Serious Issue of Rape

[Frimost]

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.

emerald_eye is a independent woman who can speak for herself and is more than capable of defending herself from me. You said what you did to curry favor and because you deem yourself some kind of knight in shining armor riding to the ladies defense from the big bad dragon. She has a mind of her own you know, she dose not need your sexist patrimony.

 

[Problem Child]

deconstructing a silly post

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.

So we should not have a zero-tolerance attitude towards rape? Nice.

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.

More dribble about zero tolerance. Irrelevant, except that it reinforces the Frimost theory of 'gray' area in reference to rape.

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.

blah blah blah about wisdom.

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'm not a parent. Wherever did you get such an idea?

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.

Here we go with the misogyny again. Dude, would it be possible for you stop being a transparent he-man woman-hater for maybe a day or two?

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.

This is the part of the thread where Frimost blames the woman for getting raped. You've outdone yourself in your open contempt for women now, Friboy. Good luck with the flirting from here on out.

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.

Here frimost waxes eloquent on something he has no familiarity with- actually having sex.

 

[HeavyStick]

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.

A well typed post.

rebuttal.

IMO the people who provided the alcohol should be charged and tried. Teenagers are not known for responsible decisions when left alone, alcohol may have been a definite factor in judgement.

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.

Negative, IMO you're looking at this as a contract that is set in stone. People are allowed to change their minds. Analogy, you pick up an item in a store, you put it in your cart. Are you obligated to buy it? No. Your personal choice dictated otherwise.

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.

Wrong. IMO. The act of sex requires continuous communication, whether it be body language, guiding your partners hand, or whispering sweet instructions.

Sex is consentual, respectful of the other persons wishes. It should be gratifying to both people. To put a quota over someone's head can be miscontrued as coercion.

Coercion is against that person's natural will.


*edited for spelling*

 

[HeavyStick]

emerald_eye is a independent woman who can speak for herself and is more than capable of defending herself from me. You said what you did to curry favor and because you deem yourself some kind of knight in shining armor riding to the ladies defense from the big bad dragon. She has a mind of her own you know, she dose not need your sexist patrimony.

If you are going to insult someone don't throw in hypothetical (I could but I won't scenario's) It's weak.

I can say what Ii want, to who I want, when I want and how I want to.

 

[crysede]

Well that just figures you'd oppressively force my post to be the last one on a page, Frimost

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.

 

[Frimost]

PC;
Only fools have the luxury of believing life is so simply that it can be divided into black and white. Most of what goes on in real world are shades of gray.


BTW, with all the mention of "tongue in cheek" on page 6 no one bothered to notice (or were to ignorant to take note) that I brought up "blue balls" in a joking reference not in a serious manner.

 

[Problem Child]

PC;
Only fools have the luxury of believing life is so simply that it can be divided into black and white. Most of what goes on in real world are shades of gray.


BTW, with all the mention of "tongue in cheek" on page 6 no one bothered to notice (or were to ignorant to take note) that I brought up "blue balls" in a joking reference not in a serious manner.

Two things:

1) Stop acting like you're so wise. You're not. Beyond that, if that's all the rebuttal you have then you get an F on that one which brings your average down to about a D-.

2) Maybe you did try and make a funny about blue balls, but you got your balls in a big uproar in typical frimost freakout fashion later when people said it wasn't that big a deal so (insert loud buzzer noise here).

 

[Frimost]

Heavystick, sometimes you seem very reasonable and mature, other times you do not. Right now you seem to be in a more mature mood so I will not argue with you. However, that was how that post looked to me, and her post immediately following it with a "soft clap" thanking you just reinforced that viewpoint to me.

Personally, I did not read the article myself. I just assumed you had read it all and were directing the discussion based on all the known facts. Now that the gaps have been revealed and it seems she never did say no it just reinforced my earlier suspicions that nearly everyone here always makes the assumptions to the benefit of the female in these “he said, she said” debates.

If this argument were the other way around dollars to donuts at least one or two of you in stringent favor of her would be calling the guy a total asshole and have a much more lenient view towards the woman.


signing off~

 

[HeavyStick]

Personally, I did not read the article myself. I just assumed you had read it all and were directing the discussion based on all the known facts. Now that the gaps have been revealed and it seems she never did say no it just reinforced my earlier suspicions that nearly everyone here always makes the assumptions to the benefit of the female in these “he said, she said” debates.

If this argument were the other way around dollars to donuts at least one or two of you in stringent favor of her would be calling the guy a total asshole and have a much more lenient view towards the woman.


signing off~

How in the hell can you have a debate if you don't read the link provided?

She did say no.

Just because you're hungry leave food out of this.

I'm not arguing her case. I've been to several rape crime scenes, I'm in favor of protecting the victim and drawing facts from the entire setting and mindset.

You're right it's not black and white. However it has to be treated that way til all the facts are presented.

 

[GrittyRingo]

I see there is a lot of knuckle dragging going on around here. Anybody here gets up in the morning and goes out to kill their breakfast? Surely the key issue here is respect and trust. People react to different situations in different ways. Some girls like sex certain ways, some are more nervous, some are experienced and some are less so. The point is if a lady at any time opens herself up to a man to make love/have sex with her, she is entrusting that man with her body temporarily. Regardless of the relationship between the two parties, this is an emotional union between 2 human beings sharing a moment. For the girl to say no at any time during the intercourse is her right and her perogative. For all you know, he could have been hurting her. I find it unbelievable that any men here truly believe that they have a god given right to use any womans body to relieve themselves of their sexual frustration at any time and under any circumstances. If you cant control yourself in this sort of situation, then perhaps you should sell your house and your car, buy a loin cloth and go and live in the hills where you can indulge in your neanderthal tendancies without risk to civilised people around you. We are people not animals.

 

[celiaKitten]

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.

I have a Zero Tolerance frame of mind in this case, yes. No means no - get the fuck away. It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with personal right. If I want someone to stop touching my body, I let them know that.. and they still don't stop.. they should be prepared to take responsibility for their own actions.

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.

The time to take intent into account for the crime is at sentencing.

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.

I have tried to refrain from using gender references if at all possible - if this happens in any other combo of gender, I'd be saying the same damn thing. This isn't about trying to screw men over - this is giving people the right to control what happens to themselves.

Responsibility, where has it gone these days?

You should be asking yourself that question since you don't seem to get that this boy should be responsible for his actions, too.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[RawHumor]

It's not too often that I feel strongly about something and then get talked out of it, but consider this one of the exceptions.

 

[Guest]

 

[RawHumor]

Part of the reason that I was supportive of him in this case goes back to my college years again. At that time, there was a statistic that 25% of the women had been victims of rape. I'm not sure if that was at my school specifically or at all colleges, and I don't know if it was while they were attending school or over the course of their lives. Either way, I talked to enough different women about and it every single one of them knew of a student who had been raped, so I believe the statistic.

Anyway, as a result of that, they were pushing for people to ask permission to do each step of sexual progress (e.g. "May I kiss your mouth?", "May I touch your breast?", etc.). I know, it's very romantic, no? But it would prevent the guy from saying that he thought she wanted it, if anyone ever actually did that.

What scared me about this case is the possibility of the following conversation:

Boy: May I enter your vagina?
Girl: Yes, please do. Oooh, that feels good. Please start out slowly.
Boy: Okay, I'm in. May I pump one more time?
Girl: Yes.
Boy: Okay, can I pump again?
Girl: Yes!
Boy: Can I do it again?
Girl: Yes, fucker, just fuck me, dammit!

But anyway, if she said no (especially if she said no repeatedly) and he took 90 seconds to finish, then I don't believe that there's an argument for animal instincts or whatever.

 

[celiaKitten]

The idea that bothered me terribly was this thought that once someone consents to sex - that there's no turning back, that you have to let this other person do what they want until they're ready to be done with you.

Believing that I can halt sex at any point in time doesn't make me a cock-tease, it makes me a person in ownership of my own body.

 

[GrittyRingo]

The idea that bothered me terribly was this thought that once someone consents to sex - that there's no turning back, that you have to let this other person do what they want until they're ready to be done with you.

Believing that I can halt sex at any point in time doesn't make me a cock-tease, it makes me a person in ownership of my own body.

You are absolutely 100% correct.

 

[RawHumor]

I agree, Celia, and some of your posts are ultimately what swayed me.

Also, if you seriously feel that, once consent is given, it cannot be withdrawn, then we're setting a VERY dangerous precident.

 

[GrittyRingo]

You too are 100% correct!

Wahey!

 

[celiaKitten]

I agree, Celia, and some of your posts are ultimately what swayed me.

Also, if you seriously feel that, once consent is given, it cannot be withdrawn, then we're setting a VERY dangerous precident.

Are you kidding? Wow .. I'm floored, Raw. lol - I always wonder if I make any sense or just sound like a raving bitch on the odd occasion that I do let myself get into these threads.

A very frightening precident, I agree.

 

[RawHumor]

Your posts and the one that PC put that had actual text from the article, along with my own thoughts twisting on this topic.

 

[Mike Hammer]

Also, if you seriously feel that, once consent is given, it cannot be withdrawn, then we're setting a VERY dangerous precident.

Ya'll scare me with your logic and reasoning skills. Sure "No means No"..."Stop means Stop" and "I need to go home means I need to go home" But to call this rape using the info provided you have to use assumption as to, if, when, and how "NO" is brought into this equation.

It seems those who call it full blown rape just take the "No" as fact.


Raw, which precedent is more dangerous. Personally I think it's pretty scary that a female can make an accusation of rape and the only proof she has of rape is the fact that you did fuck her. Even if it was with her consent, it doesn't matter. A rape kit and her saying she wanted to stop (truth or fiction) is enough to make you a rapist.

Get real, there is no black and white.

 

[knightshadow]

I see the debate is still going strong. I didn't expect this thread to become so heated, though it's not surprising giving the nature of the thread.

First, I believe most everyone agrees that the boy was immature and naive in thinking that he had all the time in the world. And for that matter, that the girl was no better off. Chalk that up to lack of knowledge on both parts.

I think what really got me thinking was that this boy, for lack of better knowledge, is being treated hard. I noticed that many agree with this. I think a lighter sentence, with some kind of educational training was more appropriate. Perhaps, if this educational training was presented to children at an earlier age, problems like this would hopefully be less common.

I have three daughters all teenagers, so I'm trying to look at this from all sides. I can't even began to imagine what both teens are going through.

One last thought, on the boy. He is being punished severly. Will this effect his future relationship with women. ie....He mets a woman that really wants a relationship with him. Is this previous episode going to effect his future relationships?

And I suppose the same goes for the girl.

The saddest thing about this...is that I'm sure very few teenagers will even be aware of this court case.