperienced with males and just did not know what I know now basically. I wanted to look attractive, I thought I did. I did, BUT I looked TOO sexually provocative and as such attracted (all be it unawares) the wrong type of attention.
Until men become aware (believe) that clothing/lack of (in a females mind) is not necc. intended to illicit a sexual response from men (unless in the bedroom or by hookers) women dressed with less will continue to attract a type of attention they may not desire.
Now I only dress sexily when out with my boyfriend and nice but conservative the rest of the time. If I have a night out with a female friend, I may dress more sexily but not so much that I look like I am deliberately inviting sexual attention. I am aware basically of the messages a man may misread from my outfit!
Rape of any female in any state of dress is inexcusable, but it is a matter of responsibility that men and women are educated to understand each others thought processes in matters that may endanger them or lead them to false assumptions.
Last edited:
TheoryOfRelativity:
As I noted, there is a strong difference between being subjected to homosexual rape and heterosexual rape. I would almost certainly prefer being raped by a woman than being brutally beaten.
Which ones?
Admittedly I can see the connection, but at the same time, most women go back to a normal sexual .life in time after rape, do they not?
How with the children?
That I'd admit. I have no idea how the pain would feel from a first hand experience.
I fail to see the substantive difference in one case or another, specifically if this woman does them with practically everything that walks.
I find promiscious women unappealing, yes, but I do not loathe them (as I do not associate with them). I simply cannot conceive of why they care. Nor could I conceive of why a promiscious male would care about a rape by a female. It seems so trivial at that point.
As I noted, there is a strong difference between being subjected to homosexual rape and heterosexual rape. I would almost certainly prefer being raped by a woman than being brutally beaten.
Which ones?
Admittedly I can see the connection, but at the same time, most women go back to a normal sexual .life in time after rape, do they not?
How with the children?
That I'd admit. I have no idea how the pain would feel from a first hand experience.
I fail to see the substantive difference in one case or another, specifically if this woman does them with practically everything that walks.
I find promiscious women unappealing, yes, but I do not loathe them (as I do not associate with them). I simply cannot conceive of why they care. Nor could I conceive of why a promiscious male would care about a rape by a female. It seems so trivial at that point.
I'd just like to point out at this stage that the people who are arguing for diminished responsibility for rapists based on their victims' promiscuity, drunkedness, "sexy" appearance, marital status are not unusual in society. Clearly, the fact that several people who hold such views have come out of the woodwork on sciforums, a so-called "intelligent community", supports the idea that such views are not unusual.
To those people, I would say this: you are not unusual. Many people share your views. However, be aware that your views are archaic. The legal systems of western nations have passed you by. You're essentially dinosaurs, clinging to the old ways.
About 20 years ago, courts would have agreed with you. Raped women were often quizzed in courts about their sexual histories. If they were found to be "promiscuous", their rapist might avoid conviction, or get a reduced sentence. The victim's clothing at the time of the rape was also considered relevant. If the victim wore "skimpy" or "provocative" clothing, again that might diminish the responsibility of the rapist in a court's eyes.
As for the issue of consent, consent has always been and still is a defence to the charge of rape. If the defendant can show that the complainant consented, then there's no rape. Twenty years ago, courts often held that if the victim didn't clearly say "No" to sex, in terms of struggling or actually saying "No" clearly and forcefully, that might get the offender off the charge.
What about cases where the complainant initially agreed to sex, then changed her mind half way through? Like you, the courts used to think that there was a "point of no return" in sex, after which no male could control himself. Therefore, a woman could not change her mind half way, and there could be no rape in such cases.
Marriage? Twenty to thirty years ago, perhaps, courts still held that there could be no rape in marriage. The idea of "ownership" of women by their husbands was entrenched in the legal system, as in the rest of society.
But in the past 20-30 years, all this has changed. The old guard of judges who held archaic views about women as property have largely been replaced by a new generation of judges who understand the importance of fundamental human rights. The legal system itself, informed by many many studies of rape, has been reformed in many respects.
The current situation in the courts of most western nations is that a woman's sexual history is irrelevant in a charge of rape. The offender is the person on trial - not the victim. For the same reason, "provocative" clothing no longer counts as an exculpating factor. It is up to a man to control his urges - not up to the woman to cater for the proclivities of men with poor impulse control.
The issue of consent has changed, too. Now, women must be shown to have consented to sex. Failure to say "no" is not enough to establish that a woman consented to sex. And, moreover, it is now recognised that women can change their minds for all kinds of reasons, and that they have a right to withdraw consent at ANY time. If a man keeps going after consent is withdrawn, that is rape.
The idea of women as property is now recognised as a quaint reminder of a past, unenlightened era. Thus, marriage gives no right to rape. The idea of "conjugal rights" that some have expressed in this thread is no longer part of the laws of advanced nations.
So, where does that leave you, the person living in the age of the dinosaurs, with your bigotted and outdated views about rape? Well, you only really have two options:
1. Get with the programme. Educate yourself about up-to-date views on the place of women as equal human beings in society. Throw away your archaic ideas of women as property. And start putting the blame where it actually rests - on men who think they have a God-given right to use other people for their pleasure - rather than on their victims.
OR
2. Get involved in the political process and lobby for a return to the "good old days". Vote for bigotted people with outdated views, just like yours. Or, run for election yourself, and then you will be able to roll back the new ways of thinking, and return to the old days. Maybe you can make America just like Saudi Arabia or Afganistan or Iran, in terms of the rights given to women.
The fact is, as things stand you are irrelevant. Society has moved on and left you behind. Nobody respects your views, except those who, like you, live in the past. Your only options are to grow up or to try to regress your society back to the dark ages.
To those people, I would say this: you are not unusual. Many people share your views. However, be aware that your views are archaic. The legal systems of western nations have passed you by. You're essentially dinosaurs, clinging to the old ways.
About 20 years ago, courts would have agreed with you. Raped women were often quizzed in courts about their sexual histories. If they were found to be "promiscuous", their rapist might avoid conviction, or get a reduced sentence. The victim's clothing at the time of the rape was also considered relevant. If the victim wore "skimpy" or "provocative" clothing, again that might diminish the responsibility of the rapist in a court's eyes.
As for the issue of consent, consent has always been and still is a defence to the charge of rape. If the defendant can show that the complainant consented, then there's no rape. Twenty years ago, courts often held that if the victim didn't clearly say "No" to sex, in terms of struggling or actually saying "No" clearly and forcefully, that might get the offender off the charge.
What about cases where the complainant initially agreed to sex, then changed her mind half way through? Like you, the courts used to think that there was a "point of no return" in sex, after which no male could control himself. Therefore, a woman could not change her mind half way, and there could be no rape in such cases.
Marriage? Twenty to thirty years ago, perhaps, courts still held that there could be no rape in marriage. The idea of "ownership" of women by their husbands was entrenched in the legal system, as in the rest of society.
But in the past 20-30 years, all this has changed. The old guard of judges who held archaic views about women as property have largely been replaced by a new generation of judges who understand the importance of fundamental human rights. The legal system itself, informed by many many studies of rape, has been reformed in many respects.
The current situation in the courts of most western nations is that a woman's sexual history is irrelevant in a charge of rape. The offender is the person on trial - not the victim. For the same reason, "provocative" clothing no longer counts as an exculpating factor. It is up to a man to control his urges - not up to the woman to cater for the proclivities of men with poor impulse control.
The issue of consent has changed, too. Now, women must be shown to have consented to sex. Failure to say "no" is not enough to establish that a woman consented to sex. And, moreover, it is now recognised that women can change their minds for all kinds of reasons, and that they have a right to withdraw consent at ANY time. If a man keeps going after consent is withdrawn, that is rape.
The idea of women as property is now recognised as a quaint reminder of a past, unenlightened era. Thus, marriage gives no right to rape. The idea of "conjugal rights" that some have expressed in this thread is no longer part of the laws of advanced nations.
So, where does that leave you, the person living in the age of the dinosaurs, with your bigotted and outdated views about rape? Well, you only really have two options:
1. Get with the programme. Educate yourself about up-to-date views on the place of women as equal human beings in society. Throw away your archaic ideas of women as property. And start putting the blame where it actually rests - on men who think they have a God-given right to use other people for their pleasure - rather than on their victims.
OR
2. Get involved in the political process and lobby for a return to the "good old days". Vote for bigotted people with outdated views, just like yours. Or, run for election yourself, and then you will be able to roll back the new ways of thinking, and return to the old days. Maybe you can make America just like Saudi Arabia or Afganistan or Iran, in terms of the rights given to women.
The fact is, as things stand you are irrelevant. Society has moved on and left you behind. Nobody respects your views, except those who, like you, live in the past. Your only options are to grow up or to try to regress your society back to the dark ages.
I can bet you they would be changing and singing another tune if they were ever victimized. Some people must experience something in order to understand or sympathize because it takes more mental skill to actually put yourself in anothers shoes. Thats tending toward the narcissistic side which is shortsighted but easier and why they respond from the standpoint of the 'other' catering and adjusting to any and possible weaknesses, lol. A hoot.
Last edited:
Prince_James:
You obviously hold the views I mentioned in my previous post, so you can take that post as being addressed to you.
There's little point in trying to argue you out of your archaic views. The only person who can do that is you yourself. But it will require that you put some effort into educating yourself. The information is out there if you care to look for it.
I'd like to just highlight for you where you're going wrong, at this stage, so you'll know where you're out of step with civilised society.
Wrong. If there is an absence of consent, it is rape. A woman must consent to sex, or else sex is rape.
According to up-to-date laws, you cannot make that assumption. You must obtain her consent, or it is rape.
No. "Approaching" a woman is not the same as requesting sex.
It is not necessary to be violent or aggressive. Rape is sex without consent. That is all that is required.
Even married people must consent to individual sexual acts. The concept of "conjugal rights" no longer exists in law.
Rape is sex without consent. If I drag you into a dark alley, rape you and then throw $100 at you, it is still rape, despite the fact that I "paid" you.
The law says otherwise.
The question of a woman's morality is quite separate from the issue of the rapist's morality. Your conflating of the two issues is an outdated mode of thought.
I'd estimate that well over 99% of all sexual acts do not result in procreation, even between married people. Your idea that people only have sex when they want to have children is not shared by the majority of the population. Frankly, to me it sounds like an idea somebody oppressed by fundamentalist religion would be likely to hold. (Are you religious, PJ?)
Your imagination that you would "enjoy" rape is very far from the mark. Be aware that your sexual fantasies are very far from the reality of rape. Nobody enjoys being raped.
No. A woman may withdraw consent at any time during sex, according to current laws. If she withdraws consent, and the man still continues, that is rape according to law.
What an interesting comment. You are saying that the poor old RAPIST is vulnerable to his VICTIM? Doesn't it occur to you that things are actually the other way around?
You claim that women who dress provocatively, or who are promiscous or who are married are at fault when they are raped. You think they "deserve it". The law thinks otherwise.
The consensus among educated people these days is that rape is primarily about power, not about sex. Your thinking is out of step here, too, in that you believe sexual attraction is the primary motivator for rape.
Interesting. What's the difference between blind-drunk-and-barely-conscious and unconscious, in your opinion? In one case, you say there is no rape, and in the other you say it is absolutely rape. Why?
This reasoning seems totally bizarre to me.
I suggest you discuss this thread, and especially the views you have expressed in it, with the next woman you meet. See what her reaction is. Or, discuss it with you mother or sister. See what they say. If you have a girlfriend, see what she says.
If you do this (which I am almost sure you will not), please write again and tell me how it goes.
Kant lived in the 18th or 19th century. We live in the 21st century. Attitudes to marriage and women have changed radically in enlightened societies since Kant's time.
Were they are fault for their rapes?
No. It suggests that this ancient defence is still tried on by defence lawyers. That is all. By the way, it doesn't work these days.
They care because rape involves a violation of individual autonomy, PJ. Their ability to choose what they do or do not take part in is forcibly removed.
It's like if your were falsely imprisoned against your will for 2 weeks and then set free (only more intimate). Do you think you'd care if that happened?
You obviously hold the views I mentioned in my previous post, so you can take that post as being addressed to you.
There's little point in trying to argue you out of your archaic views. The only person who can do that is you yourself. But it will require that you put some effort into educating yourself. The information is out there if you care to look for it.
I'd like to just highlight for you where you're going wrong, at this stage, so you'll know where you're out of step with civilised society.
Wrong. If there is an absence of consent, it is rape. A woman must consent to sex, or else sex is rape.
According to up-to-date laws, you cannot make that assumption. You must obtain her consent, or it is rape.
No. "Approaching" a woman is not the same as requesting sex.
It is not necessary to be violent or aggressive. Rape is sex without consent. That is all that is required.
Even married people must consent to individual sexual acts. The concept of "conjugal rights" no longer exists in law.
Rape is sex without consent. If I drag you into a dark alley, rape you and then throw $100 at you, it is still rape, despite the fact that I "paid" you.
The law says otherwise.
The question of a woman's morality is quite separate from the issue of the rapist's morality. Your conflating of the two issues is an outdated mode of thought.
I'd estimate that well over 99% of all sexual acts do not result in procreation, even between married people. Your idea that people only have sex when they want to have children is not shared by the majority of the population. Frankly, to me it sounds like an idea somebody oppressed by fundamentalist religion would be likely to hold. (Are you religious, PJ?)
Your imagination that you would "enjoy" rape is very far from the mark. Be aware that your sexual fantasies are very far from the reality of rape. Nobody enjoys being raped.
No. A woman may withdraw consent at any time during sex, according to current laws. If she withdraws consent, and the man still continues, that is rape according to law.
What an interesting comment. You are saying that the poor old RAPIST is vulnerable to his VICTIM? Doesn't it occur to you that things are actually the other way around?
You claim that women who dress provocatively, or who are promiscous or who are married are at fault when they are raped. You think they "deserve it". The law thinks otherwise.
The consensus among educated people these days is that rape is primarily about power, not about sex. Your thinking is out of step here, too, in that you believe sexual attraction is the primary motivator for rape.
Interesting. What's the difference between blind-drunk-and-barely-conscious and unconscious, in your opinion? In one case, you say there is no rape, and in the other you say it is absolutely rape. Why?
This reasoning seems totally bizarre to me.
I suggest you discuss this thread, and especially the views you have expressed in it, with the next woman you meet. See what her reaction is. Or, discuss it with you mother or sister. See what they say. If you have a girlfriend, see what she says.
If you do this (which I am almost sure you will not), please write again and tell me how it goes.
Kant lived in the 18th or 19th century. We live in the 21st century. Attitudes to marriage and women have changed radically in enlightened societies since Kant's time.
Were they are fault for their rapes?
No. It suggests that this ancient defence is still tried on by defence lawyers. That is all. By the way, it doesn't work these days.
They care because rape involves a violation of individual autonomy, PJ. Their ability to choose what they do or do not take part in is forcibly removed.
It's like if your were falsely imprisoned against your will for 2 weeks and then set free (only more intimate). Do you think you'd care if that happened?
dragon:
It was not a fully clothed boy. You posted an image of a boy in underwear, made up to look like a grown man, complete with chest hair.
The title of this thread is "Attitudes to rape". I don't know what you were trying to imply by posting that picture (which you posted with no comment at all), but I can only assume that you were trying to say that children deserve to be raped, or something similar.
That's why I deleted it.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please contact me by PM.
It was not a fully clothed boy. You posted an image of a boy in underwear, made up to look like a grown man, complete with chest hair.
The title of this thread is "Attitudes to rape". I don't know what you were trying to imply by posting that picture (which you posted with no comment at all), but I can only assume that you were trying to say that children deserve to be raped, or something similar.
That's why I deleted it.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please contact me by PM.
Ok...the boy was fully clothed. He had a t-shirt on and pants on. Yes there were chest hair visible. But so whats wrong with him having chest hair visible when women do the same thing? Women walk in clothes that reveal parts of their body and then these women get raped...you ( as I believe) are saying that it is ok for women to wear such clothes and that if they get raped it wasnt their fault not in any way. Therefore why is it wrong for that image of a boy with a little chest hair visible to be deleted off sciforums? Its not wrong in any way...just as women's revealing short clothes is not wrong in any way.
Absane:
Rape is sex without consent. If a person does not consent, and another person has sex with them, then the victim can legitimately claim to have been raped. It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is: boyfriend, uncle, husband, stranger, whatever.
You were clear. You need to understand that so-called "rape fantasies" are not the same as real-world rape. You may fantasize about several women having sex with you "by force". But in your fantasy, do you resist? Or do you enjoy it? Do you want with all the fibre of your being for it to just stop, or do you enjoy it?
If you're enjoying it, then it isn't rape. It's just sex, perhaps with a bit of a physical kink, if you're into that kind of thing.
Many men fantasize about being "dominated" by women. There's a whole industry which caters to such fantasies. But these men are always consenting participants. They are not forced to do anything against their wishes, are they?
But if a man acts on that, then it his poor impulse control which is to blame, is it not?
The law disagrees with you. Nobody invites rape. Wanted sexual attention is one thing. Unwanted sexual attention, and especially unwanted sexual activity, can be criminal.
I'm not sure what you're asking. A person must consent to sex for the entire time, and may withdraw consent at any time, according to law.
Sex without consent is rape.
mountainhare:
Who thinks that?
Baron Max:
No, but it is against the law to intimidate pretty girls, sexually or otherwise.
A history of bad behaviour doesn't excuse it.
You don't seem to get it. Think about why a woman might find such attention unwelcome. Can you think of anything?
TW Scott:
You think that the offender in a rape case being drunk should excuse his actions?
If a thief were to argue "I was so drunk I didn't know what I was doing breaking into that house and stealing the VCR", would you let him off?
What do you base this on, apart from your own imaginings?
It wouldn't be right - if it actually happened.
It is interested, but doesn't surprise me, that you trot out a few cases where people have falsely accused others of rape, and then try to draw a general conclusion that all accusations of rape must be false.
I can only assume that you have some "issues" with women.
Getting back to the topic of the thread, what are your thoughts? How did you answer the poll?
You want to return to the "good old days" where the victim was put on trial instead of the perpetrator. Not surprised. Read my general post above - it obviously applies to you.
madanthonywayne:
You assume, wrongly, that rapists are like you. But you say you do not rape, so how do you know you are right?
The fact is, rape is primarily about power. Yes, there is a sexual element in it. But if sexual attraction was all there was to it, then old women would never be raped. Women wearing "unsexy" clothing would never be raped. And rapes wouldn't so often involve elements of degrading and humiliating the victim.
Rape is sex without consent. If a person does not consent, and another person has sex with them, then the victim can legitimately claim to have been raped. It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is: boyfriend, uncle, husband, stranger, whatever.
You were clear. You need to understand that so-called "rape fantasies" are not the same as real-world rape. You may fantasize about several women having sex with you "by force". But in your fantasy, do you resist? Or do you enjoy it? Do you want with all the fibre of your being for it to just stop, or do you enjoy it?
If you're enjoying it, then it isn't rape. It's just sex, perhaps with a bit of a physical kink, if you're into that kind of thing.
Many men fantasize about being "dominated" by women. There's a whole industry which caters to such fantasies. But these men are always consenting participants. They are not forced to do anything against their wishes, are they?
But if a man acts on that, then it his poor impulse control which is to blame, is it not?
The law disagrees with you. Nobody invites rape. Wanted sexual attention is one thing. Unwanted sexual attention, and especially unwanted sexual activity, can be criminal.
I'm not sure what you're asking. A person must consent to sex for the entire time, and may withdraw consent at any time, according to law.
Sex without consent is rape.
mountainhare:
Who thinks that?
Baron Max:
No, but it is against the law to intimidate pretty girls, sexually or otherwise.
A history of bad behaviour doesn't excuse it.
You don't seem to get it. Think about why a woman might find such attention unwelcome. Can you think of anything?
TW Scott:
You think that the offender in a rape case being drunk should excuse his actions?
If a thief were to argue "I was so drunk I didn't know what I was doing breaking into that house and stealing the VCR", would you let him off?
What do you base this on, apart from your own imaginings?
It wouldn't be right - if it actually happened.
It is interested, but doesn't surprise me, that you trot out a few cases where people have falsely accused others of rape, and then try to draw a general conclusion that all accusations of rape must be false.
I can only assume that you have some "issues" with women.
Getting back to the topic of the thread, what are your thoughts? How did you answer the poll?
You want to return to the "good old days" where the victim was put on trial instead of the perpetrator. Not surprised. Read my general post above - it obviously applies to you.
madanthonywayne:
You assume, wrongly, that rapists are like you. But you say you do not rape, so how do you know you are right?
The fact is, rape is primarily about power. Yes, there is a sexual element in it. But if sexual attraction was all there was to it, then old women would never be raped. Women wearing "unsexy" clothing would never be raped. And rapes wouldn't so often involve elements of degrading and humiliating the victim.
dragon:
Did you obtain this boy's consent to post his picture?
Women who dress in a "sexy" manner do so voluntarily. This boy did not volunteer to have his image used a thread about rape, to be painted by you as some kind of sexual object.
Of course not. They didn't ask to be raped. They didn't want to be raped. How could it possibly be their fault?
Show me the boy's signed consent form, and a similar form from his parents, and I will restore it.
Did you obtain this boy's consent to post his picture?
Women who dress in a "sexy" manner do so voluntarily. This boy did not volunteer to have his image used a thread about rape, to be painted by you as some kind of sexual object.
Of course not. They didn't ask to be raped. They didn't want to be raped. How could it possibly be their fault?
Show me the boy's signed consent form, and a similar form from his parents, and I will restore it.
nice saving yourself...lawyer.
consent form...lolz. I need a consent form from myself...to be given to me by all women who showed themselves with revealing clothes that made them sexy looking.
I have not given them consent to show themselves/ reveal themselves to me. The same as that boy did not give a consent to use the image of himself as a sexual object of discussion in this thread.
Bells
Staff member
I most probably won't be around for quite some time, but before I leave there are a few things I'd like to say in regards to some of the responses in this thread. Take from it what you will, but what I have said in this thread and am about to say comes from observing first hand the horrors of rape. I warn in advance this will be long.
My history..
I was unlucky enough to see the effects of rape because for quite a while, I worked as a solicitor in a prosecutors office and many of my cases involved sexual assaults on women, men and children. In most instances I was present for the interviews conducted by the police at the victim (in many instances in the hospital while she/he received medical attention and samples were taken), the accused and at times witnesses. I was also one of the people who helped police in their investigations and that included having constant contact with the victim especially and in many instances, the accused (who usually had his own defence solicitor and or barrister present). In my spare time, I used to also volunteer at battered women's shelters as a legal adviser. I have seen and heard rapes on men, women and children that still turn my stomach. I have seen seasoned police officers cry due to some of the things that people sexually have done to others. Rape is always violent, even if the victim is not beaten.
Issues dealing with provocative dress..
Many have made several comments in regards to a woman "attracting" rape or the wrong type of attention due to the way she dressed. For example:
It has been pointed out on many occasions that manner of dress and what one deems sexually attractive or alluring, may not be the same to another. It has also been pointed out that unwanted attention is one thing, but acting out and physically raping a woman is another thing altogether. I've known of men who will rape pregnant women who are wearing maternity clothes (which believe me are not sexually provocative in any way shape or form), skirts, jeans, tracksuits, shorts, bathers, nighties, etc.
If a person is intent on rape, and he/she focuses on his/her victim, it wont be solely due to their manner of dress. A person can wear anything and if that particular 'look' attracts their rapist, there is nothing they could have done. If the rapist is attracted to a particular thing, then another rapist can be attracted to the complete opposite. I had a man rape the 7 year old daughter of his girlfriend because he thought she was wearing it to tell him she wanted him. Now for anyone to say that this child was dressed provocatively to attract this man's attention is sick. The rapist had the problem and there was nothing she could have done to change that. The rapist will rape because they are able to.. They may choose their victim due to a certain characteristic such as hair colouring, skin colouring, their sex, size, their dress (and a woman can be dressed in any way and still be raped as not all rapists who focus on dress will focus on the same manner of dress), their profession, the manner in which they portrayed themselves (eg one woman was raped because her rapist wanted to teach her a lesson since she was his boss and demanded he respect her position.. he had issues with women in power), anything at all. Some will seek out exactly what they want and others will take the first thing that comes along, even if it does not fit exactly what they want. In most cases, they will rape someone they know, as that individual will not only know them, but also have some level of trust in them.
If a rapist is attracted to and can only be aroused by women who have big boobs for example, he will seek out exactly what he desires so long as he can do it safely and without detection from others and won't take the first girl who comes along no matter what she's wearing. A big breasted woman could be dressed in a baggy sweater and jeans, not sexually provoking at all, and he will go for her because she has what he desires. Now should all big breasted women get breast reductions because some men like big breasts? One rape case I was involved in had a guy rape his girlfriend because she had failed to wear cotton white underpants when he asked her to, instead had decided to wear black underwear, when they went out to dinner. When they came home and she undressed, he bashed her, knocked her out, dressed her in the white cotton knickers and then raped her. So does that mean that all women must cater or do the opposite of what some men may desire in case we're raped? In that case all women are in trouble as not all men desire or look at the same thing in their victim
PJ, I think, stated that sexually focused dress was worn to attract attention of men. My answer to that is 'yes and?'? Yes a person may desire another and feel attracted to them. That is human nature. But when the recipient of said attraction or attention says no or indicates that they aren't interested, you have no right to try to force the issue. That is rape. Nor do you have the right to attempt to get the person drunk or wait until the person is in some way incapacitated to get what you may want.
Rape occurs not because human nature drives men to rape a woman he might be sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction is distinct as it is individual. It is the individual's nature to rape. A woman would find it impossible to ensure that she never attracted the attention of a rapist as not only can she not know what a particular rapist might be on the look out for, she also has a higher chance to be raped by someone she knows. So should she distrust every man in her circle of friends and family? Should she try to find out what they find "sexy" to make sure she does not attract their unwanted attention at any time?
I had one young girl who was raped and she'd been wearing jeans and a long sleeved top that a bit tight. She was a first year university student. She was raped by a friend who was walking her to her car one night after class. He raped her because he wanted to make her notice him. Her father, who was present when she made the report kept going on about how her clothes were too tight and that's why it happened to her. Like many of you, he thinks that women should be careful of how they dress as they may attract unwanted attention. The result was that she refused to go ahead and press charges because she came to blame herself. What her father failed to realise was that she could have been wearing a hessian sack and he'd have still raped her because she was the object of his intent and not her clothes, as is the case in many rapes.
One victim was raped by her boyfriend on their way home from a nightclub. She was dressed as one would usually dress to go to a nightclub. Tight jeans and a tight halter top and heels. In fact, compared to many girls, she was dressed quite conservatively to go to a club and she had no reason to distrust her boyfriend. On their way home he took her into a deserted area and raped her. He then used the steering wheel lock to rape her and she was so badly injured, she'd needed to have reconstructive surgery on her vagina and her anus. Even before the trial, people (his family and friends) started to comment that she'd bought it on herself and when the trial came along, she had started to blame herself. The guy's mother called her and told her she was a slut who'd obviously dressed that way to lure her son and then blame him of rape because her 'boy' would never do something like that. She refused to go ahead with the trial and the guy walked. She killed herself 2 months later because she blamed herself for what had happened to her and simply could not deal with it. She was constantly judged for her behaviour, even though she had done nothing wrong. Many women do not come forward to report a rape because she will think that what she's wearing has somehow attracted the rape due to the perception many of you have voiced here. Others will not go on to press charges because of the clothing issue.
So to all of you who have said that she should somehow dress differently to not attract attention, I say well done. You are ensuring that the primitive and backwards belief that a woman is somehow to blame for her rape continues into the future. You also ensured that men who do rape will continue to think that it is somehow an excuse to rape a woman because he felt attracted to her. After all, as one rapist stated quite openly to the police.. "she didn't have to smile at me like that now did she?".. His particular victim was his best friend's 17 year old sister who'd let him into the house when she found him sitting in the front garden of their house while he waited for her brother to come home.. she'd known him for more than 8 years and he'd been and stayed at the house on many occasions. At the time she was raped, she was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Now would you assume that her dress or her smiling at him somehow invited the attack? Or did he have a problem and saw what he wanted to see, even though he admitted himself that she'd said 'no' and tried to push him away.. but as far as he was concerned, that smile she gave him said to him that she wanted to sleep with him.. even though to her, she was just smiling at a friend she'd known for most of her life. Now in light of that, should women not smile at any men they may know or meet just in case he misinterprets it? Absurd isn't it?
Issues dealing with alcohol..
There have been many statements made in this thread and in society as well in regards to how a woman who is drunk and raped should not have drunk so much, or how you disregard her lack of ability to give consent due to her sobriety at the time of the rape. So be it. Fair enough. It's all well and good to say "if you cant handle it, don't drink", etc. And it's also easy to say that even if she was so drunk as to not be able to tell that his advances were sexual and therefore could not really reject them due to being so drunk and not able to interpret his advances, then it should somehow mitigate the rapist sentence. Now I'd like you to think about something. Alcohol is one of the primary date rape drugs. Women who go out and get drunk and who are then raped are in many instances raped by people they know and were out with at the time. Rapists often use alcohol to get their victims drunk so that they are less able to reject their advances, or to make them lose their inhibitions so that they are more receptive to their sexual advances. Now I'm sure most of you have been drunk before, and in many instances you've been lucky to be out and drunk with people you know and trust who would never do something as vile as to rape you. Not all women are as lucky. Many women are raped after being plied with alcohol by people they know and trust. Now because of the public perception that if she's 'that drunk' she kind of brought it on herself or she should have known better or my personal favourite, being drunk does not mean she can't not give consent, many women who are raped when intoxicated do not come forward to report it, and when they do, are quite unwilling to proceed due to the perception that her being drunk was her own stupidity and she can't now cry foul.
Now if both are drunk, the situation gets a bit dicey. Some guys will get the woman drunk and drink himself so she does not become suspicious. Others will get drunk and ply her with alcohol and even after she's said no several times, will keep pushing and plying her with alcohol until she simply just gives in. And yes that is rape. She only has to say no once. It is not for the guy to keep trying to figure out if she means it or not. Any attempt to continue after she's said no amounts to sexual assault and rape. Now in situations where both are drunk or where just the accused is drunk, the courts often hold that alcohol is a mitigating factor, not for the victim, but because the man's sobriety, or lack of, at the time meant that he was not in the correct frame of mind to understand the word no. But you people hold that if she's drunk at the time, then she should be in a correct frame of mind to consent or not consent? How do you view date rape drugs? Do you think that women who have been drugged (eg with Rohypnol or ecstacy or GHB) are equally able to know what they're doing? But you'd equate a woman who's drunk as being able to? Alcohol is one of the most freely available date rape drugs because not only can you just buy it over the counter, it's also legal.
Lack of direct non consent = consent..
I am amazed so many of you had issues with this. If a victim is in shock, has been threatened to not speak or make a sound, is so terrified that they are unable to react, they might not be able to voice their refusal. I've dealt with victims who literally became paralysed with fear when the attack on them occured and that combined with shock resulted in silence. That does not mean that these women somehow consented to being raped. I mean good grief people, are you that blind to the reality of what rape actually is and that not everyone can react fast enough or react at all when attacked? The shock on the person that they are being attacked can render them silent, especially in cases where they know their attacker. Others can become so terrified that they fear to speak in case he hurts them more, due to threats made against them. I remember one woman, who was in her 50's, who was raped on her way home from work. The guy put a knife to her throat and told her he'd kill her if she said anything or tried to escape. She stayed silent and did not resist. His defence actually tried to claim that she had consented since she not once said the word "no". And some of you think that such a lack of non-consent somehow means yes? Hell one of you even said:
And no TOR, I'm not picking just on you, you were the first example I came across dealing with the issue of consent and I frankly can't be bothered digging for others. But others in question include PJ.
What many of you seem to not realise is that consent is needed before a guy can have sex with the woman. If she is drunk or drugged to the extent that she can't tell what she's doing, silence or even reciprocation of his touches etc can still amount to rape due to lack of ability to give consent at the time since she's not in a right state of mind. Just as one would not expect that a grown woman with a mental disability which has her with the mental capacity of a 5 year old can understand enough to give direct consent. Lack of non-consent does not mean that she has consented. As has been pointed out by many in this thread, some women are sometimes too scared to speak or to attempt to fight the rapist. Shock can also result in total lack of response or reaction from the victim. That does not indicate consent and can and will be construed as being rape.
And at no time should a person have to try to figure out if she really means "no". To say, it's not consentual if she's said no and "really means it" is kind of a joke, because that indicates that the guy has kept on going or tried to persuade her otherwise. Once she's said the word "no" or given an indication that she did not wish to have sex, then the man does not have consent and if he continues, it can and will be construed as rape. If she attempts to push you away for example or starts to cry and fight back, she's not playing hard to get. If she looks terrified and can't speak out of fear, that is not consent.
Marriage and or relationship with the rapist
PJ, as much as may wish to believe it, marriage does not give either individuals the right to own the other's sexual organs. A wedding certificate or a ring on her finger does not mean that you can have sex on tap whenever you may desire it, whether she wants to or not. If she says no at any time, it's not consentual. If she indicates that she does not wish to have sex, you do not have consent even though you are married. If she's abused or terrified of you and scared to speak out and the guy just has sex with her without her consent, yes it is rape. Marriage is not "sex". If that is how you view marriage, then I pity your wife.
If in a relationship or married, the woman does have the right to refuse sex and have her decision adhered to. No woman should ever be pressured, abused or threatened at any time. Nor should such means be used to get consent to sex. Doing so is against the law and will be construed as rape. I've spoken to so many women who had been beaten so many times that when their husbands or partners came to them for sex, they "knew" that to refuse would result in a battering or abuse, so they merely just lay there and got it over and done with. Why? Because they were so terrified to say no or to fight back. Battered women are often raped and on so many occasions, the batterer will try to say that he had consent as she'd never fought back or said no. What he refused to admit that it was her fear that ensured she merely complied, as to say no or to reject his advances would result her being beaten. And again, such actions is construed as rape. You may wish to reject such a notion and so be it. And while in the past laws treated women as chattels and pieces of property with which their husbands could do as they pleased, society has evolved and we have moved on. Thinking that when married you have somehow entered into a "sexual contract" will not cut it. In no marriage vows or legal definition of marriage does it say that marriage is sex. If you act out on such beliefs against your wife's or partner's wishes, you could very well find yourself in jail. And yes, your beliefs to differ will not be construed as a mitigating factor.
Promiscuity..
Many of you would be surprised at how many times a woman's sexual history has tried to be used as a defence, and sadly, sometimes successfully. A rape is a rape. It is sexual contact without consent. Even if a woman has had 100 sexual partners, if any person attemtps to have sex with her without her consent, it is still rape. PJ saying that she simply "should not care" is kind of a pathetic excuse. Rape is such a violation on ones person that it can and does destroy not only the life of the victim, but also that of their families.
We may value many things in life, but the one thing we will always value more is that of our lives and our bodies. Now for any individual to come forward to take away our rights to our bodies and to violate it without our consent, well I can't think of anything worse aside from possibly losing my child or death. Sex is something that should be enjoyed between the consenting parties. Just because a woman might have been promiscuous in the past, she's done so and consented to sleep with each person she has done so in the past. For any person to think that she simply should not care is idiotic. The same could be said that if a person had been beaten as a child, he simply should not care as much if one day as an adult a person comes by and beats the living daylights out of him. After all he's been there done that before as a child right? The whole notion is quite absurd if you apply it to other situations. PJ, I hope you one day realise that rape is a violation, one in the most extreme. No matter how many partners a woman may have had in the past, a rape will always be something that is devastating because it takes away her right to her body and her right to choose who she allows to touch her body.
--------------------------------------
Draqon, you seriously have some issues with women. I'd advise you to get some help before you get yourself into serious trouble. You made a statement in regards to how I only care about women and not men. I have been involved in so many cases of sexual assaults where a man was the victim and all of them are violent cases where the victim has been scarred mentally and physically for life. It's even worse with children.
Yes some rape reports are false and when it is proven as such, action is taken against the person who alleged a rape occured.
Just because you have a hatred of women does not mean that all rapes are somehow false or that the woman made it up. The majority of rapes and sexual assaults on both men and women are never reported because of the sense of shame and guilt the victim might feel. The reason the victim may feel such shame or guilt is because they fear how they will be judged, and judged they are.. even by many of you in this thread.
My history..
I was unlucky enough to see the effects of rape because for quite a while, I worked as a solicitor in a prosecutors office and many of my cases involved sexual assaults on women, men and children. In most instances I was present for the interviews conducted by the police at the victim (in many instances in the hospital while she/he received medical attention and samples were taken), the accused and at times witnesses. I was also one of the people who helped police in their investigations and that included having constant contact with the victim especially and in many instances, the accused (who usually had his own defence solicitor and or barrister present). In my spare time, I used to also volunteer at battered women's shelters as a legal adviser. I have seen and heard rapes on men, women and children that still turn my stomach. I have seen seasoned police officers cry due to some of the things that people sexually have done to others. Rape is always violent, even if the victim is not beaten.
Issues dealing with provocative dress..
Many have made several comments in regards to a woman "attracting" rape or the wrong type of attention due to the way she dressed. For example:
Theoryofrelativity said:
Prince_James said:
It has been pointed out on many occasions that manner of dress and what one deems sexually attractive or alluring, may not be the same to another. It has also been pointed out that unwanted attention is one thing, but acting out and physically raping a woman is another thing altogether. I've known of men who will rape pregnant women who are wearing maternity clothes (which believe me are not sexually provocative in any way shape or form), skirts, jeans, tracksuits, shorts, bathers, nighties, etc.
If a person is intent on rape, and he/she focuses on his/her victim, it wont be solely due to their manner of dress. A person can wear anything and if that particular 'look' attracts their rapist, there is nothing they could have done. If the rapist is attracted to a particular thing, then another rapist can be attracted to the complete opposite. I had a man rape the 7 year old daughter of his girlfriend because he thought she was wearing it to tell him she wanted him. Now for anyone to say that this child was dressed provocatively to attract this man's attention is sick. The rapist had the problem and there was nothing she could have done to change that. The rapist will rape because they are able to.. They may choose their victim due to a certain characteristic such as hair colouring, skin colouring, their sex, size, their dress (and a woman can be dressed in any way and still be raped as not all rapists who focus on dress will focus on the same manner of dress), their profession, the manner in which they portrayed themselves (eg one woman was raped because her rapist wanted to teach her a lesson since she was his boss and demanded he respect her position.. he had issues with women in power), anything at all. Some will seek out exactly what they want and others will take the first thing that comes along, even if it does not fit exactly what they want. In most cases, they will rape someone they know, as that individual will not only know them, but also have some level of trust in them.
If a rapist is attracted to and can only be aroused by women who have big boobs for example, he will seek out exactly what he desires so long as he can do it safely and without detection from others and won't take the first girl who comes along no matter what she's wearing. A big breasted woman could be dressed in a baggy sweater and jeans, not sexually provoking at all, and he will go for her because she has what he desires. Now should all big breasted women get breast reductions because some men like big breasts? One rape case I was involved in had a guy rape his girlfriend because she had failed to wear cotton white underpants when he asked her to, instead had decided to wear black underwear, when they went out to dinner. When they came home and she undressed, he bashed her, knocked her out, dressed her in the white cotton knickers and then raped her. So does that mean that all women must cater or do the opposite of what some men may desire in case we're raped? In that case all women are in trouble as not all men desire or look at the same thing in their victim
PJ, I think, stated that sexually focused dress was worn to attract attention of men. My answer to that is 'yes and?'? Yes a person may desire another and feel attracted to them. That is human nature. But when the recipient of said attraction or attention says no or indicates that they aren't interested, you have no right to try to force the issue. That is rape. Nor do you have the right to attempt to get the person drunk or wait until the person is in some way incapacitated to get what you may want.
Rape occurs not because human nature drives men to rape a woman he might be sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction is distinct as it is individual. It is the individual's nature to rape. A woman would find it impossible to ensure that she never attracted the attention of a rapist as not only can she not know what a particular rapist might be on the look out for, she also has a higher chance to be raped by someone she knows. So should she distrust every man in her circle of friends and family? Should she try to find out what they find "sexy" to make sure she does not attract their unwanted attention at any time?
I had one young girl who was raped and she'd been wearing jeans and a long sleeved top that a bit tight. She was a first year university student. She was raped by a friend who was walking her to her car one night after class. He raped her because he wanted to make her notice him. Her father, who was present when she made the report kept going on about how her clothes were too tight and that's why it happened to her. Like many of you, he thinks that women should be careful of how they dress as they may attract unwanted attention. The result was that she refused to go ahead and press charges because she came to blame herself. What her father failed to realise was that she could have been wearing a hessian sack and he'd have still raped her because she was the object of his intent and not her clothes, as is the case in many rapes.
One victim was raped by her boyfriend on their way home from a nightclub. She was dressed as one would usually dress to go to a nightclub. Tight jeans and a tight halter top and heels. In fact, compared to many girls, she was dressed quite conservatively to go to a club and she had no reason to distrust her boyfriend. On their way home he took her into a deserted area and raped her. He then used the steering wheel lock to rape her and she was so badly injured, she'd needed to have reconstructive surgery on her vagina and her anus. Even before the trial, people (his family and friends) started to comment that she'd bought it on herself and when the trial came along, she had started to blame herself. The guy's mother called her and told her she was a slut who'd obviously dressed that way to lure her son and then blame him of rape because her 'boy' would never do something like that. She refused to go ahead with the trial and the guy walked. She killed herself 2 months later because she blamed herself for what had happened to her and simply could not deal with it. She was constantly judged for her behaviour, even though she had done nothing wrong. Many women do not come forward to report a rape because she will think that what she's wearing has somehow attracted the rape due to the perception many of you have voiced here. Others will not go on to press charges because of the clothing issue.
So to all of you who have said that she should somehow dress differently to not attract attention, I say well done. You are ensuring that the primitive and backwards belief that a woman is somehow to blame for her rape continues into the future. You also ensured that men who do rape will continue to think that it is somehow an excuse to rape a woman because he felt attracted to her. After all, as one rapist stated quite openly to the police.. "she didn't have to smile at me like that now did she?".. His particular victim was his best friend's 17 year old sister who'd let him into the house when she found him sitting in the front garden of their house while he waited for her brother to come home.. she'd known him for more than 8 years and he'd been and stayed at the house on many occasions. At the time she was raped, she was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Now would you assume that her dress or her smiling at him somehow invited the attack? Or did he have a problem and saw what he wanted to see, even though he admitted himself that she'd said 'no' and tried to push him away.. but as far as he was concerned, that smile she gave him said to him that she wanted to sleep with him.. even though to her, she was just smiling at a friend she'd known for most of her life. Now in light of that, should women not smile at any men they may know or meet just in case he misinterprets it? Absurd isn't it?
Issues dealing with alcohol..
There have been many statements made in this thread and in society as well in regards to how a woman who is drunk and raped should not have drunk so much, or how you disregard her lack of ability to give consent due to her sobriety at the time of the rape. So be it. Fair enough. It's all well and good to say "if you cant handle it, don't drink", etc. And it's also easy to say that even if she was so drunk as to not be able to tell that his advances were sexual and therefore could not really reject them due to being so drunk and not able to interpret his advances, then it should somehow mitigate the rapist sentence. Now I'd like you to think about something. Alcohol is one of the primary date rape drugs. Women who go out and get drunk and who are then raped are in many instances raped by people they know and were out with at the time. Rapists often use alcohol to get their victims drunk so that they are less able to reject their advances, or to make them lose their inhibitions so that they are more receptive to their sexual advances. Now I'm sure most of you have been drunk before, and in many instances you've been lucky to be out and drunk with people you know and trust who would never do something as vile as to rape you. Not all women are as lucky. Many women are raped after being plied with alcohol by people they know and trust. Now because of the public perception that if she's 'that drunk' she kind of brought it on herself or she should have known better or my personal favourite, being drunk does not mean she can't not give consent, many women who are raped when intoxicated do not come forward to report it, and when they do, are quite unwilling to proceed due to the perception that her being drunk was her own stupidity and she can't now cry foul.
Now if both are drunk, the situation gets a bit dicey. Some guys will get the woman drunk and drink himself so she does not become suspicious. Others will get drunk and ply her with alcohol and even after she's said no several times, will keep pushing and plying her with alcohol until she simply just gives in. And yes that is rape. She only has to say no once. It is not for the guy to keep trying to figure out if she means it or not. Any attempt to continue after she's said no amounts to sexual assault and rape. Now in situations where both are drunk or where just the accused is drunk, the courts often hold that alcohol is a mitigating factor, not for the victim, but because the man's sobriety, or lack of, at the time meant that he was not in the correct frame of mind to understand the word no. But you people hold that if she's drunk at the time, then she should be in a correct frame of mind to consent or not consent? How do you view date rape drugs? Do you think that women who have been drugged (eg with Rohypnol or ecstacy or GHB) are equally able to know what they're doing? But you'd equate a woman who's drunk as being able to? Alcohol is one of the most freely available date rape drugs because not only can you just buy it over the counter, it's also legal.
Lack of direct non consent = consent..
I am amazed so many of you had issues with this. If a victim is in shock, has been threatened to not speak or make a sound, is so terrified that they are unable to react, they might not be able to voice their refusal. I've dealt with victims who literally became paralysed with fear when the attack on them occured and that combined with shock resulted in silence. That does not mean that these women somehow consented to being raped. I mean good grief people, are you that blind to the reality of what rape actually is and that not everyone can react fast enough or react at all when attacked? The shock on the person that they are being attacked can render them silent, especially in cases where they know their attacker. Others can become so terrified that they fear to speak in case he hurts them more, due to threats made against them. I remember one woman, who was in her 50's, who was raped on her way home from work. The guy put a knife to her throat and told her he'd kill her if she said anything or tried to escape. She stayed silent and did not resist. His defence actually tried to claim that she had consented since she not once said the word "no". And some of you think that such a lack of non-consent somehow means yes? Hell one of you even said:
Theoryofrelativity said:
And no TOR, I'm not picking just on you, you were the first example I came across dealing with the issue of consent and I frankly can't be bothered digging for others. But others in question include PJ.
What many of you seem to not realise is that consent is needed before a guy can have sex with the woman. If she is drunk or drugged to the extent that she can't tell what she's doing, silence or even reciprocation of his touches etc can still amount to rape due to lack of ability to give consent at the time since she's not in a right state of mind. Just as one would not expect that a grown woman with a mental disability which has her with the mental capacity of a 5 year old can understand enough to give direct consent. Lack of non-consent does not mean that she has consented. As has been pointed out by many in this thread, some women are sometimes too scared to speak or to attempt to fight the rapist. Shock can also result in total lack of response or reaction from the victim. That does not indicate consent and can and will be construed as being rape.
And at no time should a person have to try to figure out if she really means "no". To say, it's not consentual if she's said no and "really means it" is kind of a joke, because that indicates that the guy has kept on going or tried to persuade her otherwise. Once she's said the word "no" or given an indication that she did not wish to have sex, then the man does not have consent and if he continues, it can and will be construed as rape. If she attempts to push you away for example or starts to cry and fight back, she's not playing hard to get. If she looks terrified and can't speak out of fear, that is not consent.
Marriage and or relationship with the rapist
PJ, as much as may wish to believe it, marriage does not give either individuals the right to own the other's sexual organs. A wedding certificate or a ring on her finger does not mean that you can have sex on tap whenever you may desire it, whether she wants to or not. If she says no at any time, it's not consentual. If she indicates that she does not wish to have sex, you do not have consent even though you are married. If she's abused or terrified of you and scared to speak out and the guy just has sex with her without her consent, yes it is rape. Marriage is not "sex". If that is how you view marriage, then I pity your wife.
If in a relationship or married, the woman does have the right to refuse sex and have her decision adhered to. No woman should ever be pressured, abused or threatened at any time. Nor should such means be used to get consent to sex. Doing so is against the law and will be construed as rape. I've spoken to so many women who had been beaten so many times that when their husbands or partners came to them for sex, they "knew" that to refuse would result in a battering or abuse, so they merely just lay there and got it over and done with. Why? Because they were so terrified to say no or to fight back. Battered women are often raped and on so many occasions, the batterer will try to say that he had consent as she'd never fought back or said no. What he refused to admit that it was her fear that ensured she merely complied, as to say no or to reject his advances would result her being beaten. And again, such actions is construed as rape. You may wish to reject such a notion and so be it. And while in the past laws treated women as chattels and pieces of property with which their husbands could do as they pleased, society has evolved and we have moved on. Thinking that when married you have somehow entered into a "sexual contract" will not cut it. In no marriage vows or legal definition of marriage does it say that marriage is sex. If you act out on such beliefs against your wife's or partner's wishes, you could very well find yourself in jail. And yes, your beliefs to differ will not be construed as a mitigating factor.
Promiscuity..
Many of you would be surprised at how many times a woman's sexual history has tried to be used as a defence, and sadly, sometimes successfully. A rape is a rape. It is sexual contact without consent. Even if a woman has had 100 sexual partners, if any person attemtps to have sex with her without her consent, it is still rape. PJ saying that she simply "should not care" is kind of a pathetic excuse. Rape is such a violation on ones person that it can and does destroy not only the life of the victim, but also that of their families.
We may value many things in life, but the one thing we will always value more is that of our lives and our bodies. Now for any individual to come forward to take away our rights to our bodies and to violate it without our consent, well I can't think of anything worse aside from possibly losing my child or death. Sex is something that should be enjoyed between the consenting parties. Just because a woman might have been promiscuous in the past, she's done so and consented to sleep with each person she has done so in the past. For any person to think that she simply should not care is idiotic. The same could be said that if a person had been beaten as a child, he simply should not care as much if one day as an adult a person comes by and beats the living daylights out of him. After all he's been there done that before as a child right? The whole notion is quite absurd if you apply it to other situations. PJ, I hope you one day realise that rape is a violation, one in the most extreme. No matter how many partners a woman may have had in the past, a rape will always be something that is devastating because it takes away her right to her body and her right to choose who she allows to touch her body.
--------------------------------------
Draqon, you seriously have some issues with women. I'd advise you to get some help before you get yourself into serious trouble. You made a statement in regards to how I only care about women and not men. I have been involved in so many cases of sexual assaults where a man was the victim and all of them are violent cases where the victim has been scarred mentally and physically for life. It's even worse with children.
Yes some rape reports are false and when it is proven as such, action is taken against the person who alleged a rape occured.
Just because you have a hatred of women does not mean that all rapes are somehow false or that the woman made it up. The majority of rapes and sexual assaults on both men and women are never reported because of the sense of shame and guilt the victim might feel. The reason the victim may feel such shame or guilt is because they fear how they will be judged, and judged they are.. even by many of you in this thread.
Dude I once again repeat myself. I DO NOT HATE WOMEN. I stay away from women as much as I can because of the many cases I have heard/read about were women falsely accuse a man of raping them. I AM AFRAID OF WOMEN ACCUSING ME OF ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO ACCUSE ME WITH.
Yes I know there are alot of rapes happening, were women do get raped, when that happens I believe those who raped the woman must be dealt according to the law, prosecuted, put to jail, killed, and etc...
However, I also believe that the government needs to impose regulations on what clothes women can wear and in which zones what is allowable and is not. For example in Zone A...school zone...I have seen many girls wear very revealing clothes...yet all the schools do against those girls...is warn them and tell them not to do that again...yet the girls come back and wear the same clothes the next day...these girl must be prosecuted according to the law as harshely as men who rape are prosecuted. In Zone B...street zone...there can be medium revealing clothes...but not enought to cause average man to be attracted to the women. Zone C...junk zone...outside the city...anyone can wear anything or run naked...without being prosecuted.
To those of you have have responded to the poll, please go here and answer another poll:
Attitudes to theft
If you give different answers there compared to here, I would like to hear your reasoning, because I think it points to a screwy set of double-standards.
Attitudes to theft
If you give different answers there compared to here, I would like to hear your reasoning, because I think it points to a screwy set of double-standards.
- Status