Serious Issue of Rape

[HeavyStick]

Emerald_eyed ;
And I can say that you are a fucking bitch, but I'm not.

I can call you Secretary of Sheetcake. but I'm not.

I can call you a misogynic twizzler dick nondescending testicle rectal wart. but I'm not.

 

[honeylick]

golf clap

http://www.vkm.org/images/clap.gif

 

[Problem Child]

I could call him secretary of "go ahead and rape my daughter cuz I won't do anything about it".

But I won't.

 

[Guest]

 

[bad kitty]

When someone says no or stop, it means exactly that. I don't think I would go as far as saying the boy raped her (by these minimal details) but I would say he assaulted her.

 

[Bidin~Time]

If you're a parent, ask yourself this. If it were your daughter, do you think she should carry on with something that she started but regrets, and wants to stop...or do you think she should allow him to "give in to nature"? I'll be damned if I want my daughter to lay there in agony, stressing over whether or not to stop someone from doing something that can never be undone, and that she does not want with all her being.

And to answer the original question, "no means no", "stop means stop".

I haven't read entirely through the thread, but I thought about just this point while on my way to pick up my daughter. And we discussed this thread all the way home. (she loves it when I do that..not!)

And for the record I agree "no" means "no". But I think that without knowing if there were facts left out, and just going on what i've read so far. That boy was not in any way guilty of rape.

Here's what my daughter and I discussed:

Regardless of whether you are 14 or 104, never ever put yourself in a position whereby you have led someone to believe one thing and then do another. In retail, that's called "bait and switch". If you aren't prepared to be asked (or forced) to engage in a sexual act, then make damned sure you've covered yourself. Make it completely clear nothing of the sort is going to happen. No, you won't be cajoled or in any way talked into rethinking your decision once you're alone. If he persists, or acts in any way, that makes you think , that in his humble opinion you will change your mind, get away from him and back to your friends as fast as you can.

You DO NOT, neck, pet, strip down stark, buck naked, put your hands all over a man or a boy, and let them put their hands all over you, then have the audacity to act surprised when things get out of hand.

It's all about being aware of, and taking responsibility for, your actions. An idea, that in this day and age seems terribly foreign to most people. You have to think ahead, and try to see the consequences. Afterall, you have a mind, use it for gawds sakes.

Regardless of the subject or the situation, there is always a point where we are committeed beyond turning back. Sex is just one of them. If you aren't sure of your ability to committ then don't put yourself in the position to begin with.

Finally, as parents, shouldn't we guide our kids so that they know how not to get into these situations? Talk to your kids people. Don't just posture, actually talk to them. Be graphic! Trust me you aren't telling them anything they haven't heard. From you at least, should come the benefit of experience and how to avoid bad situations.

You'd be surprised how quick they catch on, and what's the point of all our mistakes if they don't learn something from them?

I still have the asbestos suit on so fire away

 

[Problem Child]

well frimost.......

Blue Balls? Cmon boys said that in highschool to get laid.

I hope you're not actually surprised that he said it, are you?

 

[Guest]

 

[celiaKitten]

And for the record I agree "no" means "no". But I think that without knowing if there were facts left out, and just going on what i've read so far. That boy was not in any way guilty of rape.

If you agree, honestly, that *no means no*, then that boy was guilty of rape. She said no - he continued. It's really not that complicated. What you discuss beyond this point is an entirely different issue. If she said no - at any point - for any reason - it is rape. She was not consenting to the sexual activity anymore. It doesn't matter if she began consenting. Imagine all the reasons that you could possibly say "stop" or "no" once you were in the middle of intercourse:

1. contraceptive trouble
2. pain
3. discomfort
4. distraction
5. your partner says something/does something that scares you
6. You just changed your mind

All of these are acceptable and perfectly sound reasons to halt intercourse. Just because you consented initially doesn't mean you lose control over your own body for the duration, that's just plain ridiculous.

Regardless of whether you are 14 or 104, never ever put yourself in a position whereby you have led someone to believe one thing and then do another. In retail, that's called "bait and switch". If you aren't prepared to be asked (or forced) to engage in a sexual act, then make damned sure you've covered yourself. Make it completely clear nothing of the sort is going to happen. No, you won't be cajoled or in any way talked into rethinking your decision once you're alone. If he persists, or acts in any way, that makes you think , that in his humble opinion you will change your mind, get away from him and back to your friends as fast as you can.

This isn't retail, you're comparing apples to oranges. Money and someone's bodily choices do not compare in this instance. Yes, these things are common sense. But, does that mean that *you got it coming* if you find yourself in that situation? What about people that put on a really good act, that you trust mistakenly? Again - what is one of those situations pop up in the middle of intimacy? Do you lose say over your body just because you're alone with someone whose genitals are swollen? No, you don't.

You DO NOT, neck, pet, strip down stark, buck naked, put your hands all over a man or a boy, and let them put their hands all over you, then have the audacity to act surprised when things get out of hand.

If someone is doing something to me that I don't agree with .. I don't care if I made them run naked with a bow on their dick for 2 miles in the snow, come back to me naked and watching a porno in a tub of hot water .. I don't care if I'd already had sex with this person dozens of times before - even 3 times that night .. if at any point, I don't want to continue .. then they had better stop what they're doing.

bout being aware of, and taking responsibility for, your actions. An idea, that in this day and age seems terribly foreign to most people. You have to think ahead, and try to see the consequences.

I agree with this. But it doesn't apply in this situation. I'd take responsibility that it happened .. but again .. I don't lose control of my body just because I got someone horny and changed my mind.

you've a mind, use it for gawds sakes.

I am, thank you. I refuse to feel obligated, or guilted, just because society thinks it's *common sense* that men can't control themselves. It's surprising how people rise to meet expectation.

Why don't you use your mind and figure out that *no means no* .. and what that term actually means.

Regardless of the subject or the situation, there is always a point where we are committeed beyond turning back. Sex is just one of them. If you aren't sure of your ability to committ then don't put yourself in the position to begin with.

No, sex is NOT one of those situations. A roller coaster is. Once you get in the seat and the ride begins, you physically cannot get out until it's all over. Sex can be stopped, as has been pointed out .. happens all the time.

And it's not always an issue of willingness to commit. What if something happens in the middle of it? If you say no, you should be able to have someone stop touching you. That's it.

 

[Bidin~Time]

Celia,

We have a difference of opinion, it's as simple as that. I believe that to charge that boy for rape is "comparing apples to oranges".

We have all been in situations where the act of sex became physically uncomfortable. Thankfully, most of us have been with partners who were mature enough and experienced enough to understand, and to stop. As far as I could see that wasn't however, the case. We have no way of knowing why she chose to revoke consent.

The cold hard fact is, she, or most likely her parents, used a loop-hole in the law to bring the charges. The loop-hole being, can, and if so, when, may consent be revoked.

I'm just old enough, old fashioned enough, and hard-nosed enough to believe that when you act without thinking about the consequences, you probably won't like them much. Both these kids learned that the hard way. The sad thing is, the boy has had his life ruined. You may think that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and I won't try to change it.

But as far as I'm concerned, to cry "rape" in the middle of the act of consentual sexual intercourse, is at best audacious, and at worst hypocritical.

 

[celiaKitten]

But as far as I'm concerned, to cry "rape" in the middle of the act of consentual sexual intercourse, is at best audacious, and at worst hypocritical.

Difference in opinion is fine.

I'm speaking hypothetically, not of this particular situation.

You believe there are shades of grey between *yes* and *no*. I don't. If someone says no .. they mean no. To suggest you agree that *no means no* and still think that someone couldn't object during sex is at best ridiculous, and definitely hypocritical.

 

[Problem Child]

I don't know if anyone else supplied a link to this story...I'm too lazy to go back through the whole thread to see, but here it is:

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/goodmorningamerica/GMA030109_Calif_Rape_Ruling.html

The girl asked the boy to stop a total of three times:

***
A few moments after they began engaging in sexual intercourse, the female told the male that she needed to go home.

She says she repeated her request two more times. The young woman said he then asked her to give him a minute and then continued for about 90 seconds. The whole incident lasted four to five minutes, according to the young woman in the case.

***

He denied her request and then continued for another 90 seconds (presumably until he climaxed, but that's just a guess).

Sit at your computer desk and time out 90 seconds. Don't you think that's WAY more than enough time needed to stop having sex?

The defense counsel (Foster) seems to be as much of a neanderthal as Frimost, although that's a pretty tough standard for stupidity to match...

***

Foster says the court's decision doesn't acknowledge the biological responses that sex invokes in a man.

"It is only natural, fair and just that a male be given a reasonable amount of time in which to quell his primal urge," she had argued.

Murphy says Foster's defense argument is outrageous.

"What that amounts to is the right to commit a little bit of rape," Murphy said. "If I invite you into my home and I say you can come in for an hour, and a half-hour later I want you to leave, you have to go. I get to decide whether you stay in my house and I get to decide whether you stay in my body."

***

 

[crysede]

Here, here! I totally agree with Celia

Nature does not "take over" until climax actually begins - people are in full control of themselves up to that point, and therefore they are completely responsible for their actions.

I mean let's say the two teenagers are going at it in his bedroom, he feels he's getting close to cumming - then his mom walks in. That boy is not going to keep thrusting for another minute until he actually reaches climax.

Or, to include both genders: let's say your masturbating in your bedroom, you can feel the pleasure building, you know you'll be climaxing in another minute - and your five-year-old walks in. How many parents are going to keep going at it for a minute so they can climax?

Teenagers are fully capable of stopping sexual activity, even when it will just take another moment to reach orgasm. The boy in the story simply didn't consider her saying "No!" to be a good enough reason to stop - he sure as hell would have stopped if mom had walked in.

He raped her.

And the fact he was drinking is no excuse - he's the one who chose to drink, he's still responsible for his actions while inebriated, since he's responsible for getting himself drunk in the first place.

(Yes Frimost, I do realize that by contradicting you I am revealing my black heart of contempt and loathing for men - you do not need to save me from myself, honest. I am at peace with the fact that no man will ever be able to stomach being in the same room with a raving, man-hating, militant, femi-Nazi like myself )

* * * * *

I think sending him to juvenile hall is a stupid idea, though - he obviously did not realize that he was raping her. Men who rape women because they honestly don't realize that they are committing rape, shouldn't be punished: if their actions were the result of a lack of knowledge/understanding then they need to be educated, if they are mentally incapable of recognizing their actions as being rape then they need to be locked up for the protection of society.

Yes, he raped her, but he totally failed to grasp the significance of his actions. He was thinking of her as a sexual object: she let him get started, so he thought he had a right to continue to use her body until he finished. If he had realized what a horrible thing he was doing, I really doubt he would have done it.

He's not a bad person that needs to be punished; he's an ignorant person who needs to be taught, that no one EVER has a duty to let you use their body for sexual gratification, nor do you EVER have a right to use them.

 

[intrigued]

*Stands up and cheers*

PC, this says it all: "What that amounts to is the right to commit a little bit of rape," Murphy said. "If I invite you into my home and I say you can come in for an hour, and a half-hour later I want you to leave, you have to go. I get to decide whether you stay in my house and I get to decide whether you stay in my body."

Thank you.

 

[celiaKitten]

Re: Here, here! I totally agree with Celia

Nature does not "take over" until climax actually begins - people are in full control of themselves up to that point, and therefore they are completely responsible for their actions.

I mean let's say the two teenagers are going at it in his bedroom, he feels he's getting close to cumming - then his mom walks in. That boy is not going to keep thrusting for another minute until he actually reaches climax.

Or, to include both genders: let's say your masturbating in your bedroom, you can feel the pleasure building, you know you'll be climaxing in another minute - and your five-year-old walks in. How many parents are going to keep going at it for a minute so they can climax?

Teenagers are fully capable of stopping sexual activity, even when it will just take another moment to reach orgasm. The boy in the story simply didn't consider her saying "No!" to be a good enough reason to stop - he sure as hell would have stopped if mom had walked in.

He raped her.

And the fact he was drinking is no excuse - he's the one who chose to drink, he's still responsible for his actions while inebriated, since he's responsible for getting himself drunk in the first place.

thank you for more clearly stating my point. And you bring up an excellent point - people have talked about being responsible for your own actions (i.e. committing to the act once you've begun) but what about being responsible for drinking and ignoring someone's instructions about their own body?

<SNIP>

He's not a bad person that needs to be punished; he's an ignorant person who needs to be taught, that no one EVER has a duty to let you use their body for sexual gratification, nor do you EVER have a right to use them.

I also agree here. I think the punishment should fit the intent of the crime when it comes to juv. offenders. However, that does not erase the fact that what happened was rape. Most of my posts dealt with simply that whenever someone says no, the action needs to stop then and there.

 

[Problem Child]

Here's another way to look at it.

When I'm having sex, I would guess that I fuck at approximately 120 strokes per minute when I'm nearing orgasm (maybe faster right before). That's two strokes per second, and granted it's just an educated guess. I've never had anyone time me or count.

Now, since I think it's safe to assume that this kid was nearing climax, it's posible that his "cadence" picked up to more than 120 strokes per minute, but we'll say 120 for this argument.

That means, from the last time he asked her to stop until he actually did stop (90 seconds), he penetrated her another 180 times.

Naw...he just couldn't control himself...180 times.

 

[Bidin~Time]

There's also a difference in that I am speaking precisely about the situation cited originally.

I do believe no means no. Obviously, when I say no that's precisely what I mean. I don't now, nor have I ever, said yes to anything where I had the slightest doubt yes wasn't what I meant.

If meaning what you say, and saying what you mean labels me ridiculous or hypocritical sobeit.

But don't forget to label me unapologetic for saying what I think.

 

[celiaKitten]

It isn't meaning what you say that makes your statements hypocritical. It's the fact that some are more valid than others, that this girl wasn't allowed to change her mind and say no.

She meant her first yes.

And she meant all of her no's.

You tell me which was most valid?

Just because you haven't had any doubt, or had any strange, unforeseen situation happen to you - doesn't mean that no one else has.

Sex is like the Navy: follow the last order given.

I applaud you for saying what you think, don't get me wrong. It just sounds like you're making excuses for someone that just didn't listen to a *no*.

 

[Mike Hammer]

The arguments in this thread bounce from reasonable to ridiculous. What the fuck, "blue balls" get real... penetrations per second? lol. If some 16 year old boy can last 180 strokes in a 16 year old puss it would make him a sex machine, or a porn star.

P.C. The "what if it was your daughter" thing isn't fair either.

"That's ridiculous. What if it was your daughter, and she changed her mind?"


Lets spin it around...What if it was your son?



Frimost's daughter: "Daddy, a boy raped me."
P.C's son: "Dad, she's saying I raped her"

Frimost: "Oh my god! I'll kill him, the son of a bitch! Tell daddy what happened!"
P.C: "What happened son, was it with her consent?"

Daughter: "Well, we were having sex, Daddy, and I told him to stop, but he didn't."
Son: "Well we were having sex and everything was good, then she said she needed to go home. Not in a panicking manor just in an I need to go home kind of way. I didn't really think a whole lot about it and kept going, she wasn't fighting me or anything."

Frimost: "You're a fucking whore. Get to your room, and no dinner."
P.C: "You little fucking rapist, I'm calling the cops and I hope you rot in jail."


Either way it’s a hard call as far as right and wrong. A lot depends on which side of the fence you’r on. It’s a shame, but the boy is paying the price for political correctness by doing time for a broadbrush decision made most likely because no one knows what else to do with shit like this.

Food for thought... it might be the daughters fear of one or both of her parents that caused this boy to be charged in the first place.

 

[crysede]

It?s a shame, but the boy is paying the price for political correctness by doing time for a broadbrush decision made most likely because no one knows what else to do with shit like this.

What does this have to do with political correctness?

 

[Problem Child]

Mike, the problem is that you are assuming that we don't know the facts.

I am assuming we do know the facts and that's how I presented it to Frimost. My example was tongue in cheek (did you miss that?), but his response was basically "I don't care if she said no, she started to have sex with him and she was wrong to expect him to quit."

That sucks.

Also, the stroke per minute thing was hypothetical (like I prety much said), but 90 seconds is 90 seconds. He should have been out of that pussy in two seconds.

It was rape.

 

[Mike Hammer]

What does this have to do with political correctness?

Fuck if I know. It doesn't seem very correct to me either.

I guess I used the wrong term maybe. What I meant was a social view that is most easily and widely accepted.

 

[Mike Hammer]

Mike, the problem is that you are assuming that we don't know the facts.

I am assuming we do know the facts and that's how I presented it to Frimost. My example was tongue in cheek (did you miss that?), but his response was basically "I don't care if she said no, she started to have sex with him and she was wrong to expect him to quit."

That sucks.

Also, the stroke per minute thing was hypothetical (like I prety much said), but 90 seconds is 90 seconds. He should have been out of that pussy in two seconds.

It was rape.

Yeah you're right P.C. I am assuming we don't know all the facts because only a fool would think we do.

I know you were being tongue in cheek, I just can't resolve myself to your point of view so i spun it the other way. Personally I wouldn't want to be the parent of either one becouse in my eyes there isn't a claerly guilty party.

 

[crysede]

Yeah you're right P.C. I am assuming we don't know all the facts because only a fool would think we do.

I know you were being tongue in cheek, I just can't resolve myself to your point of view so i spun it the other way. Personally I wouldn't want to be the parent of either one becouse in my eyes there isn't a claerly guilty party.

If we assume the report is correct about her telling him to stop three times - would you see that as making him a clearly guilty party?

 

[Problem Child]

Yeah you're right P.C. I am assuming we don't know all the facts because only a fool would think we do.

I know you were being tongue in cheek, I just can't resolve myself to your point of view so i spun it the other way. Personally I wouldn't want to be the parent of either one becouse in my eyes there isn't a claerly guilty party.

Well, let me explain myself a bit further before you go asshole on me once more, is that allright? I'm only a simple fool afterall.

I was presenting an argument based on the facts in the article. Since none of us was there, none of us can really know what went on, and by that logic, why have a discussion at all? We'll never really be able to figure out what went on anyway, right?

That said, according to the article a very strong case can be made that the girl indicated she wanted to stop no less than three times, yet the boy ignored her and continued on for a full 90 seconds more.

My opinion is that it constitutes rape and apparently so did the court.