Posted on 02/16/2010 10:19:38 AM PST by FredJake
Date rape has been in our lexicon for a few decades now, fact is a majority of people have become quite familiar with the lines that separate consensual and non consensual sex. However, our present attitude about rape was not always the same as it is today. There has always been warnings to girls that they should not allow themselves to be in certain situations that could lead to unwanted advances from boys. There has been many a woman who has claimed they were raped while the only defense the man had was the girl allowed things to progress past a point of no return for him.
I remember when I was but 12 years old, and I would accompany my older sister and her friend to the beach. My sisters always wore a one piece, but her friend would always wear this practically see-through white bikini just to lie down on a towel to sunbath. I must admit that I paid close attention to her as she laid there on her towel. After all, I was but six removed from being a full fledged teenager, and my hormones were already beginning to cause problems in my life. It was the late “60”s and I was well aware of the sentiment that we should love the one we were with if we could not be with the one we loved. Then again, I also remember the same girl telling my sister that a boy she was making out with on the beach raped her one day.
My sister convinced her to report it to the police and after some investigation they decided that there was no way they would be able to get a conviction because of the way the girl carried on with the boy on the beach. Now, today the results of the investigation would be much different as we now have the understanding that “no” means “no”, regardless of when during the encounter a girl uses that word. It is true though, that regardless of which side of the argument you agree with, someone will inevitably have a strongly felt conviction of why you are wrong. Personally I believe that everyone involved needs to take responsibility for how they conduct themselves. I also believe that such an accusation or charge can always be avoided if everyone obeyed God's precepts that only couples who are married should be having sex. So in my opinion, obeying this simple command could......
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Noooo, don’t! Stop ... Don’t! stop ... Uh, moan, (heavy breathing) Don’t Stop, Don’t Stop ... DON’T STOP! DON’T STOP! DON’T STOP!
While Working for many years in a bar,I’ve seen drunk women grab ANY guy,stick their tongue halfway down the guys throat,practically grope the guys ‘family jewels’ and wonder why the guy would follow them around the bar like a dog in heat.
I’ve also pulled guys out of a car while they were attempting to have their way with nearly passed out girls.
Bottom line:
Don’t go to a bar looking for love with someone who smells like a Jagermeister bottle. You might wake up with more than just a hangover.
In my marriage my spouse can say “no” whenever. Why would an individual ever lose their personal sovereignty in marriage?
That said I would have a hard time convicting a guy of raping his wife without some clear supporting evidence like violence, a restraining order, or something similar.
It looks ths same to me too.
The best way of grasping the difference was put forward years ago by Camille Paglia: (paraphrase)"Of course you have a right to sit on a bench in Central Park at 2 am, but come on girl, what are you thinking?"
I suspect there are feminists who welcome an occasional rape (of someone else, to be sure) just so they can bray about the awful treatment of women by eeevil men. Look at the way the fems and leftists gloated over the alleged Duke rapists--They hadn't had that much fun in years. Finding that the rape never happened just ruined their party and rained on their parade.
If they had given a sh*t about women they would have been relieved and glad that that woman wasn't raped after all. Instead they were disappointed.
Hahaha, hi Jim. Same crap, different day I suppose.
>The man complies and that’s the end of the story...
>Should the man be convicted of rape? _IS_ the man guilty of rape?
>No, because he complied with her request. End of story.
And how is the jury to know this?
How would anyone know this? Unfortunately in cases with only he-said-she-said evidence, credibility of the suspect and witness would be called into play.
Here in Pittsburgh, the Steelers Ben Roethlisberger rape case, it’s exactly that. He apparently had concensual sex with a casino employee back in July 2008. Exactly one year later, she filed a civil suit against him claiming she was raped. She never filed a criminal complaint against him but a year later when she realized he didn’t want any part of her anymore, she thought she could get something out of him.
Despite his lawyers tesifying with emails between her and another employee proving she was loon and hoped to have a “Baby Ben” from the incident and also he reputation for being a clingy psycho (she had an affair with a married man months before this), the judge is not throwing out the case.
I can’t help but think of the old saying back in high school, “You might as well, I’m going to tell everybody you did anyway.” ;>)
Rape is rape... is rape. The moment she removes her consent, it becomes rape.
What the hell happened to guys being gentlemen and self respect?
I was an LEO for 30 years (retired for about 8 years), and I have met more rape victims than I care to remember. For these victims, it is never over... those few minutes can torment them for a lifetime. Some are strong and move on, but rape can destroy a woman’s life.
When I was 15 my mother was brutally raped by a predator rapist. The suspect was identified but never charged. The podunk “good old boy” cops couldn’t investigate their way out of a paper bag.
Though I was wrong to do so, I swore I would someday hunt him down and kill him. Many long years later, I discovered that he was already dead.
My mom was a strong lady, but I could see that it bothered her all of those years.
One last thing... rape is not just about sex, it’s about control over the victim.
>I’m not talking about women who feel guilty afterwards or falsely cry rape because they want to get back at an ex-boyfriend. Those women disgust me.
And should anyone who cares at all about Truth or Justice.
>However, like I said first, if one party refuses to oblige the other party’s request, at best it’s vile and disrespectful...
I’ll agree there, it certainly would be disrespectful.
>at worst it’s definitely rape.
And here’s where I disagree; it was not entered into without consent.
>So yes, that is my argument. Sex isn’t a lock solid contract...it can be broken, especially if one person feels demands it to stop.
I didn’t say it was. But we’re talking about LAW here, and that requires looking at actions and events... not at feelings, ‘should,’ and other subjective things.
>So let’s set something up with your scenario.
>
>Two people consent to sex. Three minutes into it, the woman is in pain, uncomfortable, struck with some morals...whatever. She tells the man to stop, he refuses. She tries to get up and leave, but can’t move under a man’s strength, or worse, he’s holding her down.
>
>That’s not rape? Under your scenario it wouldn’t be.
Let’s set up a similar scenario; an animal lover is ‘petting’ a shark, not noticing she had earlier cut her hand. The shark smells blood and tries to eat, as sharks are wont to do. The woman screams ‘no’, but the shark, heedless of the poor woman’s screams continues to feast...
Is the shark at fault for the woman’s change of heart? Is it to be held to account for her stupidity? Notice I’m not saying ANYTHING about if the shark should be put down.
My point is this: ACTIONS have consequences; you as a thinking and reasoning human being have the ABILITY (and responsibility) to examine the consequences of your actions... the effects for your cause, so to speak. Moreover, you are morally responsible for your decisions/actions, that someone else may not bend to your every whim is obvious to anyone who has been in the military or experienced real life; other people are not battery-powered devices that turn on or off on your mere whim... you may turn the key off and remove it from the ignition in your car, but if it’s going at 50 mph don’t blame me when your steering wheel locks and you careen off a cliff.
>Maybe you can defend a man’s refusal to stop (lack of self control, raging hormones, complete disregard for human beings...whatever exactly happens in a man’s mind) but I can’t.
Maybe you can defend people’s refusal to accept responsibility for their words/actions and complete disregard for human beings... see[?], the argument can be made either way.
By far the best policy is no extra-marital sex, which is what I said.
I don’t see anything “goofy” about her post, she makes a very good point.
>How would anyone know this? Unfortunately in cases with only he-said-she-said evidence, credibility of the suspect and witness would be called into play.
My point EXACTLY!! Rape is horrible, and IMO should be a capital offense; therefore I do not ascribe to the ‘degrees of guilt’ philosophy regarding it and consider it to be a life-or-death style matter.
>Here in Pittsburgh, the Steelers Ben Roethlisberger rape case, it’s exactly that. He apparently had concensual sex with a casino employee back in July 2008. Exactly one year later, she filed a civil suit against him claiming she was raped.
It seems to me that the biblical definition of rape is sounding better and better. (ie, it wasn’t rape unless she screamed and/or fought back.)
>She never filed a criminal complaint against him but a year later when she realized he didn’t want any part of her anymore, she thought she could get something out of him.
That’s circumstantial, at best.
>Despite his lawyers tesifying with emails between her and another employee proving she was loon and hoped to have a “Baby Ben” from the incident
BANG! There it is. Raped women, as a rule, do not hope to get a baby out of being raped. Though there are some who realize that the child is NOT their attacker and don’t punish the child for sins they didn’t have any part in.
>and also he reputation for being a clingy psycho (she had an affair with a married man months before this), the judge is not throwing out the case.
*shrug* - The jury, however, should [IMO] acquit on basis of the expressed hope for a baby.
I completely agree with everything you said and you’ve stated it better than I could.
Once you feel your desire is superior to the other person’s request, you have committed a rape, regardless of the time she said “no”.
If you don’t have the self control to get up and get off, you’re no better than a serial rapist, imo. If my friend/sister/mother/daughter came to me and said they got in over their head and asked him to stop and he refused, someone better hold me down because he’s going to be sorry he was ever born with male reproductive parts. And I dare anyone who’s making the case otherwise to say the same of their family.
“Very common also is the woman who never actually said no, feels guilty a few days later,”
I absolutely do not buy that this is “very common.” I think it does happen that there are false reports of rape just like any other crime. We’ve all heard of the “Duke” case and I did not believe “Precious” for one minute and I doubt if she had been WHITE if that case would have gone anywhere. I would wager however that not many women are willing to go through a rape trial which is a notoriously brutal process for the plaintiff. In many cases the accuser basically has to PROVE her innocence. I think defence attorneys want the public to THINK that this is more crying rape for revenge or whatever is more common than it is so that they can get their scum bag defendants off.
And I agree with no sex before marriage...but you’re not convincing me that it’s not rape.
You’re comparing a shark’s nature to feed to a man needing to get off? A woman sticking her hand in a shark tank would be a solid runner for a Darwin award. Getting caught up in the moment only to realize it’s wrong is completely different...and human. I have to say, men can be animals, but this comparison is just...odd.
I understand wanting to remove emotion from a legal scenario, but rape is purely emotional, for the rapee and the rapist. I’m not going to defend a guy who can’t control himself...
It sounds like most men here feel the woman should be implicated as being greedy or crazy if they don’t let them finish the job. To me, it sounds like the man has no respect or self control.
“Maybe you can defend people’s refusal to accept responsibility for their words/actions and complete disregard for human beings... see[?], the argument can be made either way.”
Refusing to accept responsiblity would be a man trying to defend himself after a woman soundly told him “Get off!”
just curious about a hypothetical; you are sitting as part of a jury, no witnesses just the two participants.
How would you distinguish between 1) a situation that began as consensual and at the last moment became no and 2) a situation that was consensual but the woman felt guilty afterward? No bruises or other signs of abuse. She claims it is the first situation, he claims the second. Do you put the guy in prison or not?
Then you obviously do not know how to read. The article posted yesterday was completely from the BBC website that presented the survey article.
This article references that one, but it is OV’s opinion of date rape and the way we look at it. He comes from a Christian moral point of view where as the article in the BBC site just speaks of the legal issues and the survey itself.
I challenge you to reread both and then tell me they are the same article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.