Serious Issue of Rape

[Mike Hammer]

Fixin to go asshole.


Look simple fool. In essence your saying that anytime a female wants to use the rape thingy on a male he's gong to be guilty. No matter what the facts are because no one is there to say different.

I'm kinda slow, am I understanding you?

 

[Problem Child]

Fixin to go asshole.


Look simple fool. In essence your saying that anytime a female wants to use the rape thingy on a male he's gong to be guilty. No matter what the facts are because no one is there to say different.

I'm kinda slow, am I understanding you?

No. That's not it at all.

In response to you calling me a fool because I assumed we knew all the facts, I endevoured to explain that (edit) for the purposes of a discussion (/edit) if we always assume we don't know all the facts, how can we ever have a meaningful discussion/debate?

At some point you have to say "this is what happened" and go at it. At some point you have to form an opinion (edit) based on the information available to you.

(edit) IOW, yes, I know we really never know what happened in the real world, but in a debate we have to act like we do, otherwise no concrete opinions can ever be formed, except "well, we'll really never know what happened" (/edit)

Clearer?

 

[Mike Hammer]

Yeah i know where you're coming from P.C....It's just that I know how things can be spun and become fubar.

 

[Problem Child]

Yeah i know where you're coming from P.C....It's just that I know how things can be spun and become fubar.

That's cool.

 

[Monazwx]

Whoa, what a thread.

I've read everything and come to the conclusion that I agree with the courts. Sure, this girl was the ULTIMATE TEASE, but when she said no, her rights were ignored. The 'primitive urges' excuse doesn't sit well with me because as humans we can apply reason to and rationalize our actions. To me, the most important fact to come from this thread was that these two people were too immature to engage in sex in the first place.

 

[Comshaw]

Very interesting discussion. My take?

Does no mean no? Yes. If the young lady had said "I don't want to do this any more" or "Stop, I don't want to" or "No. please stop", that young man would be as guilty as sin.
But according to the article she didn't say that!
If you take just those facts presented in the news article, she never said anything remotely like that.

Quoted from the article:
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.

Read it carefully. She said,"I need to go home", that's all; Not "stop", not "no", not "get off me" not "I don't want to do this any more".
He responded with a request to give him a minute.

If you weigh just those facts, he isn't guilty of rape. Being a raving asshole yes, but not rape.
You can speculate all day about what was really said, but push come to shove, all you can base a rational opinion on is the facts presented. And those presented in the article do not uphold the sentence the young man received.

Should he have interpreted her request as a no? An adult might have, but at 16 I doubt very much if he had the maturity to even consider what she said as a request to stop. If no means no, which it should, then it has to be said plainly. There shouldn't be any guessing, any interpretation, just a plain emphatic request: NO, STOP, I DON'T WANT TO! It's a woman's right to say no, at any time. But there can't be any ambiguity about it, you have to say it, and say it loud if necessary.
That is your responsibility. Ours as males is to honor that request.
This whole situation sounds like a matter of miscommunications coupled with some pissed off parents.

Comshaw

 

[crysede]

Very interesting discussion. My take?

Does no mean no? Yes. If the young lady had said "I don't want to do this any more" or "Stop, I don't want to" or "No. please stop", that young man would be as guilty as sin.
But according to the article she didn't say that!
If you take just those facts presented in the news article, she never said anything remotely like that.



Read it carefully. She said,"I need to go home", that's all; Not "stop", not "no", not "get off me" not "I don't want to do this any more".
He responded with a request to give him a minute.

The article didn't use quotes, so we don't know what she said.

The debate on this thread was over whether or not it would be rape assuming that she did say no.

We can't debate over whether or not she in fact said no, since none of us have the faintest idea what she actually said.

 

[Mike Hammer]

Spin it!

 

[Comshaw]

posted by crysede:

The article didn't use quotes, so we don't know what she said.

No but if you will read it again please:

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.

It clearly states the content of what was said.

The debate on this thread was over whether or not it would be rape assuming that she did say no.

I think if you reread this thread there are three or four different lines debated here. If you wish to limit yourself to the "if she said no is he guilty" one be my guest, but please don't try to make me follow suit. And besides, I think I addressed that particular question, if you will take the time to scan my post.

We can't debate over whether or not she in fact said no, since none of us have the faintest idea what she actually said.

Quote by Comshaw:
You can speculate all day about what was really said, but push come to shove, all you can base a rational opinion on is the facts presented.

Hummmm, interesting. Perhaps next time you'd like to take a bit more time in reading what was posted?

Comshaw

 

[Mike Hammer]

Might as well give it up Comshaw. We can only assume in favor of the girl. That's how it works!


But since were back to assuming, lets try this on.

It's late, the girl is having fun but is getting worried because she knows she's going to be in trouble when she gets home. She brings it up telling the boy she needs to get home. He's thinking yeah i need to get her home but we might as well finish what we started.

He takes her home and mom/dad/both are waiting up for her. The situation goes south on her and out of frustration she admits to having sex thinking they will freak a little and let her go to bed and deal with it later.

Later comes and it just keeps getting uglier, all of a sudden she can't go anywhere, her car is gone, phone in her room, jet boat or whatever else she may hold near and dear.

Next thing you know it turns into "I told him no" well mom and dad jump on it because they knew deep down it was all his fault anyway, there was no way there daughter would consent to an act as filthy as that. The parents contact the authorities.

The girl is now backed into a corner, she doesn't want the boy to get hung with it, but she doesn't want to come clean either. The parents pursue the issue in an effort to keep there daughter pure and the boy ends up getting fucked by a bunch of narrow minded idiots.

Just assuming!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Here's the part that gets me pissed off:

Murphy says the decision is about basic principles and not about specific cases.

In other words, it is not about the facts of the case, but about reinforcing the 'no means no' mantra. Even if the 'no' sounds more like a 'I'm in a hurry to be finished'...

 

[Frimost]

And so ends another Frimost thread, same as it always is.

lol
My thread???
Jesus Christ PC, look at the person who started the topic, I'll give you a little clue, it wasn't me.

Give credit where credit is due and none shall be received by me for this mess.

Quit trying to blame me for everything here.

 

[Frimost]

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.

And where did I insult you in that rant Heavystick?
+12 Pussy Points for you...

suck up.

 

[Problem Child]

lol
My thread???
Jesus Christ PC, look at the person who started the topic, I'll give you a little clue, it wasn't me.

Give credit where credit is due and none shall be received by me for this mess.

Quit trying to blame me for everything here.

Piss off, I can blame you for whatever I want.

 

[Frimost]

Ive been watching you say the stupidist shit here.
Blue Balls? Cmon boys said that in highschool to get laid. Are you still in highschool? You say Im actiling like a kindergartner? Most little ones dont say fucking idiot. I hope anyway. Im acting like the prepubescent teen that you have been acting like.

You dont like it turned twords you huh?

Oh bullshit. Recently I have refrained from making (or at least initiating) any personal attacks here at Lit simply because someone has a differing viewpoint then mine.

But so many of you jump straight to the insults like a bunch of angry 4th-graders and then try and have you cake and eat it too by accusing me of acting immature! HA!

Then you pat yourselves on the back for a job well done for acting like a hypocritical jackass. Sickening, your behavior here is appalling. Check the threads, who is it that always starts the personal attacks? It’s not me….

 

[Problem Child]

Oh bullshit. Recently I have refrained from making (or at least initiating) any personal attacks here at Lit simply because someone has a differing viewpoint then mine.

But so many of you jump straight to the insults like a bunch of angry 4th-graders and then try and have you cake and eat it too by accusing me of acting immature! HA!

Then you pat yourselves on the back for a job well done for acting like a hypocritical jackass. Sickening, your behavior here is appalling. Check the threads, who is it that always starts the personal attacks? It’s not me….

You're so immature.

 

[Jim_Henson]

The only thing I can say is I wouldnt be a lawyer for either side, I couldnt sleep.

 

[HeavyStick]

And where did I insult you in that rant Heavystick?
+12 Pussy Points for you...

suck up.

Fuck you, I said that because of your chickenshit rant towards Emerald_eye. You meant to call her a bitch.

You can stick your twelve points up your plastic or paper bag ass, you fat fucking ugly clown.

 

[Problem Child]

....fat fucking ugly clown.

..Send in the fatfuckingugly clowns,

There ought to be fatfuckingugly clowns...

 

[HeavyStick]

..Send in the fatfuckingugly clowns,

There ought to be fatfuckingugly clowns...

Did I inadvertently steal that from someone?

 

[Problem Child]

Did I inadvertently steal that from someone?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[HeavyStick]

.

 

[Frimost]

celiaKitten, you seem to have the "Zero Tolerance" frame of mind and thinking that is PC now days and sweeping through our schools and places of employment like the bubonic plague.

True wisdom calls for judgment. Judges by their very name are supposed to use their own judgment in tailoring punishments to the crime by listening to both sides, their lawyers, and deciding if found guilty the attenuating circumstances and variables which can lessen or strengthen the sentence they deliver. Zero Tolerance is another word for Zero Judgment because to many people now days are too cowardly to take a stand and take responsibility for delivering a judgment because they are too afraid to looking "harsh" and "mean" to their peers.

IMO the judge should have downgraded the charges to sexual battery or secondary sexual assault or some other lesser charge and then sentenced him likewise to that lesser crime. However, that would take courage, wisdom, and judgment and Zero Tolerance is so much easier because you have an ready excuse to weasel your way out of making those tough decisions that keep us wake at night pondering the consequences.

PC, as a parent I can kind of understand your position, being over-protective and all and biased for the welfare of your daughter.

I suspect that some people out there (not necessarily here though?) may support the woman’s side though because they see it as yet one more chance to get the upper-hand on men though, and those are the people I am worried about now that the precedence has been set with this ruling.

Responsibility, where has it gone these days?
And what selfish lovers! Both of them, HER for not caring about her b/f enough to let him finish what she started and him for not stopping when she asked him too. Of course she should have never asked him to stop during the act in the first place and if she had that many doubts, if she was that unsure then she should have never consented to begin with.

When you make love to someone you have an obligation to make sure they orgasm too, its not a fucking race to see who can get off the first and then push the other off of you and tell them to go to hell and get themselves off because your done.

 

[Problem Child]

I'm not a parent and thus I don't have a daughter...but if I did there's no friggin way I'd let her date you.

 

[crysede]

No but if you will read it again please:...It clearly states the content of what was said.

The article informs us that the girls counsel asserts that she did say 'no,' the court ruled that she did say 'no,' the defence council denies that she ever said anything even resembling 'no,' and the journalist doesn't actually tell what she said, but implies that she did nothing more than mention that she needed to go home.

So from the article we have the facts that she said 'no,' and that she did not say 'no.' I don't see this as being a clear statement about the content of what was said.

I think if you reread this thread there are three or four different lines debated here. If you wish to limit yourself to the "if she said no is he guilty" one be my guest, but please don't try to make me follow suit. And besides, I think I addressed that particular question, if you will take the time to scan my post.

There are only two choices: assuming she said 'no,' or assuming she didn't. I did a quick look through the thread, and I still don't see anyone arguing from the premise that she didn't say 'no.' And the debate limits itself to the assumption that she said 'no,' there wouldn't be a heck of a lot to argue about if we assumed she didn't withdraw consent:

Poster 1. Consensual sex between two teenagers is not rape.

Poster 2. I agree.

*crickets chirping*

You can speculate all day about what was really said, but push come to shove, all you can base a rational opinion on is the facts presented.

Hummmm, interesting. Perhaps next time you'd like to take a bit more time in reading what was posted?

I assumed that your rejoinder to "read it carefully" was meant to imply that the people who have been debating in this thread did not read the article carefully enough - so I was pointing out that reading it carefully in no way changes the fact that we still don't know the facts about whether she said 'no,' so hypothetical arguments are all we've got.