New Law Protects People Who Change Mind During Sex

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Monday, July 28, 2003, 12:50 p.m. (Springfield-AP) -- "No" always means no. That's the message behind a new Illinois state law.

The law clarifies the issue of consent by making it clear that people can change their mind even while having sex. If someone says "no," the other person must stop or it becomes rape.

Senator Dan Rutherford of Pontiac says the bill was inspired by a California case involving two teenagers. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately.

...

http://www.wbbm780.com/asp/ViewMoreDetails.asp?ID=25603

[BJ]

1. Let me get this straight...

Two California teens having sex. In the middle of coitus she changes her mind, but the boy did not stop, i.e. coitus interruptus, therefore he's charged with the crime of rape?

This is progress?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

3. It is if you're of the opinion

that all typical male human behaviour is inherently evil.

In other words, if you live in California.

[catzies]

13. This Californian doesn't agree with you on that at all.

And I'm sure I'm not alone. :mad:

[study_war_no_more]

36. what does your character mean?

looks nice and your not alone.

[Name removed]

405. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

2. Guess we'll have to warn everyone to record all sex acts

and have everyone sign a consent form at the beginning, middle and end.

I cannot believe a woman would actually change her mind in the middle and THEN press rape charges. She should be charged with making a false complaint.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. every ten seconds

every ten seconds, ask, 'Should I stop?'

[I AM SPARTACUS]

74. how romantic...

[Lars39]

16. I can think of several scenarios that could happen to make a woman

change her mind. Not to be crude, but the guy still has a mouth, 2 arms and 2 legs; a lot could go haywire with expectations versus reality, and I'm not talking dissatisfaction, but verbal/physical abuse.

[Wonder]

105. Lars39 of course I agree with you

I just wonder why is something so simple seeming so difficult to grasp for some on this thread and others on the kobe threads?

So much can change between yes and coitus like you said the guy might like it in a way the girl sees she'd prefer not to do it.

What is the complexity here? Since when is changing ones mind at any time in the midst of the act such an issue. What is so hard to grasp here?

These are the important questions. Because the answers to some of these seeminly trivial questions is part of what drives the rape mentality.

A LAW THEY NEEDED TO DRIVE THE POINT HOME.

Well I CONSIDERING the insulting comments I have had the privilege to encounter on this subject. I guess it is about time a law like this was enacted. I can not say it will increase the chances of getting a conviction on rape. Conviction rates are actually very low in comparison to how often rape is tried, which is much lower than how often rape is actually committed.

I guess for those that refuse to grasp the implications of this new law, they will have to stock up on rehipenol for their dates in the future.

[DarbyUSMC]

448. Isn't it the word of one against the other?

How do you prove that in court? What if the guy changes his mind when the girl wants to continue, is that also to be called rape? As far as those two teens go - - I've heard yhat more teen boys climax before they even get to the target, so stopping midway would be a miracle. I guess tape recorders will have to be standard SOP on a date from now on. Otherwise, unless it gets abusive to the point of violence, there will be no proof of who said what to who. A contract isn't a bad idea but it would have to be notarized.

If this doesn't get people to abstain, nothing will. Sex has become too complicated. May as well just date and kiss goodnight. Go home and interfere with yourself. No danger there unless you plan on calling 911 afterward. Baloney. B-)

[Wonder]

457. There are Judicial procedures set in place

and burden of proof and penal code definitions of what constitutes rape (violence and the exhirtion of proof). One really does need to familiarize themselves with the various procedures set in place:
how charges are taken, how many interrogations are conducted of alleged victim (or the accuser) and the various chains of command these transcribed interogations go thru before getting to the DA. What must the DA see in evidence before pressing charges.

You can not base considerations or opinions just on this one article. Legal measures are already in place with regard to rape and date rape. I am not sure the intent of this law was to get people to abstain, it seems to clarify that consent can be withdrawn. And too various scenarios would warrant a withdrawal of consent.

YOu have to read through the thread, and also familiarize yourself with

existing penal code on rape
burden of proof
existing report and interrogation procedures
and police and judicial process

and then having the transcript of this particular case referenced would help to guide all thoughts and opinions within a more rational and factual realm, rather than just reflexive emotional responses and various gender prejudices and bias.

Even after you absorb all the facts you might find you are not inclined to believe them. But get the facts first.

[study_war_no_more]

37. unless she was asleep

or intoxicated or maybe the man was a bad lay even whatever stop means stop. Men do not have a preferential status in this matter.

[plcdude]

4. no is no

but my take on this is if you are asked to stop while in the act then that is what you should do. However, what length of time is reasonable or for that matter what if a climax occurs while interruptus happens? This becomes a lawyer's excuse the pun "wet dream".

[honorable mouse]

5. "Protection" wrong word

There is nothing in this law that actually protects people who change their minds during sex.

While no should mean no -- as a legal principle and as a moral principle -- I'm worried about this law and what it means. What if the partner is unaware of this law? What if the partner is entrapped by this law?

And then there is the physiology -- you try stopping a teenager who is "into it".

I wonder if this law will cause more harm than good -- always a worry when law is based on isolated instances.

[study_war_no_more]

38. are you saying being a teen is an excuse for rape?

yikes

[foxy]

225. If memory recollects me --don't the parents and teachers teach this?

I know I remember my family teaching us kids the rights and wrongs. How then is this going to hurt the young man? He can back out and finish it himself, right? How would that be hurting him?

IMHO

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

356. The California Supreme Court took the PRIMAL URGE THEORY into account

In the case that challenged the old rule, a 17-year-old girl, Laura T., had consented to sex with the defendant, John, but then later told him that she needed to go home. While she never explicitly told him to stop, he continued for, "four or five minutes after Laura's first statement and for a minute to 90 seconds after her third and final one" (Cooper, 2003:2). John had apparently told Laura, "Just give me a minute" (Cooper, 2003:2). While this case may not appear to be rape to some, the California Supreme Court has ruled that it was indeed a rape. The Court took into account what was called a "primal urge theory" that could possibly justify a "reasonable time" rule for John's failure to stop. However, the Court later rejected this claim saying that John had been given sufficient time to withdraw and that the law books would not allow for such a claim of "reasonable time" (Cooper, 2003:2). It is important to remember that rape does not occur when a woman simply changes her mind or feels that she has made a bad decision. In this case, John had also grabbed Laura's waist and pushed her down while she was making the statements that she needed to go home.

This is a very important ruling because it changes the definition of rape in a very dramatic way. This change has happened not only in California. Minnesota, South Dakota, Connecticut, Maine, and Alaska have all produced very similar court decisions (Cooper, 2003:1). There are likely to be more states that follow in this pattern of decision making when they receive a case that can challenge the old standard. While it is critical to remember that men can also be raped, the cases here have involved males raping females. This change is important for males and females to consider when they consent to sexual intercourse, and it is vital for both parties involved to be fully aware of their rights.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/print.php?article=law&refid=010

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. what if she says

what if she says don't ... stop ... don't ... stop

[ima_sinnic]

7. this is a very dangerous interpretation

I know someone who was falsely charged with rape. A woman's word in a rape case can be extremely powerful. Some places do administer lie detector tests to plaintiffs but this needs to be done more; people really have no idea of the hellish nightmare that false rape charges can bring, and they are brought far too often--for scorn, for neurotic attention-seekers, for revenge. There is at least one web site devoted to the problem. The only "evidence" in a case using this interpretation will be one person's word against another. Then a jury has to decide whom they find more believable.

[Lindacooks]

145. Uh huh

The number of women who have been raped and do not press charges because they are afraid of the abuse and threats against them FAR OUTNUMBER false rape charges. The number of false rape charges is about 2%, the same as any other crime. Don't give me that shit about the 'poor, innocent men falsely accused of rape who suffer so.'

[TLM]

207. I was falsly accused of rape...

by a girl who had cheated on her boyfriend with me. When her boyfriend found out she cheated on him, and confronted her about it, her solution was to tell him I raped her.

So yeah, women do accuse men of rape falsely and when it happens nobody believes the guy, he is automatically considered guilty.

I know I'm not the only guy who has been falsely accused.

And I know there is a whole group of men who have found themselves in situations where sex was 100% consensual, but the next morning the girl feels ashamed of how she acted or what she did, and somehow in her mind the idea of regretting it after the fact and wishing she hadn't done it, morphs into she didn't want to do it and she was therefore raped.

A guy I knew was almost tossed out of his college based on a false rape charge like that. So don't dismiss this. A lot of guys have their lives ruined because of bullshit rape claims like this. Frankly I think the legal punishment for a false rape claim should be the same as the punishment for rape.

[sangha]

209. Were you convicted?

While it is true that a false accusation of rape can ruin someone's life, it's just as true for many other crimes. (Try being falsely accused of child abuse) The important points here are

1) This doesn't make any easier of harder to prove rape. The standard for demonstrating that consent was "repealed" is just as stringent as showing that consent wasn't given in the first place

2) In the scenarios you present, there were no convictions.

[TLM]

215. No I was not charged with rape...

She did not go to the cops to make the accusation... she just told her boyfriend and everybody at my work.

I considered pressing charges against her for slander, but then I wind up in the same place... he said vs. she said. How do I prove she's lying about me?

I ended up having to quit the job.

[Wonder]

219. You should have pressed charges!

These girls that do this should go to jail. Rape and violence against women are too much of issue to let girls like this get away with that.

I am sorry about your story. It really burns me up too. If I was the fighting type I'd have kicked her ass, if pressing charges would not have helped.

And on that note I am following Joshcryer out of here. I am done in this thread. Everyone has to take care when they have sex these days. Both genders have their fair share of anger. It can be a deadly game.

[TLM]

224. There was nothing I could do...

There was no way for me to prove that her claim was flase. It was her word against mine... and being a male the system says I'm automaticaly guilty because we males are all just violent monsters.

[sangha]

233. You'd be in a similar situation

if someone had falsely accused you of stealing their lunch from the fridge in the companies lunchroom. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see why the issue of false accusations has been conflated with the issue of rape (and consent)

[TLM]

245. WHAT?!?!?! Stealing a lunch?

No being accused of rape is NOT the same as being accused of stealing someone's lunch.

A similar situation my ass. I had women at my work warning each other to make sure not to be alone with me because I was a rapist. I was jumped in the parking lot. I was threatened I was harassed. My car was vandalized. And I had to quit that job.

And all so some lying bitch could avoid some heat for cheating on her boyfreind... a boyfriend I never even knew she had.

And the fact you try to dismiss it as no big deal is very telling...


"Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see why the issue of false accusations has been conflated with the issue of rape (and consent)"

Because rape is soemthing that one can very easily be falsely accused of, and it is almost impossible to prove you are innocent if you are falsely accused.

[sangha]

247. You got it all wrong

The point was not that being accused of stealing lunh and being accused of rape are exactly the same thing and just as offensive. The point is that the problems you faced are not limited to being falsely accused of rape. If you were falsely accused of child abuse, you may very well have faced the same exact problems.

Because rape is soemthing that one can very easily be falsely accused of, and it is almost impossible to prove you are innocent if you are falsely accused

It's just as easy to be accused of child abuse (or even more likely, neglect) as it is to be accused of rape and you don't have to prove your innocence - The state has to prove your guilt.

And I repeat -

1) the problems of being falsely accused are not limited to false accusations of rape

2) This law doesn't do anything to make it easier or harder to falsely accuse someone of rape, or any other crime.

[TLM]

262. Wrong, this law makes false rape accusations much easier...

because now you can bypass all the physical evidence that would be there in a rape situation.

Because it was consentual up until that point... so the lack of any brusing or defensive marks etc. is all moot now.


"It's just as easy to be accused of child abuse"

Not really, since I'm not a parent.

[sangha]

265. Wrong, there's never been any need for physical evidence

and physical evidence is just as likely in the case of withdrawn consent as it is in cases where consent was never given.

Because it was consentual up until that point... so the lack of any brusing or defensive marks etc. is all moot now

1) Non-consensual sex (ie rape) does not require physical evidence. Many rapes occur without the use of physical force. Often, the threat of physical force is enough. In those cases, there aren't any bruises or other defensive marks, etc

2) When consent is withdrawn, and the male continues anyway, what makes you think it's impossible for the female to fight back? (Your response implies this by asserting that there's no physical evidence when consent is withdrawn)

Not really, since I'm not a parent.

Not really. Charges of "Child abuse" do not require that the child be your own.

[TLM]

281. You need to check your facts.

"1) Non-consensual sex (ie rape) does not require physical evidence. Many rapes occur without the use of physical force. Often, the threat of physical force is enough. In those cases, there aren't any bruises or other defensive marks, etc"

Nope, read up on the subject. Rape, be it through force or threats, tends to leave brusing on vaginal tissue that is not often found when sex is consentual. THis is due to the fact that when a woman is consenting she is in an aroused state which results in lubrication and muscle relaxation that does not occour when sex is non-consentual.


Evidence Collection and Care of the Sexual Assault Survivor :

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/2forensicevidence/2forensicevidence.html

"Since the posterior fourchette is the point of greatest stress when forceful stretching occurs, and it is the point of first contact of the penis with the vagina, the resulting injury is characterized as an "acute mounting injury" ( Slaughter: 1992 ). In a study that compared 311 sexual assault survivors to a group of 75 women who had consenting sexual contact, researchers identified genital trauma in 68% (N=213) of the rape survivors, while only 11% (N=8) of the women had injuries from consenting sex ( Slaughter, et al:1997 )."



"2) When consent is withdrawn, and the male continues anyway, what makes you think it's impossible for the female to fight back? (Your response implies this by asserting that there's no physical evidence when consent is withdrawn)"

No my response is asserting that such a law makes the physcial evidence moot, because the lack of it could be explained away by there being some consent at first.

A woman could fight back and that would create the defensive marks, but that's no the situation my post was addressing. I'm talking about the way this could be applied falsely, not the situations where it would be applied truthfully.


"Not really. Charges of "Child abuse" do not require that the child be your own. "

And what is your point, that false claims of rape are OK because you can also make false claims of child abuse?

[sangha]

303. Check your facts, but read them first

Rape, be it through force or threats, tends to leave brusing on vaginal tissue that is not often found when sex is consentual.

The important words there are "tends to". IOW, it doesn't happen all the time, and it is no necesarry in order to prove rape.

No my response is asserting that such a law makes the physcial evidence moot, because the lack of it could be explained away by there being some consent at first

Wrong, That doesn't make the issue moot. Physical evidence was never a requirement to prove rape, and this law doesn't change that. Furthermore, the lack of physical evidence could be explained by a threat of violence. Consent is not the only explanation for an absence of injury.

And what is your point, that false claims of rape are OK because you can also make false claims of child abuse?

No, the point is that "false claims" and "consent" are two different issues which you have conflated into one. If a law changes the way consent is defined, that doesn't make it any easier or harder to make a false accusation. The fact that you were falsely accused but not charged BEFORE this new law was passed shows how easy it is to make a false accusation.

You weren't falsely accused because the laws stink; You were falsely accused because the woman you slept with stinks.

[TLM]

317. Did you even read the source I cited?

"The important words there are "tends to". IOW, it doesn't happen all the time, and it is no necesarry in order to prove rape."


No, but it is evidence that helps to do so, and with a law that makes it moot, that makes false claims easier to float.



"Wrong, That doesn't make the issue moot. Physical evidence was never a requirement to prove rape, and this law doesn't change that."

You can keep saying this, but physical evidence is a MAJOR part of proving rape. A rape charge with no physical evidence is almost impossible to prosecute without some witness or other corroborating evidence.

Why do you think rape crisis centers very FIRST instruction to victims is to get to a ER so they can do a "rape kit" to collect physical evidence? They tell you NOT to shower and NOT to clean the clothes.

But a law like this makes all that moot... a total lack of any physical evidence can be explained away as the result of there being initial consent which was then withdrawn.

While lack of physical evidence like virginal bruising does not prove innocence, it certainly goes a long way to help establish reasonable doubt... at least it used to.

"Furthermore, the lack of physical evidence could be explained by a threat of violence. Consent is not the only explanation for an absence of injury."

What do you not understand here... a woman being threatened is not going to have the physical reaction one has when they are having consensual sex. If a rapist rapes a woman by threatening her with violence, the sex will still very likely result in vaginal bruising and other physical trauma because she is physically in a non-sexually aroused state.

Unless you think that threats of violence magically make a woman become lubricated and aroused prior to penetration.

[Wonder]

234. I do not negate your experience and

in this instance I believe what you say is true. In cases of rape the system and the society is not all that fair to the accuser either. she stands trial with as much scrutiny as the rapist, and more often than not the jury is hung.

Women throughout history have had to put up and shut up about many things that have been a detriment to their well being. Realities can be cold, and many times there is nothing that can be done about them.

In the instance you describe you are correct it was not fair, but it is a reality too. Men tend to have no crust when it comes to unfairness toward them. Women have bore the burden of sexual and sexist unfairness for centuries. What can we do? Like I said I do not negate your experience. I believe it happened too. And it sucks. Perhaps there will come a time women are punished for false accusations.

Of course once that time comes for all the actual misogyny that does exist that legality will also risk working against rape convictions even further.

The point is sex requires responsibility. And there are many more scenarios one must anticipate now as people remain single longer and marriage is not a knee jerk reponse to life anymore. I do not know if you knew this girl had a boyfriend, but if you had... of course that places the responsibility back on you for her false accusation see.

Reponsibility, I have advised many of my girl friends that I feel are conducting themselves in ways that will get them into trouble. The problem is as soon as I say something like women need to exercise more caution it gets again into the morality police arguments.

It just seems to me in terms of sex people just want to play. They refuse to accept certain realities. From the male perspective a women just being caution can look to him like a woman that is just playing hard to get. Sex is a game that sometimes you just can't win at.

Instead of fighting these laws and their subtext rather take them as a sign of the times. Both men and women need to understand the game for what it is and choose their partners according to each their own well thought about needs, preferences and wants. Some really go for the powerlust and some get off on the conquest. Both aggressive terms where sex is involved. The law can not protects us all from all things.

Discernment Respect and Responsibilty. I pretty much do not participate in the meat market at all. I have no little girl dreams of even finding a suitable partner. for the most part I feel I have a better chance of being struck by lightening. Of course I do hope that is not true, and still I will not participate in the meat market. I reject the utter sham and affront that it is. There are too many other characteristics about people that interest me more. But that is me.

Those who do not want to look in the mirror and refuse to see the whole picture by denigrating the other sides view points, however valid the others perspectives are, are in my book part of the problem. Sometimes things are just not fair guys.

But there are those of us that have had to cope with much unfairness for a long time. Negating the experiences of another just because it is convenient to our own life experiences and our own views is futile.... and well some are just destine to continue riding on the merry go round... me ... I just had to let it go.

The truth is a bitch. Life can suck and then you die. God some of us are even in denial about aging... that is how in denial many choose to remain... mens views vs womens views are no different really... coming together to the middle seems impossible for some.

[TLM]

246. So you too join in the blame the victim mentality...

"I do not know if you knew this girl had a boyfriend, but if you had... of course that places the responsibility back on you for her false accusation see."


I did not know, as she kept that secret... however even if I had known, that does not make her lie my fault any more than rape is a woman's fault because she chooses to wear a short skirt and no panties.

[sangha]

251. I don't blame you

but I do think you (and everybody else) have a responsibility to get to know someone before you have sex with them. That she had a boyfriend and you were completely unaware of this suggests that maybe you should have gotten to know her a little better before you sleep with her.

IOW, while you are not to blame, there is some responsibility here. False rape charges don't just "happen". Your actions, namely sleeping with someone you obviously did not know enough about, have consequences. One way to avoid being falsely accused of rape by women you've had consensual sex with is to avoid having consensual sex with women who are emotionally stable, and are single. Of course, that requires taking the time to get to know them rather well BEFORE having sex with them.

IMO, it's a good idea to know more about someone that just their name before you engage in activities that can create another life, or give you a disease that could end yours.

[TLM]

261. I did know her... this was not a one-night stand.

We had gone out and hung out several times before having sex. She seemed cool... and she was, until she faced getting into trouble with her boyfriend.

As I found out later her boyfriend was military and was gone for long periods of time. That's why I did not know, and had no indication she had a boyfriend.

And really I do not think you can get to know someone that completely ever, until you see their dark side first hand.

How can you know how dishonest and hurtful someone can be until you see them in action... most get to know you stuff does not really show you that side of anybody.

And again getting into areas of saying, you shouldn't date girls like that is like saying, you shouldn't go to NBA players hotel rooms.

[sangha]

267. Not well enough

"She seemed cool"

Well, obviously, she wasn't all that cool. It's just as obvious that your good judgement is not as good as it can be.

she was, until she faced getting into trouble with her boyfriend.

So why are you sleeping with someone who is "not cool" once she gets into trouble with her boyfriend (whose existence was unknown to you, despite your knowing her so well)??

As I found out later her boyfriend was military and was gone for long periods of time. That's why I did not know, and had no indication she had a boyfriend.

Didn't you meet any of her freinds? Family? How did you eventually find out? (Maybe you should have spoken to these people BEFORE you had sex with her)

I do not think you can get to know someone that completely ever, until you see their dark side first hand.

I don't expect anyone to get to know anyone else "completely" before having sex with them. However, you should get to know them well enough to know that they don't have another lover. These days, mistakes like that can kill you.

How can you know how dishonest and hurtful someone can be until you see them in action... most get to know you stuff does not really show you that side of anybody.

There's no magic formula, but I bet most of the good advice implies that sex happens AFTER you follow the advice - IOW, having sex is not part of a fact-finding tour.

And again getting into areas of saying, you shouldn't date girls like that is like saying, you shouldn't go to NBA players hotel rooms

Well, you SHOULDN'T go to NBA players hotel rooms. But if you did, and you got raped, I wouldn't blame you for the rape. However, I would hold you responsible for your own mistakes, and I would hope that you would learn from the experience.

And if you were an NBA player who didn't want to be falsely accused of rape, I would strongly advise you to not invite women up to your hotel room.

[TLM]

285. If any guy made this argument to a rape victim

they'd be attacked for blaming the victim.


"So why are you sleeping with someone who is "not cool" once she gets into trouble with her boyfriend (whose existence was unknown to you, despite your knowing her so well)??

Didn't you meet any of her freinds? Family? How did you eventually find out? (Maybe you should have spoken to these people BEFORE you had sex with her)"

Yeah I should have psychically known she was not telling me about her boyfriend and that she would lie and accuse me of rape... what could I have been thinking when I trusted a woman and took her at her word. How naive of me to think that a woman might tell the truth and be honest and upfront about herself.

You're right; I won't make that mistake again.

[Wonder]

292. B ullshit I was a rape victim

and now a rape survivor. you refuse to get the point I was making... so keep crying TLM... your side is not the only side here... step back and look at the big picture.

[TLM]

295. Again switch the genders around and imagine a guy saying that

Imagine if I had told you, regarding your rape claim, "so keep crying Wonder... your side is not the only side here... step back and look at the big picture." How would you react?

Do you not even see the double standard?



I see your point, and you are right. However the fact is, if a guy made that same point to a rape victim, he'd be attacked for blaming the victim. Hell read through this thread, guys even questioning a rape law are being branded with “oh well, I understand why you’re afraid of this law” (wink wink) crap.

Sure one should learn from a bad situation like this, and I have. I learned women will lie for no other reason that their own convenience, with total callous disregard for the damage it may cause others. I learned not to trust women because of that fact. I learned not to get myself in a situations where I might have to depend on a woman's honesty. I learned to always make sure I have something more than my word to prove my innocence, should I have to do so.

[Wonder]

298. Hello TLM knock knock in case you hadn't noticed

I am taking in another side... I am not an advocate of lying women... nor do I feel all men rape... nor do I feel all men are liars...

most people do blame the victim TLM that is another FACT here (no matter what crime the person happens to be a victim of)... fine set up those cameras in your bedroom... if that is your solution.. I wish you luck with it... I'd take a different course... I would learn my hormones are dumb dumb dumb (as I have learned) and have opted to hone in on important character traits (besides looks) and what I need to sense... I don't sense it in the character (I might even find myself attracted to) I do not go behind closed doors with that character...

Really I am very sorry for your experience if I was a tough street rodent I'd have kicked her ass for you. She'd have thought twice to lie again.

[TLM]

318. I doubt violence would help anything...

"fine set up those cameras in your bedroom... if that is your solution.. I wish you luck with it..."

I can think of no other way to document proof of consent, especially with laws like this. Absent something like an audio recording or video recording, how would I prove that it was consensual if a girl decided for whatever reason to claim otherwise?

I should note that I never make any video recording without her knowing about it... though I have run a micro audio cassette recorder without the girl knowing.

"I'd take a different course... I would learn my hormones are dumb dumb dumb (as I have learned) and have opted to hone in on important character traits (besides looks) and what I need to sense... I don't sense it in the character (I might even find myself attracted to) I do not go behind closed doors with that character..."

And if you did find someone you thought was OK and then got raped again, would you still think the same way? I mean I understand where you are coming from, but the fact is that I'm not taking that risk again without knowing I have a safety net.

I do not think you can ever know if someone is going to turn on you and show a dark side you never knew was there. It is always the folks who seem normal who turn out to be the really fucked up ones, you know.

[Wonder]

321. I wish you luck

with your camera... I for one would read it as kinky... you would not get me behind your camera...certainly not on a first encounter.. and no I am not sure you do get where I am coming from, but that is okay.

I will agree however, after being a victim of actual violence...not just accusation, you do not ever really know... and since the dating game seems more the sex game... I have remained single for quite some time... those that participate solely in the dating game... do not seem to have the time for anything more than a hit and run... and that goes for the girls that are serial daters as well.. I never went in much for casual sex... can't say after a rape I would be anymore inclined to pursue casual sex now.

the alternative is the single life... especially in a big city one never knows who one is dealing with...no matter how discerning one may be... if I do not feel comfortable I do not go behind closed doors... problem is to feel comfortable I need much more than one date ... like I said most do not have the time... i have a better chance of getting struck by lightening...

but again these constitute some of the realities of life... I can not have myself eaten up by the onesidedness of my own anger... I have worked very hard to come back to the middle with it..

[TLM]

325. Heh I really do get where you are comign from...

I might not agree 100%, but I do understand what you are saying.

"with your camera... I for one would read it as kinky..."

Well it is kinky, kinda... and that's OK, I'm a kinky guy.
:spank:

"you would not get me behind your camera..."

Well technically wouldn't the goal be to get you in FRONT of the camera? I mean unless you have directorial aspirations...


"certainly not on a first encounter.."

Gosh, what makes you think I'm that easy?

" and no I am not sure you do get where I am coming from, but that is okay.

I will agree however, after being a victim of actual violence...not just accusation, you do not ever really know... and since the dating game seems more the sex game... I have remained single for quite some time... those that participate solely in the dating game... do not seem to have the time for anything more than a hit and run..."

I don't know about that. I look at the dating game as a onramp... how long one stays on the road is really up to the individual. Some look for one night stands, some look for the start of something that might last longer. I personaly look for new experiences.

My bad experience was many years ago, and I've not let it keep me from continuing to meet women and have fun, and yes even have sex. I'm just more careful now, and I make sure I cover my ass on the proof of consent end.


" and that goes for the girls that are serial daters as well.."

Damn cheerios get all the good tail...




"I never went in much for casual sex... "

I like it, because I find it is so hard to keep the top hat on... and I just hate it when my dickey rolls up right in the middle of everything.



"can't say after a rape I would be anymore inclined to pursue casual sex now."

Yeah, I can see how that wouldn’t serve as much encouragement.


"the alternative is the single life... especially in a big city one never knows who one is dealing with...no matter how discerning one may be... if I do not feel comfortable I do not go behind closed doors... problem is to feel comfortable I need much more than one date ... like I said most do not have the time... i have a better chance of getting struck by lightening..."

Nothing wrong with that... I usually don't have sex with a girl until after a few dates. Unless she throws herself at me... then I find it rather hard to say no.

But frankly I think my willingness to wait is more a function of my simply having been over sexed for so long that I get very bored rather easily.


"but again these constitute some of the realities of life... I can not have myself eaten up by the onesidedness of my own anger... I have worked very hard to come back to the middle with it.."

I suppose we all watch out for ourselves in different ways.

[sangha]

305. Yes, you were naive

IMO, anyone who believes that a female they dont know very well and are about to sleep with, is "honest and upfront about herself" is very naive. Don't you know that people, women included, often misrepresent themselves to the people they want to have sex with?

You're right; I won't make that mistake again.

Thank you. That's the first time (that I've noticed) you acknowledge that you made a mistake.

[TLM]

320. Misrepresnting yourself is not the same as...

.. flat out lying, then making a false rape charge to try and cover it up. That goes far beyond misrepresenting.


"Don't you know that people, women included, often misrepresent themselves to the people they want to have sex with?"


I made the mistake of thinking women were honest, and now I know better.

[noiretextatique]

330. women are no more honest than men, TLM

at least you know that now. they lie, cheat, steal, murder and misrepresent...just like men.

what she did to you was wrong, cruel and hurtful, and you did nothing to deserve it. i don't agree with anyone who says or implies otherwise.

you chose to have sex with her, and she chose to have sex with you. you did not chose to have her lie about it afterwards...she made that choice.

and she will get exactly what she deserves, because people do not do harm to others without bringing harm upon themselves.

that must have been a traumatic and painful experience for you, and i hope you heal from it. no one deserves that kind of shit for having consensual sex.

as a trauma (rape) survivor myself, i hope you forgive this woman and move on with your life. don't let her have any more power over you, or your ability to trust and love. she controls you if you let her actions continue to harm you...don't give her that power.

it's great that you learned that not all women are honest, but also know that there are plenty of honest women.

this girl sounds like she has a lot of problems...living her life is punishment enough.

[TLM]

333. Where do these honest women hang out...

I'd like to meet them, as I've not met one yet.

I don't think anybody is every really honest... men or women.

And I knew women lied before this happened, I wasn't retarded. I just had no idea of the level of callous selfish dishonesty that was possible. I mean this wasn't a jilted lover who wanted to hurt me, and this wasn't some revenge plot or anything... for her it was just a matter of convenience. It was just easier to completely fuck up my life, than to admit she cheated on her boyfriend.


Also I thank you for your consideration. After your last post I got the feeling you were just interested in giving me shit. Also know that the whole situation is long passed and she holds no power over my life. In fact I don;t even remember what her name was... imagine that.

But I only brought it up because I hate to think what could have happened to me had there been a law like this in place.

[noiretextatique]

337. try chruch...

i've met some really cool people at church. of course, it's a non-traditional church...one that focuses on healing one's self. it's a religious science/science of mind church, if you're interested.

this law wouldn't have affected you, since you didn't press charges. she could have under existing laws at the time. she just wanted to fuck with your head...and cover her ass. i'm glad you are over it...she's not worth a second thought.

i was concerned about you, but i'm glad it's all in the past.

see...i'm not JUST interested in giving you shit :D

[TLM]

344. Sorry but looking for honesty in a church...

is like looking for chastity in a whore house. The whole place is built on a foundation of lies and bullshit.


"this law wouldn't have affected you, since you didn't press charges. she could have under existing laws at the time."

I think this would have made it a lot easier to do so. Under existing laws, her bogus charge would surely have fallen apart, but under this one, I really don't know. There would have been nothing I could do to defend myself.

[noiretextatique]

355. not all churchs are hypocritical

some of them are actually based on YOU dealing with yourself and your issues, like the one i attend on occasion. the great thing about that is...you can actually call people on their bullshit. if you can handle that, it might be a place where you can meet some real people.

even under this law, as with existing law, it would have been your word against hers. since she lied to you, her credibility would have been questionable. the burden of proof is still on the accuser. and she would have to file charges and be investigated.

[TLM]

362. Well I don't know about that....

Organized religion in general strikes me as being about control and manipulation though BS ghost stories and guilt. Not exactly my bag.

[noiretextatique]

365. metaphysics moreso than religion

all about the individual...and taking responsibility for one's conscious thoughts and actions. there is no one to blame, except one's own thoughts and consciousness in this philosophy...it's all about you. if you perceive people to be dishonest, for example, you would need to rid you own consciousness of that false belief in order to attract honest people. i like it...there is no where to hide, and no way to blame others.

[LivingInTheBubble]

382. Hey TLM

Sorry you are still having a tough time over this. Seems like you will never be "in the right" unless you go for a sex change.

Its sad to see the inequality between men and women in society, often against men.

[TLM]

398. Yeah it is a shame... the feminist movement had so much potential

but somewhere along the way it stopped being about equality and started being about getting payback on men by showing men what it is like to be subjected to discrimination.

Instead of working to get rid of the discrimination and bias in laws, they sought to turn it around and prove they could be every bit as discriminatory as the worst of the men.

As with so many social revolutions where the oppressed rise against oppression... and find that instead of getting rid of oppression, what they really wanted was to BE the oppressors, rather than the oppressed.

[Exultant Democracy]

327. Don’t force your private morality on people

If two consenting adults want to have sex with each other, that is there business, be it that they are married to each other, or if they just met two hours ago. Sleeping with a stranger is not a choice that I would make for myself, but I’m not going to criticize some one else for doing it.
All you are doing is falling into the blame the victim trap. Just because a girl wears short skirts and gets drunk a frat house, doesn’t mean she is a fault for getting raped, and the same goes for a guy who sleeps with a girl that later turns out to be a nut case and falsely accuses him. It is unacceptable to shift the blame for a crime from the criminal to the victim, just because their life style doesn’t conform to your preconceived bias.

[Wonder]

257. You are only hearing what you want to hear TLM

I am saying it is impossible to get a conviction on rape... which is unfair... as unfair... as you being falsely accused...

at one point all of us have to look at the realities and take responsibilty to some degree for our choices...

I am not blaming you... but I am a rape survivor and I know exactly how unfair the system can be... therefore ... I have come to a time whereinI know the system can not always protect us all as fairly as we might like... and because of this... I exercise more caution and anticipation with each date I go on and am sure I do not put myself in a compromising position... it is called taking responsibility... I am not blaming the victim... there was nothing I did to deserve the rape... or provoke it... but now many years after the fact I know the reality is if I am hurt justice does not always follow so it behooves me to take responsibility and not always point the fingers out at those bad guys... but instead know the reality and exercise more discernment and listen to that little voice inside over my own sexual horniness or my own dumb dumb hormones.

I therefore applied that same thinking to you in the face of the unfairness of you having been falsely accused... I am not suggesting it was your fault. what I am suggesting is this: There are not many laws to protect you... so rather than judging all women by this one woman and perpetuating certain myths based on your own experience... it will behoove you in the future to exercise a bit more discretion and discernment in terms of your chose of sex partner.

[TLM]

264. I am hearing you say, quite nicely, but still saying...

that me being falsely accused is, at least in part, my fault for not being more careful in who I date.

That because I had sex with a girl of questionable morals that I am responsable for her actions to some degree, that I put myself in this situation and should have been more careful.

And I do not see how that is very different from telling a rape vicitim she should have been more careful and not gone home with the jock or she should have been more careful about what outfit she wore in a bad part of town etc.

It is, to a degree, blaming the victim.

[Wonder]

269. look you choose to miss the point

there are no laws to protect you. In the face of that reality, I am not blaming you the victim for this first incident. I do not blame you at all. I am just saying that as you move into the future, because there are no laws to protect you (and even if there were the might be unenforcible) you must exercise more caution especially if this is an incident that has caused you damage. Doesn't that make sense?

I exercise the same caution and discernment in my own life because I was raped...Now I am extraordinarily intuitive... in an effort to move from being the rape victim to the rape survivor... it is only normal. and it is not because I blame myself for the rape...

but fine if you want to keep insisting I am blaming you... fine... just keep perpetuating those myths you have based on your one incident and your own fears... that would be like me hating all men based on one rape... or all men that looked like this rapist... at one point you have look to protect yourself from another false accusation occurring...

As consolation goes believe me I know it sucks... but in your case there are no laws to protect you and even if there were they would protect you after the fact.. the have no power to prevent another false accusation from happening to you...

of course I am not sure you understand what I am saying, and or what I am saying brings you pain... I am not blaming you.. it is not your fault this girl falsely accused you this first time... just learn from the experience and try to exercise more discernment in the future...

the truth is even if you do (as I exercise great discernment) it will not guarantee that you will not be falsely accused again, just like it will not guarantee that I will not be raped again... but it gives you a sense of control and could decrease the probability of it happening again.

[TLM]

293. I understand what you are saying...

I'm simply pointing out that if a man said it to a rape victim, he'd be attacked for blaming the victim.

There is a real double standard here.


I think you are correct and I have learned from my experience, I learned not to trust women one damn bit, especially when it comes to sex. I also learned that have to protect myself because nobody else will, and if that means audio or video recordings, I’d rather do that than be faced with another situation where I have nothing to prove my innocence. I’ve also learned not to take rape claims at face value, ever, because I know women lie about rape from first hand experience.

[Name removed]

296. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

307. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

312. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

323. Once again, where did i say men do not lie?

"what do you think the connotation is when you make remarks that you don't trust women..."

Um, that I do not trust women? I don't. I also don't trust my dog to sit alone in the same room with a cheeseburger... doesn't mean I hate my dog.


"women are not far better at lying some men just do not seem women as whole beings they objectify them too much... put them on this fucked up pedastal some... "

While I agree men do stupidly put women on a pedestal where they don't belong, I still think women are better liars than men.

"women can be more deceptive than men... that is why I perfer male friends over women friends..."

I think you just agreed with me. Ever see the Chris Rock bit about how men lie more but women tell bigger lies?



" woman can be higher maintenance. Than again men can require much more attention than they think they do..

this gender polarity sucks..."

Yeah I agree, but if we were all the same, it sure would get boring fast.


"I am not the only one responding to the extreme onesidedness of your perspective... "

Yeah but you're the only one doing it in a halfway rational manner.

"please your examples are ridiculous men lie about sex as well."

Where did I say otherwise?


"Look at Bill Clinton he is not an isolated example.. Even Kobe Bryant initially lied about having committed adultery..."

And both of those lies were clumsy and transparent. We all knew Clinton was lying and Kobe while he lied a little better, was still pretty obviously lying about not doing anything.

"get real TLM lying is not isolated to women."

Never said it was... just said women do it better.

[Name removed]

324. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

328. I did not mean to be dismissive...

"from my perspective there is nothing real new about this gender polarity... It bores me to death..."

What I meant was that if that polarity did not exist, and we were all basically the same, that would be terribly uninteresting.


"I tend to generate toward those that have come to peace with themselves and these polarities.. I would rather make love than war..."

I agree, and I nothing if not peaceful about my place in the world. However I don't hesitate to point out what I feel to be true, even if it might cause others to not feel so peaceful themselves.

Really I think you have to kind of step back and see the world for what it is, before you can ever be comfortable with being a part of it. Otherwise you're always just tilting at windmills and getting yourself worked up all the time. You set yourself up for a life of unending disappointment.



"males hellbent on conquest bore me and sterotypically speaking the women they tend to be attracted to in their effort to conquest bore me too."

OK.


"I have to call it quits here TLM. You have never once addressed my wounds, we have spend most of this dialogue discussing yours... you can not yet see past yours and therefore most of your comments come off in the extreme..."

Well in all fairness we really were talking about my situation and my reaction to this law because of the effect something like this could have had on me had it been in place some years ago. I did not bother to bring up your issues, or go too deeply into them because you seem to have them pretty well in hand, and this new law wouldn't really apply to your situation as I understand it, since there was no consent to begin with.



"with little recognition or acknowledgement of the wounds others keep trying to tell you are also in evidence from the other side. instead with you it has been all about those awful women...you seem to refuse to acknowledge or give any compassion to the fact that this works both ways..."

If I was unclear, I am in no way trying to defend actual rape or anything like that. However you would probably agree that when it comes to voices of support there is a far greater level of support and advocacy for victims of rape, than for victims of false accusations. My extremism in my defense of those falsely accused is really a function of the fact that there are so few voices speaking out for what I am saying.

I doubt anybody would disagree, at least not here or in most civilized circles, that rape is a horrible crime that should be met with severe punishment by the law. However, one doesn't see a lot of people willing to step up and say that yes some women do lie about rape, and I think my particular circumstances afford me the opportunity to do just that. I can point this out because I've been there...

"with sometimes the consequence of raping lying men a bit more life threatening then your false accusation."

That's true, however that really wouldn't be relevant to this particular law... unless some guy got physically abusive after she said to stop in the middle of previously consensual sex. However there are already laws that address the type of violent act you described.



" That women lie better or worse is moot... many people lie. Lying is an equal opportunity employer and many people get away with some of our more successful CEO's. Look at the invasion of Iraq... could argue a consequence of a long string of lying....

I gotsta go!"

I agree that no gender has the monopoly on lies, but look at the Bush administration... who is the best damn liar of the bunch... Condi.

[Name removed]

348. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

350. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

351. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

354. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

386. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

360. How does that negate your reality?

I did not say what you claimed happened did not happen... I simply pointed out that what happened to you, while awful, wouldn't be affected at all by this particular law because it was a far more serious crime from the very start. Whereas what happened to me could very well have gotten a lot worse had this law been in place at the time.

That is not to say that what happened to you doesn't matter, or that it wasn't worse than what happened to me, but rather that this law would have made no difference at all in the situation you describe.

And as bad as what happened to you was, it does not change the fact that there are false accusations of rape made by dishonest women and nobody stands up to defend those men who are falsely accused... and god forbid the falsely accused man is black and poor.


I do not require any agreement, you're free to disagree with me completely and I have no problem with that. I had nothing against you, until you started insulting me and personally attacking me, then implying I was a rapist hiding some laundry list. That shit was over the line.

[Wonder]

364. can we just agree to disagree and be done with this?

you began making false accusations in post #343...

you accused me of saying that you defended rapists...

if you reread post number 291 you will see that I made no such accusation...

at this point... we are rubbing each other the wrong way... with that I will guess you can agree...

about everything else at this time it is definitely a good idea to agree to disagree... because my counts on rape vs false accusations of rape just don't add up the way yours do...

so let's just call it a day.

[TLM]

370. You said what you said....

you began making false accusations in post #343...

you accused me of saying that you defended rapists...

if you reread post number 291 you will see that I made no such accusation...


Funny, I looked and again found you claiming that I said all rape claims are false and that I said so to make myself feel better.

"and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..."

How do you figure that saying I said all rape claims are false isn't saying I'm defending rapists?

[Name removed]

373. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

393. More of that subjective female reality....

Please tell me what other interpretation there is for the statement "and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..." other than to accuse me of defending rapists by claiming I said ALL rape claims are false?

This in addition to your other post claiming that I would be angry at having to stop sex at some woman’s request because it might spoil my fun, and that you can somehow divine that I have this “laundry list” of awful secrets because I disagree with you.

Your posts demonstrate a clear pattern of personal attacks and implications that I am defending rapists and worse that I am some kind of sexual predator myself. I’m not the only person who has recognized this and commented on it in this thread. Your attacks are wildly inappropriate and you know it. Now you may claim that’s not what you meant to say or not how you meant it to be read, but that is what you wrote.

If you’d care to retract your personal attacks on me, I’ll be happy to accept your apology. However do not insult my intelligence by trying to pretend your words were intended as anything other than a snide personal attack.

[Name removed]

399. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

415. Once again...

Please tell me what other interpretation there is for the statement "and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..." other than to accuse me of defending rapists by claiming I said ALL rape claims are false?

[Wonder]

467. asked and answered

it means exactly what it says, your reality that many women lie which is why you keep telling ourself there are so many false accusations that this law will be vulnerable too. Nothing about that statement in any way accuses you of what you insist it accuses you of. It is in your head.

[TLM]

473. If it means exactly what it says....

it says, "and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..."


You clearly say that my position is that ALL rape victims’ accusations are false. You put ALL OF US in caps to hammer home that claim. And also you say that I tell myself that to make myself feel better.

"your reality that many women lie"

All women lie, though I never said all rape accusations are false as you claim.

"which is why you keep telling ourself there are so many false accusations that this law will be vulnerable too."

Nice leap there... from saying I believe "all alleged rape victims falsely accuse" to saying "you keep telling ourself there are so many false accusations." If you meant what you said, why are you changing it?

You said my position is that "all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US" and holding the position that all accusations of rape are lies, would be a position defending rapists.

Oh and by the way, the fact is that even the DA quoted in the article said that this law is too vague and could be easy to abuse.

[Wonder]

475. Believe what you need

to draw a real informed opinion on the law you need to read it yourself and compare it to the transcript on the case... I read that is what the DA stated and I have not a clue what he is referring to as I haven't read the law.

as to your twistory...and your back peddling...both our posts stand on their own merit if anyone is insane enough to judge.

you have great fears about women and truth and lies. believe what you want. I really don't care. You have left an indeliable impression on my mind. One that puts me off. Others here have left me with different impressions. I could be wrong I could be right. Why in the world are you so concerned with what I think about what you said? I will never know!

All my impressions stand. there is nothing you have said thus far to have changed them. Do understand I had no impression of you at first, and indeed I did commiserate with your misfortune, but in having dialogued with you since has formed an impression, and this is not a reflexive response when I emphatically state: there is nothing that could at this time salvage me justifying any further discussion with you on this topic. You will have to find someone else to continue this discussion with.

[TLM]

485. Trust me I won't miss the respect of somebody who keeps

posting claims like this:

"however according to this small crew of guys so so so plagued by their FANTASIES and FEARS...incidence of actual rape are so minimal that instead they feel MACHO enough to denigrate the FACTUAL AND REAL LIFE experiences of the RAPE SURVIVORS here as merely that of HYSTERIA."

Then when someone asks her to provide a link to back up that claim, she insults them and attacks them.

And when someone says later that you said guys in this thread said "the FACTUAL AND REAL LIFE experiences of the RAPE SURVIVORS here as merely that of HYSTERIA" you'll deny having said it, call it twistry and launch into more flames.

[Name removed]

487. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

319. here's the difference: you weren't raped

that's the difference. false accusation is not the same as rape...it's not comparable to rape. you are a victim of a person who LIED, not a person who raped you...LYING AND RAPE are not comparable. LYING isn't a crime...RAPE is a crime.

the woman who claimed you raped her did not press charges against you...if she had, THAT would be a crime.

you had consensual sex with someone who later claimed you raped her. you were not FORCED to have sex with her, were you? if so, THAT would be RAPE.

what happened to you was terrible, but yes, you CHOSE TO have sex with her...she didn't force you did she? again...that would be RAPE.

you are not like a rape victim...you are not comparable to a rape victim, because you were NOT forced to have sex, and lying is not a crime.

so your analogy is completely FALSE.

[TLM]

329. You do not comprehend the analogy...

"that's the difference. false accusation is not the same as rape..."

I did not say they were... what I said was that the argument saying that the false accusation was my fault is the same argument as saying a rape is the victim's fault.


"it's not comparable to rape. you are a victim of a person who LIED, not a person who raped you...LYING AND RAPE are not comparable. LYING isn't a crime...RAPE is a crime."

Actually lying about someone committing a crime is against the law... it is called slander. But I had no way to prove she was lying. I was helpless to defend myself, and while the violation I suffered was far from being as severe as rape, it was similar in many ways. I was subjected to violence, I was made to feel helpless and unable to defend myself, and I had my personal life and reputation trashed.



"the woman who claimed you raped her did not press charges against you...if she had, THAT would be a crime."

Oh so I guess just telling all my co-workers was find then and I should have just shut up and bent over and taken it, right? Maybe I was asking for it, right? Maybe I really wanted it?



"you had consensual sex with someone who later claimed you raped her. you were not FORCED to have sex with her, were you? if so, THAT would be RAPE."

No in my situation the force came when I was forced to endure the backlash of a false rape accusation. I was forced to fight two guys who jumped my in the parking lot. I was forced to leave my job. That is when the force came into play.


"what happened to you was terrible, but yes, you CHOSE TO have sex with her..."

I see so because I choose to have sex with her, her subsequent lies and the wholesale rat fucking of my life and loss of my job was all my fault.

Again, that's the same crap argument as saying that since Kobe's accuser chose to go to his hotel room, what happened was her fault.

Lots of rape victims had made bad choices that put them in the situation where they were raped... that does not mean they were to blame for their rape. Likewise the bad choice I made to trust a woman, does not mean it was my fault when afterwards she chose to lie and destroy my life.

And you are right about one thing, my situation was nothing like that of a rape victim in one way... a rape victim generally gets support and sympathy from those who she tells that she was raped. When someone tries to blame a rape victim's rape on her, they generally get attacked for it.

However when a man tries to proclaim his innocence and that he's falsely accused, he is assumed to be guilty and he is attacked, often quite literally and physically. People like yourself seem to see nothing wrong with blaming the man for being falsely accused. There is no sympathy and no support, he is very much on his own.

So you are right, it is not the same. However the idea of blaming the victim for a crime is always a shit argument... regardless of the crime, be it slander, or rape, or assault, or mugging etc.

[noiretextatique]

358. you were the victim of a LIAR

if there was a crime involved, it was slander, as you mention, and you had legal remedies available to you that you chose not to pursue.
at least in that regard, you are LIKE many rape victims who do not press charges because it would be a he said/she said situation....just as yours was.
while i feel for your situation, i do think the analogy is still false in that you were never forced to have sex.
you were forced to deal with the consequences of consensual sex with a liar.
i'm glad to admit that is not the same as being raped. and of course, you know i do sympathize with you.

[TLM]

363. There was no option avialable to me...

"if there was a crime involved, it was slander, as you mention, and you had legal remedies available to you that you chose not to pursue."

There was no way for me to prove it was slander and since it would be in civil court, I'd have to pay for costs and representation out of pocket. So it really wasn't an option.

[noiretextatique]

367. in that sense, you are like many rape victims

who do not see options, or chose not to pursue them because the would be difficult or burdensome...or hard to prove. i do understand your analogy now.

[Wonder]

Here is the point: Just because you were falsely accused

does not negate the fact that rape occurs and therefore exist rape victims that ARE telling the truth. JUST LIKE. My having been raped does not negate the fact that there exist bullshit devious women who lie about a rape having taken place.

One thing for certain is the precent of false accusations actually getting to trial is very low. Has it happened? Yes it has. But the stats show that there are very concise investigative methods in place for weeding the false accusations out even before charges are filed.

Again this does not negate your experience...

[study_war_no_more]

241. the burden of proof is on the accuser

calling her out in court would have put that into the light. Last year I was accused of sexual harrasement by a co-worker because a security guard was escorting her to her home from our workplace. He was new so I asked him what he was doing with my girlfreind? We all laughed about it at the time but two days later I was accused of sexual harrasment. Luckily we have a policy that says if you feel uncomfortable with someones behavior tell them to stop. If at that point they don't then you can go to your supervisor which is who approached me. I later found out that another coworker a gay man who I had declined dates from had put her up to it. I don't talk to niether of them and he is not allowed to talk to me period. Toxic personalities are everywhere just look at the whitehouse. All the more important to carry yourself with integrity and call people on their games. I'm never was pissed at the girl just confused until I found out who was behind it, if she had said I don't think thats very funny I would have apoligised immeditely. My regret was that we were reasonably freindly before this incident.

[HFishbine]

274. Source?

"The number of false rape charges is about 2%, the same as any other crime..."

Source or link?

[saskatoon]

407. You seem to have the wrong slant on this

This case is based on her AGREEING, you seem to be not taking that into consideration

[samsingh]

432. what about the 2%

who are falsely accused?

[demdave]

8. Here is the exact language of the bill......

Provides that a person who initially consents to sexual penetration or sexual conduct may not be deemed to have consented to any sexual penetration or sexual conduct that occurs after he or she withdraws consent during the course of that sexual penetration or sexual conduct.


I think the problem is the amount of time needed to stop the act. I believe being in the heat alone would require a moment to process the request. Also, would asking the other person what was the matter and perhaps touching them in an affectionate manner violate this law? Granted I am married and will never have to worry about this, I'll ask my wife to be sure, but if my lover were to stop me in the act I think I would ask why and try to find out what is the matter. This may include touching or carressing.

On edit....I remember a Playboy article about 10 years ago that had the phrase..turning sex into a matter of mother may I. It is getting frightenly close to that now.

[study_war_no_more]

40. moment to process?

what? whether to respect this person's wishes? they are obviously not mutually enjoying sex at this point? why would you not stop? whats to process? Do i want to rape this person?

[regnaD kciN]

193. Oh, really...

Granted I am married and will never have to worry about this

I hate to break this to you, but being married is no defense under this law. A wife could bring rape charges against her husband just the same as a girl could do with her boyfriend.

[sangha]

202. "Mother, may I"

You have a problem with requiring consent??!!!!

[TLM]

214. Are you familiar with the game "mother may I?"

This is not an argument about getting consent or not getting consent.

This is an argument about getting consent for every single action... may I touch your breast, OK, may I touch your leg, OK, may I kiss you here, OK, may I kiss you there, OK, may i insert my penis, OK, may I insert it again, etc.

Some colleges actually do have a policy that this is what you must do... ask permission before every single action.

It seems the goal is to make sex so damn complex that men will be so afraid of being accused of something that they won't even bother.

[sangha]

237. Yes I am

And I see no problem with requiring consent for each and every action. Permission to touch a boobie is not permission to fuck.

It seems the goal is to make sex so damn complex that men will be so afraid of being accused of something that they won't even bother.

Yeah, right. I remember a time when it wasn't OK to do any of that stuff with, or without, consent. It didn't seem to stop the guys from trying, though.

Also, your statement assumes that sex isn't complex. It is.

[TLM]

290. Then why act as if the two are the same?

Getting consent is not the same thing as having to get consent every 10 seconds. Are you still OK with this..... how bout now.... ok how bout now.... still consenting.... how bout now?

"And I see no problem with requiring consent for each and every action. Permission to touch a boobie is not permission to fuck."

No but is permission to touch a boobie the same as permission to touch the other boobie or to kiss the boobie?

This would seem to me to be a seriously effective way to kill any level of romance or spontaneity... let alone passion or excitement. It makes sex about as intimate as putting together a desk.



It seems the goal is to make sex so damn complex that men will be so afraid of being accused of something that they won't even bother.


"Yeah, right. I remember a time when it wasn't OK to do any of that stuff with, or without, consent. It didn't seem to stop the guys from trying, though. "

There is a big difference between something being socially frowned upon, and being illegal.


"Also, your statement assumes that sex isn't complex. It is."

No my statement assumes that these laws seek to make it MORE complex.

[sangha]

308. Don't put words in my mouth

I never said they are the same. You are the only one here who seems to see any similarities between the two. At first, I wondered why you were bringing up some childs game, but now I see why. You only brought it up so you could later accuse me of linking the two when it was YOU who has linked the two.

No my statement assumes that these laws seek to make it MORE complex

This law is very simple. When consent is withdrawn, the action stops. Which part of "NO" is too complex for you?

[TLM]

331. I am going by your exact words.

"I never said they are the same."

When DemDave said this reminded him on a playboy article that talked about making sex a matter of "mother may I," which is a game where you ask permission repeatedly for every action taken, you responded with the following:

"You have a problem with requiring consent??!!!!"

It seems to me you were saying his problem was with REQUIERING consent at all, rather than requesting consent repeatedly.

I figured that you simply must not know the game he referenced, otherwise you'd know that the problem is not with REQUIERING consent but with requesting consent over and over and over again.

"At first, I wondered why you were bringing up some childs game, but now I see why. You only brought it up so you could later accuse me of linking the two when it was YOU who has linked the two."

If you bothered to read posts before flaming them, you might have noticed Demdave made the reference to the game, not me. I simply called you on your acting as if his problem was asking for consent at all. I assumed you didn’t know the game... but now it is clear you did, but simply ignored that in favor of attacking someone.

[Wonder]

413. those men possessed by this fear of being falsely accused

perhaps then they shouldn't bother. As you describe it, it really does seem even the thought of sex becomes clearly too upsetting, especially when so possessed by one fear or another.

Even in the instance where this woman said she wanted to go home. We have not the transcripts of the trial or her initial reports to establish what more than this one statement the rape charge and the conviction was based on. So as far as I can see you continue to paint pictures based on your traumatic experience. It might be something to consider: Until you can trust yourself a bit more and the choices you make in your casual sex partners, it might be best you ttake a break from sex for a while. At least until your fear subsides a bit.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Something tells me...

That this law is a nightmare of revenge and sociopathy waiting to happen. I have been around enough corners to know that much.

[hippiechick]

10. I gotta ask ....

So if you're with someone whose really, really, really BAD - I mean AWFUL - can you say 'no, wait --- stop', then claim it was against your will ??


EEEEEEEwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhh... what a slippery slope ....



:hippie:

[private_ryan]

11. to all you guys and girls who oppose (as you should) this

watch out for the usual gang to start questioning if you're a rapist or push things too far during sex. It happened to me during a Kobe Bryant discussion...

[Name removed]

416. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jiacinto]

12. What if the man is climaxing when the woman says stop?

Sorry to ask that graphic question, but this is the key concern.

But on a more serious note let me add that "no" means "no". And if a woman says "stop" then the man needs to stop and vice versa.

[Heddi]

45. if he's climaxing

then he can pull out. It's been the preferred birth control method of choice for many a people too cheap to buy condoms and too stupid to care about pregnancy

[Porcupine]

14. Making it illegal to be male in California.....wheeee

already in the state of California the law will put a man in jail if a woman picks up the phone and dials 9-11. They don't have to prove anything at all. All they have to do is have a complaint.

Note carefully: These are impossible to defend against. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF INJURY!!! The woman CANNOT WITHDRAW OR REDUCE THE SEVERITY of her complaint. If the man has a public defender he will not get a reasonable defense.

I believe that women should have the right to say no and/or be free from physical harm. However, there should be some PHYSICAL standard of evidence required for a woman to send a man to jail. Currently there is not. She complains: you do time. Period.

Think about it.

I have to report to jail today for a Domestic Violence case. There was no injury, or claim of injury but that doesn't matter anymore. The men do time anyway. Thanks.

[Wonder]

120. ...

see my below message

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

218. I think he is talking about domestic violence....

In CA this is the case. If a woman calls the cops out to a place and claims she's being abused by her husband/boyfriend, and he is there, he goes to jail for the night.

[noiretextatique]

315. geez...that law also applies to WOMEN

it's the abuser who goes to jail...regardless of gender. you really need to knock that boulder off your shoulder.

[TLM]

334. I have no problem with that law.... none at all.

However, the man is generaly assumed to be the aggressor, and he is usualy the one who goes to jail.

I know of onl one instance where a woman was arrested under this law, and that's only because she walked right in front of the cop and belted the boyfriend again.

However like i said, I have no problem with DV abusers going to jail, regardless of their gender. I was simply pointing out that he wasn;t talking about rape laws, but domestic violence laws.

[noiretextatique]

361. i know of a precedent-setting case

regarding this law. a family member (in-law) had the dubious distinction of setting this precedent. she is a lesbian who is an abuser. she was tried and convicted of domestic abuse, and obviously she is a woman. her case set a precedent in two regards:
it dispelled the myth that women are not abusers
it heightened awareness about same-sex domestic violence
she spent some time in jail for viciously beating her partner.

[regnaD kciN]

192. You're right -- no defense possible...

Note carefully: These are impossible to defend against. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF INJURY!!! The woman CANNOT WITHDRAW OR REDUCE THE SEVERITY of her complaint.

In rape cases where it is essentially an instance of "he said, she said," the general standard is to see if there's any physical evidence of force being used, a struggle during the events, or so on.

This new law basically strips the standard away. The difference in terms of physical evidence between fully consensual sex and a case where the woman suddenly says "stop" just as the man begins climaxing will be nil, and therefore physical evidence won't be usable. All that will matter is whether the woman's testimony sounds credible.

I don't know what happened in the Kobe Bryant case, but he should be happy this law wasn't in place when the incident in Colorado happened. He'd be looking at 60 years without a doubt.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[study_war_no_more]

244. I think domestic violence is a differnt issue

The reason law enforcement is brought in is that women feel so intimidated that they will decline to press charges. This is recognised and also law enforcement has had a history of not prosequeting domestics this is another reason for such a law. Its a gigantic step forward but given the amount of domestic deaths are rising we still have to be diligent.

[MaraJade]

346. What about deterrence?

There are numerous laws on the books that are difficult to defend
against under certain conditions.

Suppose, for example, that a person accustomed to heavy drinking
passed out only to wake up with a bloody butcher knife in their
hand. Upon looking about, that person finds a blood-spattered corpse covered with knife wounds lying next to them. Later forensic
testing shows that the only fingerprints in the room belong to either
the drunk or the murdered person.

It is entirely possible that the drunk didn't murder anyone; however
it is entirely possible that they did. It would be very difficult for that drunk to defend against the murder. Notice--I said
"difficult"--not impossible.

Based upon the argument above, would any reasonable person think that
laws against murder should be done away with simply because there
might be situations where defense is very difficult. I think not.

Indeed, laws against murder remain on the books for the purpose of
deterrence. These laws give a reasonably functioning person the
chance to think twice before acting on the intent to kill.
Weighing the consequences of breaking the murder law may serve
as a preventive.

Matters are the same with this "saying no" thing. I believe that
this law is designed as a deterrent. Yes, there are people who
will deliberately break the law, just as there are people for whom the penalties for murder do not serve as a stopgap. However, (and thank God) these sociopathic types are a rarity.

The "no means no" law is designed for the rest of us. For the people
who might just be tempted every now and then. The existence of the
law serves to make reasonable people stop and think about the possible consequences of their actions.

And one of the consequences of uncaring, disconnected sexual
encounters apart from any meaningful, respectful, loving and permanent relationship could be the unpleasantness of being accused of rape.

[Name removed]

378. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangha]

211. Not true

Your "explanation" depends on the consent being withdrawn "just as the man begins climaxing". This new law doesn't require the man to ejaculate, or even come close. IMO, the "just as" argument is meant to discount or even ignore a man's responsibility for his actions by portraying the man as being "beyond the point of control"

[Name removed]

332. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

301. But here is the thing JDW

How credible do you think the word of a rape victim is. I mean in reality not in your head. You fail to consider that even in the face of other evidence conviction rate on rape is low. Most rapists are acquitted except in the cases where the violence is extreme.

I am not in complete agreement with the professor on this. This law just risks watering down the conviction rates even lower, rather than the opposite that is being argued here. The cause of a rape conviction coming in solely on the accusers word is NIL. While it seems a fantasy some here like to indulge. The accuser is tried as guilty until conviction. Most times what occurs is acquittal with no justice served at all.

I will agree most emphatically with The Professor. His or her comments are correct this law takes us backward but not for the reasons you say JDW. The accuser has no clout at all. My guess is probably charges will be based on the same criteria they have always been based on but for the fact that in those instances when when do change their minds and for very valid reasons... and the sex is continued by force... both the man and the woman know that by law this constitutes rape.

Beyond that this law is superfluous. Does diddly to impact the rape mentality if anything it just strengthens it.

[Name removed]

371. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

377. No I did not mean to say alleged rapists I meant to say RAPISTS

why because my first trial the jury was hung he was not an alleged rapist. He was a rapist. Mine is not an experience isolated to One. And NO the world does not revolve around me as you might feel it revolves around you. I do not base my opinion on my ONE experience. So go shake your rattle at someone else.

Tell me something. Do you usally ask such leading questions? Or do you never allow someone an opinion of their own?

[Name removed]

384. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

394. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

459. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

463. I never said I could.

and Neither can you assert your claims with 100% certainty and since it seems you refuse to take in my empiracal experience with the system, I can not help you.

I am not even sure at this point what it is you would be inclined to believe.

I never stated false accusation did not exist, but that the percentages of times it gets to trial is so low in comparison. So many cases where a rape takes place do not get to trial based on the strident proof requirements already set firmly in place. How often must I repeat these same facts regarding police and judicial procedure? DA's will only persue cases they feel they will win. This law is no different.

While its enforceablity is debatable, perhaps for those that might not have understood certain boundaries, this law will give them pause, and in doing so it may act as a deterrent, though something tells me even that is debatable. I am in agreement with those that believe it will be more difficult to enforce than the rape and date rape laws already on the books, which are already difficult to enforce.

I do not fancy myself any of the the things you say and neither have I obviated any of the issues. You state you must wait for a precedent regarding this law, well in fact one has already been set. A man was convicted. We do not have the transcripts to the trial. And it seems to me for the most part your opinions are much more baseless than mine.

From experience I state it can not be this case went to court based on this girl having stated "I want to go home". That would be assinine. And if that were the case this law would be discriminatory. The real fact of the matter is we do not have the transcripts of this case, so we do not know upon what evidence this man was convicted. Her word only? I seriously doubt it.

What we do know is that "no" can be indicated in tone as this girl in this case did not state "no", but "I want to go home". Unless the transcripts state otherwise, and based on my actual experience with the system not just one trial but on my way to two (the second virtually against my will); it can not be that was the only evidence the DA acted upon: her word that she said she wanted to go home. Can't be.

If so the law is completely bogus and will hurt rape convictions in the future. It might do that anyway. My guess, as I stated as a guess in another post, this law was legislated to firmly clarify the right to withdraw consent of both men and women, in an attempt to perhaps aid in the enforcement of date rape, or in those cases where after consent one partner changes sexual venue.

Many times people consent to sex as defined by their own sexual boundaries. In casual settings one may not know what kind of sex was consented to. Foreplay begins and one party changes sexual venue. As a matter of fact, this is another thing we do not know about this law: the reasoning behind why it was legislated. What precipitated the need for the law? You think it was legislated for the sole purpose of jailing innocent men? Affording women an edge in the event they may feel the need to black mail any given partner they might have their devious mind on bring down for reasons of revenge and hysteria? While certainly there exist devious women out there, her word alone will not be enough to render charges. To refute her word might require the man is picked up for questioning, if that is the case I need to see the legislation itself.

As it stands now behind rape and date rape laws, burden of proof is on the accuser and alleged perps are not pulled in even for question soley on the word of the alleged victim. Not even for questioning. Questioning is rendered at scene of investation in the field if the alleged rapist states upon being questions the alleged victim gave consent, the will not haul him in until additional evidence is obtained.

As I said in my case if he had not expressed remorse my case would have been dropped no sooner than I made the complaint. I rendered the DA with a surveillence audio tape. Along with the kit and the bruises and the weapon he was arrested over two weeks later. and even with that evidence first jury was hung. The fact is as I stated in an early post there is no verifiable opinions about this law that can be stated conclusively without actually reading the law itself.

I commiserated with a poster who was falsely accused until it became evident he needed me to agree with him completely regarding what I thought to his biased statements. He, like you do not seem to be responsive to either the facts I have presented that I do not have to back up, nor to the various statistics and studies placed here. We are inclined to believe different.

My beliefs, and opinions here are all based in Fact and experience, yours seem based in fear and opinion with some support from studies whose baseline parameters and findings have been criticised adequately enough as to render them not altogether conclusive, and only specific to the cohort they based their findings on.

That the false accusation studies can be applied across the board nationally is debatable. One thing they do seem to attest to at least the false accusation studies I read through, is that all accusations found to be false within the study precincts and study time periods, were weeded out at ground zero. The studies were police precinct studies in which most false accusations were discovered before perp was apprehended or if apprehended the false accusation was weeded out before charges were rendered.

We both see the studies and the statistics provided in this thread and others like that. We both see the varied critiques of these studies and these statistics even in the case of those studies on false accusation the statistics are not all encompassing nor quantitatively or cummulatively reliable or conclusive.

From one to another, one criticial analysis when considering them all, found that one studies findings were completely in reverse of the findings of another study based on similar parameters. Of course on the flip side there are studies to refute what appears to be strong rape statistics as well. Such is the world of clinical trials and statistical analyses.

The various critiques have been provided. Of course I am going to slant a certain way on all statistics and studies provided because I have been through the system, I know other women who have been through the system and I have encountered others that never reported their rape: 7 that come to mind almost immediately. From date rape to violent assaults. One man of all the men I have known in my life tells me he was falsely accused I commiserated with him. I find the thought offensive and appalling and my commiseration did not seem to please him adequately.

Based on my personal experience, my acuity in deciphering statistics and study criticism, along with my understanding of even the various biases of the various critiques from both sides, my experience, my knowledge of the Facts I have already stated, these tell me the fears expressed here in regards to this law are irrational and baseless, as for the most part those expressing with great passion their fears are grasping at straws. They have neither experience with the system, they seem unresponsive to the facts I have offered that indeed are facts, and are spewing for comments that are completely reflexive.

While more than once I have responded from the utter disgust of my emotion only twice were those responses reflexive. I apologized to both parties. As to my sense and my analyses of the studies and the statistics provided here and within other threads, my assessment is hardly based in reflex, but in deductive and pragmatic reasons.

That you may disagree with my assessment is your freedom.

As for your attempt to denigrate my character. I have written numerous and quite varied posts within this thread. I have little to defend.

[Exultant Democracy]

17. Ouch, time to go down to kinkos,

And print out another batch of consent forms, to go with my "yes am going to get drunk but I really want to sleep with you later" forms.

Seriously if a girl says no or stop I don’t care what I’m doing I’m stopping, messing around with this stuff is bad news.

[Wonder]

123. YOU NEEDED A LAW TO DRIVE HIS POINT HOME?

Just curious?

[knowledgeispower]

18. Soon we will have to sign contracts to "engage in sexual relations"

"Initial here, initial here, date here, and sign here please."

Sorta takes the romance and spontaneity out of it, no?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

20. Possibly,

but the idea does have some merit.

[KittyWampus]

23. We Already DO HAVE CONTRACTS

They're called marriage lisences.

[MaraJade]

95. But even in some states, Marriage does not

give people the unlimited right to sex altogether. In Pennsylvania, for example, marrieds have a legal right to say no. If she/he tells her husband/wife "No", that's the end. There can be no demands or threats(of course, one could plead affectionately). If a married woman or man is put under duress to have sex by their spouse, then it is rape.

Some people might think that this sounds stupid, but it really isn't.
Think about those cases where a woman is forced by her
husband and unwanted pregnancy results-- (not to mention the fact
that being forced is really very unpleasant for the person on
the receiving end of the sex).

The sad part about all of this is that these types of laws are
designed for the clueless and inconsiderate among us. People who
are so inwardly turned that they see everything and everyone as
something to be used for their own selfish purposes and desires.
After all, it is selfish to press oneself upon another when that
other may not truly be desirous of the act.

What is needed in today's society is simple politeness. Being
aware of what others really want and paying kind attention to their
needs and feelings. If everyone would only throw out the rude
selfishness and "me firstness" then there would be no need to have
laws like this.

[regnaD kciN]

190. It wouldn't matter...

...any such "contract" in the world would become irrelevant if the other party claimed they initially consented but changed their mind in the middle of things.

[BearFlagDemocrat]

19. Have I stumbled on the FreeRepublic?

With all the male "victimization" threads here, I wasn't certain.

[Exultant Democracy]

21. It isn't a male victimization thing

It is more so a sucks for everyone thing. It sucks for women who have been raped and victimized by men in power for thousands of years, it sucks that it had to come to this to protect them. It sucks that sex can't just be the simple lovely innocent act that it is supposed to be.
In the end I think I even support this law. Why? For the same reason that black people can say “nigger” and white people can’t, because the privilege was abused. Men historically abused their privilege to have sex with women. If on the other hand a few years down the line women abuse their rights, and stupid innocent slobs are getting arrested because they choose to sleep with the wrong girl, then I would support rolling back a lot of these laws.
In the end it is highly probably from a historical stand point that at some time in the future these laws will outstrip common sense and we will discover a happy median that protects both the woman and man equally. Until then we, quite rightly, must era in favor of the women.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

26. that's the problem, though

laws don't get rolled back - more get piled on top of the current ones. I can see a lot of abuse of this law by unethical people.

[study_war_no_more]

42. or you will find a mature relationship

where sex is an expression of love. (what a concept) When sex is a game there will always be losers.

[Yavin4]

46. Wow! Thank You Morality Police

Thank you for telling adults how to live their lives.

[study_war_no_more]

81. nothing moral about male privalage

As an adult you should know that and not try to play the moral card.

[Exultant Democracy]

130. That wasn't a reference to male privilege

It is about every persons privilege to engage in consensual sex with another adult. Anything that goes on between to consenting adults is their own business and we have no right to interject our own moral views into their private sexuality.

[sam sarrha]

204. hey, a hard 'on doesnt give you special privilage,

or dominion over the rights of others. the "i couldnt stop" defence is about as good as "i couldnt drive" because i was drunk" if a man has any problem with the subject of 'no means no, NOW', then you need to sit down and reflect on the defination of RAPE, and write.."NO MEANS NO, NOW", 1,000 times.. if you have a problem with it then you lack an essential element of the evolution from animal to human. :spank:

[Dork]

60. well said

This thread is scary in places, I'm glad you said this.

[Wonder]

169. Here is how strongl y I feel about one of your points.

"If on the other hand a few years down the line women abuse their rights, and stupid innocent slobs are getting arrested because they choose to sleep with the wrong girl, then I would support rolling back a lot of these laws."

Even now if any rape accusation is proven to be false. There should be a kind of rape perjury law whereby the woman who consciously made a false accusation she be convicted of rape perjury and made to do the time alloted for exactly the kind of rape she lied about along with all the additional counts of rape.

That is how strongly I feel about a woman who would falsely accuse. The crime of rape is ENDEMIC. False accusation hurt the chances of impacting this crime, this is way false accusations are weeded out at the ground level, while we know false accusations do get to trial, their incidence is very low. It is only in the cases of serial rape or when serious bodily harm is clearly evident that convictions are easier to come by. A woman who purposely and consciously falsely accuses should be punished to the max. They do the issue, which is an important one and does require addressing, much more harm than good. And a liar should do his time, I have said it before, if I have to I will say it again.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Umbram]

437. Wow, this is sad.

It's pretty horrible that people stop listening to what other people are saying and start spinning things all out of control when a sensitive subject is being discussed.

It's just turned into poo slinging.

One would think we could try and maintain some semblence of respect and sensitivity, at least towards eachother.

;( ;( ;(


edit-
oops, this wasn't suppose to be directed at this leg of the conversation but at the whole thread.

i clicked reply in the wrong spot. sorry :(
-edit

[TLM]

220. So again we see that the goal of many is REVENGE!

"In the end I think I even support this law. Why? For the same reason that black people can say “nigger” and white people can’t, because the privilege was abused. Men historically abused their privilege to have sex with women. "

The goal of some who claim to be feminists or to want equal treatment under the law, is revenge against white males, for past abuses.

So what if some men have their lives ruined by flase rape claims... 100 years ago they wouldn't let women vote so now men deserve to suffer, right?

[Name removed]

302. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

335. You have to replace my MANY with ALL....

then you whine about my generalizations?

"In the end I think I even support this law. Why? For the same reason that black people can say “nigger” and white people can’t, because the privilege was abused. Men historically abused their privilege to have sex with women. "

Read that again... because of past abuses, today's double standards and bias is OK. That is clearly a rational for revenge, not justice or equaility.

You can make all the baseless personal attacks you want, but an argument they do not make.

[private_ryan]

22. oh, we're sorry

we'll just bend over and not complain about a law that could send any of us in jail for life for something we didn't do, just because she sounds more credible in the witness stand.

how dare we freepers?

[study_war_no_more]

43. dear sir

when in doubt keep it out.

[private_ryan]

50. does that apply to women who get raped?

is it their fault for going to a guy's room at 4 am?
or choose to walk home at 2 am, alone?

when in doubt...
oh, I see you can't blame the victim if the victim is a female.

[study_war_no_more]

83. thats right

if a woman goes to a mans room at four AM or chooses to walk alone at 2AM she may have reasons other than wanting to be raped thats correct sir.

[Wonder]

127. LOL -- yes reasons OTHER than wanting to be raped.

funny the lengths one must go to clear it up for others...

[TLM]

223. So what you are saying is that

If a woman is raped, it is the man's fault. I agree.


Yet if a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, it is also the man's fault because he should have known better than to behave in an irresponsible way that could result in a woman falsely accusing him?

How is that argument substantively different than blaming rape on a woman for her behavior or what she was wearing?

I believe that is the point ryan was making.

[Wonder]

125. WHAT A REVELATION HUH --- PRIVATE RYAN

I am so glad I had the opportunity to witness you coming to an understanding on the law. Especially since I had so much trouble understanding WHY you seemed to harbor so much fear about being falsely accused. As I said in another post NOW maybe that fear of yours will go away. You may not like it very much BUT THAT IS THE LAW whether she comes up for a drink at 4am or walks late at night home alone, or smiles at you even if this might anger you, and it doesn't even matter how she is dressed.

welcome to reality private ryan - sir!

[LuminousX]

122. The best advice I've seen so far

nt

[TLM]

221. I agree... when in doubt, simply do not bother with her.

Leave droves of women wondering why guys won't talk to them and why they can't seem to meet a nice guy.

Because the nice guys are the ones worried that we'll get accused of sexual harassment or rape. So we don't even bother any more.

[noiretextatique]

275. i really don't think "nice guys" worry about that

some unsolicited advice: do not allow that one experience to color your view of all women. you give your power away to the woman who falsely accused you if you continue to do so. and you may miss out on meeting some nice women...there are a few out there, you know.

[TLM]

297. Not just one experience... that's just one of the worst ones.

If I listed all the times I've seen women lie to cover their own asses, and totaly fuck up guy's lives in the process, it would probably crash the board.

I do not assume all women are dishonest hurtful selfish vindictive creatures, but I don't give them the benefit of the doubt any more either.

[Wonder]

299. We know TLM Guys don't lie Only Women

as for your experience being the worst experience... best read the papers... check into the suffering of the world and count your blessings...

[TLM]

336. Once again, where did I say guys do not lie?

If you have to make shit up that I didn't say, obviously you can not refute what I did say.

"as for your experience being the worst experience... best read the papers... check into the suffering of the world and count your blessings..."

Oh yes lucky me... have fun in my ignore file.

[noiretextatique]

304. if i told you of all the women i know who have been

molested, raped, beaten, abused, tortured...and murdered...that would overload this board also. like my friend lucy houston was shot and killed two years ago...by her husband. he dumped her body in a car, parked it at a cemetary...then went on about his life. her crime: she wanted a divorce.

there are some women (and men) on DU who are survivors of things that totally fucked up their lives...things like rape, molestation, incest. some of them are lucky to be alive.

people can be assholes, that includes both genders. however, i think my point still stands.

[TLM]

338. And you point is?

If it is that one bad experience should not serve to malign a whole group, that is true. However consistent bad experiences and observation of bad experiences that do seems to establish a consistent pattern, should.

To base a conclusion about a whole group on one experience is prejudice... to base a conclusion about a whole group on a hell of a lot of experiences is called learning.

Republicans are greedy...
Women lie...
Snow is cold...

[noiretextatique]

359. have it your way...women are liars

you seem to have some need to believe this. my point is that people can be vicious and nasty, and that no on gender has more of those traits than the other. my point is that men also lie, cheat, rape and kill. i felt the need to point that out to you.

[TLM]

368. Not a need, just experience....

I've never met a woman who did not lie to some degree.

I'm open to changing my opinion upon meeting an honest woman, but it just hasn't happened yet.

I have met a few honest men, but not many.

[Name removed]

375. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

392. Most men as well...

I can count the number of honest men I've met on one hand. However I've met a lot more women than men, and I've yet to meet an honest woman.

[Wonder]

300. when in doubt, simply do not bother with her.

good rule... much better than that video camera idea you have.

[Wonder]

124. BINGO Private Ryan you don't BEND OVER to this law YOU

WILL BE ACCUSED OF RAPE

Might just alleviate that fear you seemed to have about being falsely accused now doesn't it? this law makes it very clear the boundary. I often find myself wondering how many nice upstanding guys who get pissed when women just smile at them are violating this boundary regularly.

Now you can rest easy. This law was enacted just FOR YOU, to assuage that fear you had so much trouble explaining to me. Now you don't have to wonder or worry about being FALSELY ACCUSED. This new law makes it crystal clear YOU FORCE THE ISSUE it is called rape. Especially if after the girl has changed her mind and for whatever reason.

Well... ain't that a bitch!

[noiretextatique]

222. the "fear" of false accusation is telling

i understand one man in this thread has been falsely accused...i understand his pov. but to the rest of you fearful ones: given all the rapes that occur in this country (see a post in the lounge right now about a DU member's neighbor being raped last night) do you really think women are just waiting, hoping, and wishing for an opportunity to falsely accuse YOU? do you *really* believe that?
one man here falsely accused, that i know of here, but several women who have actually been raped. repeat after me: one man falsely accused, several women who have been raped...seems the anecdotal evidence here is an argument against this fear of false accusation.

now...has any woman here ever falsely accused a man of rape? i know i haven't...and i can't imagine doing so. i know there are instances of false accusation, but as the poster in the lounge mentioned, there have been four rapes in the area where he lives. this rapist is breaking into houses...he is s stranger. would you agrue that he isn't *really* guilty of rape if he stops before ejaculating? or if the woman doesn't actually say no, is she giving consent?

rape is not a trival matter, though it is trivialized in this culture. and rape is NOT always a matter of "he said/she said." if the extremely large man who was lurking outside my house a few years ago actually broke in and raped me, that would not be about "he said/she said"...it would be about breaking and entering and rape...just like the post in the lounge. thank goodness a neighbor saw him from his window, yelled at him, and called me. he was still outside my window when my neighbor called me, but he took off after my neighbor threatened to call the police. this incident scared me...i got window locks and a new door lock. this incident also pissed me off...let that fucker try to get in here again...and i'll be ready for his ass this time.
this is the kind of fear many women live with. this is the fear the wife of the lounge poster lives with, as do all the women in her neighbohood. and the poster is afraid for his wife too.

and...none of you are entitled to a woman's body if she doesn't want you to have it, and yes, that means she has the right to change her mind, even during sex. as i mentioned, i do not believe there are legions of women are salivating at the potential opportunity to falsely accuse YOU. i believe the statistics on false accusation support my claim.

as to whether or not this law is necessary...apparently it is.

[KittyWampus]

24. Sex Within A Committed Relationship

Sueing someone because they didn't stop in midstream would, IMO, occur largely amongst people who engage in causual sex.

How did so many people end up brainwashed into thinking casual sex is not only acceptable but desirable?

Whatever happened to the concept of people being resonsible about how they spend their creative energy?

[amazona]

78. no, end of committed relationships would be the problem

You're good to go for casual sex with this law. Especially if it's a pick-up who doesn't know your name or where to find you.

The problem I've seen with these accusations comes when a "committed" relationship comes to an end.

Your danger of attracting a psycho stalker is MUCH higher if you allow your real name, where you live, etc. to be known to your sex partner. And I would presume that only a psycho/stalker type would be likely to make a false rape accusation.

On Edit: One of my acquaintances is a sociopath and makes a hobby of accusing people of crimes, and I started to post a long-drawn-out story about her adventures in accusing people of rape, blackmail, etc. but it would just muddy the water. Suffice it to say that if we deny these people exist, we are insulting the intelligence of anyone who has some experience of the world. The law is supposed to protect us from the sociopaths among us, not provide them with new tools for harrassment.

[MaraJade]

175. What ever happened to old fashioned courtship???

That's the problem. People today seem to want a series of non-committal instant sexual encounters. Sex has degenerated into a purely animal serial mating activity where one person basically USES another and then moves on to the next victim without a care for
whatever consequences may result.

I was dismayed to read of people giving false names etc to sex
partners, and I was horrified to read of the person who engages in
sex and then files false accusations against the former paramours.

Both things are utterly sick. I am very afraid for the future if
anyone who thinks so lowly of their fellow human ever reproduces
and passes this general disrespect for life and humanity on to
their offspring. On the other hand, the person who gives false
information may end up with offspring that they never know about,
just more children that end up on the government dole needlessly.
This makes me very sad.

Call me old fashioned, but I think that two people should start out
with the attraction, then decide to spend quality time together
getting to know and understand each other. It takes time to learn
a person and trust a person. Lovemaking should come
into a committed, caring relationship of equals who respect and
honor each other, preferably married. No need to falify names.
No sick accusations. No abandonment. Just love. Simple love.

Me. . .happily married 17 years. . .

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exultant Democracy]

129. Well Said n/t

[TLM]

228. I agree and that post tells me something....

that laws like this are more about making casual consensual sex more difficult and more dangerous, than they are about protecting women from rape.


We are seeing the development of a mentality where the line between regret and rape is growing finer and finer. That is a very dangerous area.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

25. How would this ridiculous law ever be enforced?

How could one know the truth - ever?
Too many damn laws in this country. 2.1 million people in jails and prisons. Insane.

[demdave]

27. Mandatory sentencing....three strokes and your out.

.

[Nihil]

64. No - you can't even get another ONE in now!

Emergency stop: Must keep control and no burning rubber! :-)

[Wonder]

139. They have been trying to enforce this since Rape was placed

On the books. Conviction rates are low. I guess they felt they had to define the boundaries a bit clearer. I mean define when boundaries are crossed which takes consentual sex to rape. Apparently, and judging by some of the responses to this original post, some have not a clue what defines rape in the more mundane and less psychopathic cases ergo this new law.

I guess the hope is that if there is a law that specifies the boundaries in no uncertain terms incidence of rape will decrease. If not enforcing it will be just as difficult as enforcing the sexual abuse and battery laws already on the books.

It will be the same thing. Women falsely accuse, or they caused it somehow, or whatever the standard faire is on that. If you are unfamiliar with the standard objection to rape laws, all you have to do is read through the thread here. What constitutes the rape mentality is very much alive within this thread.

Now I must also add, I find your question problematic, in the same way I have found some of the responses in this thread problematic and mind you I AM NOT MAKING ANY ACCUSATIONS. However, the thought does cross my mind that this law comes as kind of a surprise to some wherein it seems to me some have no clue what goes into the definition of rape, which is merely forcing someone to have sex if they don't want to. This law drives the point home as to also including those scenarious when a girl changes her mind. At any time that force ensues sex become rape. It is that simple

will it effect conviction rates. I tend to doubt it. Will it make it any easier to try, Probably not. It still just boils down to her word against his and many times his word wins out. I am not even sure some woman understand the boundary which could also be why so many rapes go unreported. That and the fact that the process a rape accuser is drag through is not condusive to encouraging rape victims to come forward.

With this law without this law I can not imagine much will change, as you can see there are all sorts of myths that still live making rape the fault of the victim.

Again, (from the boy next door that does not take no for an answer, to the frat boy who feels she does not have a right to change her mind, to the power rapists to the serial rapists). The main problem with rape is the rapist. The second problem with rape is the society at large which harbor ingrained sentiments responsible for feeding the rape mentality. What constitutes the rape mentality? That is a whole other conversation which so few are actually capable of having. Which is the third problem with rape.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

29. What is at issue here

is not a woman's right to say no. That's been established, and this dumb law clarifies it for the peabrained homo sapiens. The question is the potential for abuse on the part of those who wish to hurt the other individual - could be male or female - with false, unverifiable accusations.

[Dont B bush N Me]

55. No, I don't think it has been clarified for peabrained Americans yet.

Otherwise it would not be a historical fact that the one who is raped has her character destroyed to prove the innocence of the rapist.

Gentlemen have no problem with this or any law verifying the womans right to say no and have it respected.

[TLM]

232. SO do you think if a woman accuses a man of rape...

that should be it... no trial or investigation because that might tarnish her reputation, and no checking to see her behavioral history etc. to see if she's made bogus claims in the past. We should just assume the stupid penis owner is a rapist and be done with it?


If you think a woman's reputation is damaged, try being a guy who is falsely accused of rape.

[Wonder]

253. Please come back to reality

no rape charge filed goes uninvestigated. you are not in reality now. If she had filed charges she would have been subjected to much scrutiny prior to her claim going to the DA and quite frankly her false accusation would for the most part have been weeded out before any charges were filed.

It is ignorance only when guys insist that the police go running out to pick up an accused rapist just based on the accusation itself. Now. I can appreciate your concern. However if you insist on not looking beyond your own experience at the whole picture, and refuse to educate yourself on the actualities of the police and investigative process involved behind a rape accusation than you too will be only perpetuation only your own considerations, fears, and prejudices, which are based in your mind rather than any knowledge of the criminal process itself.

No woman walks into a precinct accuses a man of rape and has the police running out right after to pick him up. It does not happen. Her accusation even if not false may never even reach the DA's desk.

[TLM]

339. Did you even read the statement to which I was responding?

"Otherwise it would not be a historical fact that the one who is raped has her character destroyed to prove the innocence of the rapist."


It was a pretty clear attack on the idea of actually checking out the validity of an accusation and the credibility of the accuser. That's what I was taking issue with.

[chasqui]

30. hey, even when

your mouth says no, and your body says yes?
;-)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

113. I can stop mid-pee anytime I want, what's the big deal with that?

:shrug:

General question for those in this thread:

If the woman consents to vaginal intercourse, has she consented to any/all other sexual activity? Let's say, he wants anal intercourse too ... does that require additional consent, or can he force her? What about a blow job, if she consented to "something else" but doesn't care to give a blow job, can he force her?

I say consent to one activity does not give consent to all others. I also believe that even in mid-intercourse, if she says no then he should stop. (The same goes for the man, if he tells her to stop whatever she is doing, she should stop.)

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

137. Who defines what is a good reason?

yes, it's uncool to say stop for no good reason ... who decides if the reason for saying stop is a good one or not?

quote from your post:
"it's uncool to say stop for no good reason,"

what if your partner thinks it's a good reason, and you don't? I think most people would not say stop without a good reason, don't you?

I think we are in agreement, I just have trouble with the "good" reason thing....

[Wonder]

213. it's uncool to say stop for no good reason - PLEASE READ YOUR OWN MESSAGE

AGAIN

"yes, it's uncool to say stop for no good reason ... who decides if the reason for saying stop is a good one or not?

quote from your post:
"it's uncool to say stop for no good reason,"

what if your partner thinks it's a good reason, and you don't? I think most people would not say stop without a good reason, don't you?

I think we are in agreement, I just have trouble with the "good" reason thing...."

-------------------------

This is not a matter of squabbling over if the reason for the call to stop was a good one or not. That is not your call. You might not even understand why STOP was called. If STOP was called is all you need concern yourself with. She might call STOP for what you might presume is no reason at all. What NOW she (OR HE) needs a good reason? Whatever the reason STOP is STOP. Whether it is followed by an explanation or not. Whether one likes the explanation or not.

What is the median age range on this forum?

[Scout]

282. READ YOUR OWN MESSAGE

and stop shouting at me! you've totally misunderstood my post it seems ... and my gender, and now you're questioning my age/maturity? FYI, I'm female, 43 years old, feminist. I was responding to other posters...
poster's names in bold, comments of theirs that I'm responding to in italic...

ChillEB Tue Jul-29-03 06:33 PM Response to Reply #28
96. Women should be able to say "stop", and the man SHOULD STOP!
I've NEVER had that happen to me in my life, but if a girl ever consented to sex with me, and then told me I *must* stop right in the middle of the act, I would stop. Of course. That is the 'right' thing to do. Then, I would proceed to do the next 'right' thing, which is to tell her to get dressed, hand her cab fare, tell her to hit the road. The phone number would then be righteously thrown in the trash.
I'm sorry, but absent of some compelling outside factor (such as the women being accidentally injured during the act, or her husband coming home...), it is really UNCOOL to make a guy stop in the middle of the act. Sure, they should do so if asked. But if you don't want to get it on, DO NOT START. Asking a guy to stop in the middle is like asking a person to stop peeing halfway through the pee. If you've never tried it, ladies, I recommend doing so a few times. Just so you have some perspective...
--------
Scout  (974 posts) Tue Jul-29-03 07:34 PM Response to Reply #96
113. I can stop mid-pee anytime I want, what's the big deal with that?
General question for those in this thread:
If the woman consents to vaginal intercourse, has she consented to any/all other sexual activity? Let's say, he wants anal intercourse too ... does that require additional consent, or can he force her? What about a blow job, if she consented to "something else" but doesn't care to give a blow job, can he force her?
I say consent to one activity does not give consent to all others. I also believe that even in mid-intercourse, if she says no then he should stop. (The same goes for the man, if he tells her to stop whatever she is doing, she should stop.) 
-------
ChillEB  (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-29-03 08:17 PM Response to Reply #113
126. Of COURSE he should stop... I don't see anybody arguing that he shouldn't. That seems to be a common distortion of the facts amongst the more hysterical on this thread, though (not accusing you of that )
My only point is that it's uncool to say stop for no good reason, once you've committed to the act of vaginal intercourse. Not saying she doesn't have every *right* to so, or that it shouldn't be respected immediately. It would bum me out, not so much because I'm not going to get off, but because my feelings would be hurt by it. I sure as hell don't want to be 'doing it' with someone who doesn't really want to - personally, I am completely *lost* as to why any guy would rape someone. ALL of the pleasure for me stems from the fact that the woman wants it, and is enjoying it. If she isn't, then I'm not... 
--------
Scout  (974 posts) Tue Jul-29-03 09:29 PM Response to Reply #126
137. Who defines what is a good reason?
yes, it's uncool to say stop for no good reason ... who decides if the reason for saying stop is a good one or not?
quote from your post:
<this is from post #126>"it's uncool to say stop for no good reason,"<now back to my post> what if your partner thinks it's a good reason, and you don't? I think most people would not say stop without a good reason, don't you?
I think we are in agreement, I just have trouble with the "good" reason thing.... 
------------------------------
Here's what I meant to say.
1. If two people are having sex, and one says stop the other must stop, I don't care if they are about to come or not ... I don't care if it's the woman or the man saying stop, the other should stop.
2. I don't think a person in the middle of sexual activity would say stop unless they felt their reason was good. They don't owe the other person an explanation (it might be nice to give an explanation especially if it is an emotional/intellectually close relationship, however the explanation is not "owed" and the stopping is not contingent on an explanation for the desire to do so).
3. I was trying (and apparently failed) to point out to ChillEB that whether a reason is good or not in the mind of the person asked to stop has no bearing on the situation. The request/command to stop is enough. You simply can't get into a discussion of the reason why, because a reason is not required, and because the other party may not think the reason is "good."

Clear now?

[Wonder]

289. Well Shout you just straightened me out

shout shout get it all out. Yup. I jumped into the middle of your dialogue but failed to read the rest of the remarks you were commenting on. So I misinterpreted your comment completely out of context.

Yup. I get it now. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight. Not only that I agree with you completely...

I have to be careful sometimes I can see this...Although I don't make this kind of mistake often I have made it now two other times in all my responses. I go back and forth from being too emotionally involved with the issue due to first hand experience to than reeling myself back to pragmatic.

For some reasons in your case I only read your comment out of context and went a bit ballistic. Thank you for not letting me get away with it.

[Name removed]

383. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

403. oh christ, another one ...

my #282 was response to Wonder's #213....

this paragraph that seems to have gotten your panties in a wad:
"I was trying (and apparently failed) to point out to ChillEB that whether a reason is good or not in the mind of the person asked to stop has no bearing on the situation. The request/command to stop is enough. You simply can't get into a discussion of the reason why, because a reason is not required, and because the other party may not think the reason is "good."
was trying to explain to Wonder what I was saying to you ... Wonder was the one that apparently failed to understand that point in my post to you ... poorly worded on my part, granted... since you had not yet responded to that particular post, how could I have been talking about you specifically, hmmm?

Whether the WOMAN or the MAN requests the other person to stop, they should ... I never said only the woman gets to ask the man to stop....

people areound here have some serious reading comprehension problems....

[Name removed]

460. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

260. what if she's having a heart attack?

or if she thinks you are a lousy lover? or maybe she's in pain...that happens sometimes. boy...you are a REAL sensitive kinda fella, aren't you? newsflash: stopping sex won't kill you. it may disappoint your weenie, but you will actually survive.

[TLM]

229. Are there not rules against posted sexist crap like that?

You're bascialy saying american men are all peabrained rapists...

[saigon68]

387. ???

why

[saigon68]

439. ???

???

[Cheswick2.0]

31. Easy solution for Private Ryan and all others....

Afraid that they may be harmed by this legislation.... Stop having cheesy sex with relative strangers and girls you pick up at the end of the evening. Women with whom you are commited are unlikely to accuse you of rape in a situation like the one outlined.

I know, what a concept.

[private_ryan]

33. it's my fault now, right?

maybe women should "Stop having cheesy sex with relative strangers and men they pick up at the end of the evening. Men with whom you are commited are unlikely to rape you in a situation like this law describes"

no rape, no need for rape laws right?
and since when having cheesy sex with strangers is punishable with a life sentence?

[joshcryer]

53. Cheswick didn't say anything was your ‘fault.’

Cheswick merely pointed out the obvious. If one was more prone to have actual relationships rather than nightly flings, then obviously the chances that they will be accused of rape will be lowered.

What your sentiment seems to be suggesting is that it's okay for a male to continue fucking a female after she says no. Or fuck her when she doesn't want him to because she's dressed sexually or showed up at times where it seems that's her sole intent. This is obviously a corrupt ideology. Men shouldn't rape people, period. There is no ‘justification’ for rape. None.

I agree that life imprisonment might be a tad excessive, at least for first time offenders (though you much agree that the more you do it the bigger your punishment ought to be). But c'mon, be realistic here.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. yes women should

I agree. But that doesn't make rape her fault. It is you fault if you don't stop when asked. The ball is in your court (so to speak). Don't be a crybaby, stop sleeping with women you barely know, much less care about....if that is what you are doing. It is your penis to control honey, not mine.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

240. That's not accurate at all...

In cases of rape, be it date rape of getting attacked by a stranger, there is a very set pattern of forensic proof. A large part of that is vaginal bruising, which does not tend to be present in consensual sex acts.

This law sets up a situation where such evidence is not needed... or rather where the lack of such evidence is not seen as proof of innocence.

Do you think a man should go to jail based on NOTHING but the woman's word that it was rape?

[Wonder]

306. THE BURDEN OF PROOF

WILL NOT CHANGE...with or without this law... you haven't even a clue what the expression means when one says blame the victim... you little misfortune carries so little weight when compared to the blame foisted upon rape victims.

EVEN WITH THIS LAW IT IS HE SAID SHE SAID...THE BURDEN OF PROOF WILL STILL FALL ON HER.

Do you in a million years really believe police will start hauling in guys and DA's will seek charges JUST BASED ON HER WORD with no zero zilcho investigation necessary to substantiate it. You are just not in reality here. I do not care what this law implies.

[TLM]

349. The real heart of your anger and attacks....

"I do not care what this law implies."


The burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the accuser, no matter what the crime.

"Do you in a million years really believe police will start hauling in guys and DA's will seek charges JUST BASED ON HER WORD with no zero zilcho investigation necessary to substantiate it."

Please cite where I said no investigation... sure there will be an investigation, which will be accused of being a malicious attempt to destroy the poor woman's life and reputation, because they dare to presume that someone is innocent until proven guilty. A claim already made in this thread about the investigative process.

My point is that lack of physical evidence that previously stood as significant for establishing reasonable doubt, can now be explained away by saying the first half was consensual and it wasn't rape until after the point where most physical evidence of rape would be established.

Anything that makes it harder for the innocent to establish their innocence is a bad idea.

[Name removed]

353. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

258. do you have any proof of what you claim is "quite common?"

as a scientist, i would think you could provide some statistics on that situation you claim is "quite common"...please do so.

[TLM]

236. Yeah men it is your fault for being falsy accused...

that is the EXACT same argument as blaming a woman for being raped... it was her fault for getting together with that kind of guy when she was wearing that outfit... or her fault for going to that NBA player's room. She should have known better.

THat argument is shit when used to blame women who are victims and it is shit when used to blame men who are victims of false accusations.

[noiretextatique]

243. TLM...i know you were falsely accused...that's ONE MAN HERE

as far as i know who has been falsely accused. i know of several women who here who have been raped...from "date rapes" to horrendous stories of kidnapping and torture. one woman here was left paralyzed by her attacker (s). i would estimate the number to be 30 women that i know of personally, and it would not surprise me if it is much higher.

there may be other men here who have been falsely accused, but i have only seen your story. so, 30 women raped to 1 man falsely accused.
make that 31...there is post in the lounge right now about a DU member's neighbor who was raped last night. there have been four rapes in the area where he lives.

i don't bring this up to diminish your experience in any way...just to point out that false accusation is relatively rare, and rape is relatively common.

personally, i detest women who falsely accuse men of rape...it makes it that more difficult for real rape victims, and it can ruin a man's reputation and life. and i can see how the stigma, and the suspicion could follow a man for some time...and even land him in prison.

[Wonder]

309. The Rape Survivors on Board Here Noiretblu

clearly do not amount to a hill a beans in the face of this false accusation all women lie scenario... mostly it is trumped up as an excuse to harbor resentment toward women...

you make a very fine point. one of the things that blew my mind when I first came into these rape threads (for lack of a better name), was how over everyone's head it went that there were a significant amount of rape survivors in these threads. In all these days comes one actual false accusation...

you can say this till blue in the face... we women are just evil... or pain matters not.. nor do the double standards we deal with regularly hell the ERA isn't even signed...

I have witnessed the most amazing cruelty behind some of the most horrific rape testamonials, much worse than my own and mine was no picnic. It is as if we say we stubbed our toe...

[noiretextatique]

322. i know EXACTLY what you mean, wonder

as far as i know, TLM is the only victim of false accusation, and even in his case, the accuser did not actually file charges against him.

i understand HIS anger to some extent, he is the only man here who actually had that experience...at the least the only one to share it.

on the other hand, there are many rape survivors here, myself included...as i said, i know of at least 32...including you.

and while i feel sympathy for TLM, it is very difficult for me to feel any for those who simply *fear the possibility* of false accusation after hearing some of the horrendous stories of rape, incest and abuse shared by women and men here.

considering what some people have been through...people right here, the whining in this thread appalls me.

some of the women have survived some particularly brutal rapes...their stories are just heart-wrenching. not that ANY rape is a picnic...and certainly much more traumatic than some people realize. certainly more significant a trauma than stubbing one's toe :eyes:

i don't think most people are intentionally callous...just incredibly unthinking. and i don't think everyone knows about the number of DU rape survivors.

and of course, there are a few dedicated misogynists...i just try as best i can to ignore them.

[TLM]

342. Gosh i wonder why that could be...

"he is the only man here who actually had that experience...at the least the only one to share it."

Considering I've only been insulted and accused of defending rape... I can't imagine why more men are not lining up to share their experiences with this crowd.

[noiretextatique]

380. please...must you be the last victim?

the reason men aren't sharing false accusation stories is: they haven't been accused falsely. but, we know some are fearful of false accusation...that has been shared, ad nauseum. if women who have been beaten and raped can share their stories, why can't men who've been falsely accused? perhaps it's because you are the only one.

[TLM]

341. OK I'm done...

I'm finished with this shit.


I try to point out the fact that there are men, myself included who are on the losing end of this situation, and I get mocked insulted and personaly attacked. I get accused of dismissing or even excusing the rape of women here, when all I'm doing is pointing out that some women do lie about rape. It happens, it happened to me and it happened to a friend of mine.

You want to ignore that and try to dismiss it by accusing me of defending rape.

You prove my point as to exactly why a law like this is bound to be abused by selfish dishonest women.

[TLM]

340. I'm the only one who has steped up to say something...

I would bet there are others who do not want to even open that can of worms for reasons obvious in this thread. Look at the mocking and insults that have been sent my way. I would not be at all surpsied if men here had similar situations and simply were afraid to say anything.

When guys who even dare to voice disagreement are suddenly given the wink wink nudge nudge "we know why your afraid of this law mr. rapist man" treatment, would it be any wonder if they didn't want to say they'd been falsely accused?

[Name removed]

381. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

396. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

409. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

414. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

421. you are the ultimate victim...satisfied?

all women are liars...most men are too. you have been personally attacked for your views, as have those obsessed with the possibility of false accusation, though you are the only one who actually claims to have that experience. that makes you a bigger victim than everyone else, including acutal rape victims. congratualtions.

that experience, apparently, gives you license to be a bitter misogynist, or simply to sound like one. this of course, is your opinion, and must not be challenged...otherwise, it's a personal attack. but you are free to attack all women...correct? they are, after all, liars, for the most part.

likewise with the penis-obsessed boys, who believe consent is withdrawn once they are in the "act," because they can't stop...unless of course there is a good reason to do so. reasons to be determined by them...that's tantamount to, well...you figure it out. at the very least, it's saying their penises have more power over there actions than to their tiny little brains. women, to them, are simply places to insert their penises...and of course, liars....just waiting for the opportunity to charge them with rape.

YOU ALL ARE VICTIMS, btw. whether real or imagined...the fear of potential false accuations is clearly more important to some than the prevalence of actual rapes. you even equate yourself to a rape victim...i finally conceded that to you. CONGRATULATIONS, you are even more of a victim than actual rape victims. does this make you happy? YOU ARE A VICTIM, TLM. a victim of lying, dishonest women, like most women...including the ones who have victimized you here, and elsewhere. you are completely innocent, however, and do nothing to bring any of this on yourself...it's those horrible, dishonest, evil women.

i have stated several times that i don't agree with this law, and so have others here.

you, and a few others, have expressed opinions that have nothing at all to do with this law, e.g., all women are liars. women are just waiting to fuck over men...blah, blah, blah.

what happened to you was wrong...it doesn't give you license to be a victim for the rest of your life. or to claim that you are a bigger victim than anyone else. your "women are liars" mantras is bullshit...not rose-colored whatever...just plain, old bullshit. and it does indeed reflect on you, and your credibility.

opinions are like assholes...everybody has one. my opinion is that you are bitter...i say this because of what you've written, not because of who you are. i am challenging your words here, not your being...since i don't know you from adam.

and you certainly did nothing to bring this on yourself...i am clearly one of those lying women. we're everywhere, you know...lurking behind every corner, just waiting to abuse you.

[Name removed]

434. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

455. projection? nice try...no dice

i'm not the one who was claiming all men are liars and rapists...you were claiming all women are liars. and you probably still are in another post. but, i see you're changing your tune now...at least in this post. everyone is dishonest to some degree...everyone lies...WMD...women lie just like men, who apparently lie too...do tell? no longer all women, and just some or most men, eh? not at all what you were saying previously, btw. nice clean-up job, though. it seems you might have actually learned something.

[TLM]

461. Feel free to cite the post

where i said men do not lie.

"i'm not the one who was claiming all men are liars and rapists"

No, you're calling me stupid, a neanderthal, full of shit, and a boorish penis obsessed boy.

You've shown far more hostility and agression in your attacks on me than can be found in my posts. I said all women lie... you're the one calling me names and freaking out over some victim contest I didn't even know was going on.

[Name removed]

410. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loyalsister]

32. "Suddenly, in the midst of it all

I found themself handcuffed to the bed with this man\woman standing over me with a whip and... I changed my mind."
I think this is the kind of thing this is intended to address.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. If they are standing over you

If they are standing over you then your not having sex yet. We already have laws against rape.

[loyalsister]

63. Coitus interuptus?

Isn't it possible that there are people who are into that kind of crap who can get started, but lose the mood unless they get violent?

[enki23]

35. in one respect, it's common sense. in another...

if "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard which must be met, then this seems as though it could (or, at least, *should*) only be enforced in extremely rare circumstances.

[WonderTwins]

39. Y'know

This makes some sense. From the woman's point of view, if you're doing it and it's just not working, you should be able to stop it. It's not as if when you start you're consenting to hours of blah or whatever demented ideas he's come up. There's a built-in performance clause here, boys. Hit it or quit it, y'know?

From a man's point of view, it's not always possible to stop immediately, but when she says 'stop,' maybe making a dignified retreat is the right thing to do. Y'know?

[Booberdawg]

94. Oh for God's sake

It's not about time limits or endurance or a "built in performance clause" during otherwise consentual sex. It's about rape.

And for the record, from a man's point of view, it IS possible to stop immediately. A penis does not have it's own brain that causes it to continue without his permission. He can stop.

[kamtsa]

41. The law should provide a grace period of 30 seconds or so n/t

[Yavin4]

44. I Strongly Disagree With This Law

It's the criminalization of sex. If you're in the middle of a consensual sex act, and the woman changes her mind and says "stop", how can you ever prove when the rape occurs. If he continues for another thrust right after she says "Stop", is that rape?

I believe that women should be protected from rape, non-consensual sex, and from being attacked, but you have to take some responsibility for your actions. If you consent to sex and enagage in it, then that's that.

[Booberdawg]

47. On the flipside

There are guys who think that once things get heated, or she is naked, she no longer has a CHOICE to say NO. Therein lies a problem. No means no. Any guy who thinks he is ENTITLED to sex at ANY point, even if there has been some foreplay, and she changes her mind, is out of line, and it is RAPE. If FORCE is used, it is RAPE. You are not entitled to a reason for her changing her mind. That's life.

C'mon guys. You are not going to die from an erection or from not getting off right at that moment. It's an inconvenience. Go home and beat it off. She might be stupid. She might even be a tease, (which makes her a bitch), but it's still RAPE, and it's not okay, it's a crime. NO means NO.

Note what the law says:
"The law clarifies the issue of consent by making it clear that people can change their mind even while having sex. If someone says "no," the other person must stop or it becomes rape."

It says "CLARIFIES"!! It has always been the case that people can change their mind even while having sex and the other person must stop or it becomes rape. This new law CLARIFIES the issue of consent, making this more clear. So guys, you really have not lost any rights; you didn't have this right to begin with.

[Wonder]

117. Yes there ARE guys that think that.

and it is that mind set that is seriously part of the problem. why we need an actual law I guess, exactly because of this mind set.

rape is generally not a matter of sex but power wherein if force is the operative word.

seems simple doesn't it?

[jpgray]

48. I should use this if the girl is on top and terrible

Haha; funny. Ha ha; ho ho; hee hee.

That this law is directed wholly at guys is what makes us comfortable. We may just like casusal sex more than the ladies do, and we don't want it to become overly complicated: we don't want to have to interpret sex-talk once in the act. You think our brains can multitask that way?

[jpgray]

49. See, now I have an uncontrollable urge to qualify this

What I really mean is I'm a big ape-man, whose simian ancestry makes me secretly want to rape hordes of women to exult in my power and domination over them. Also I eat puppies. And I crapped on a book of Plath's poetry. Yeah that's right, even "the mirror" sucks.

[JackSwift]

51. Being a California lawyer

JackSwift has heard many jokes from friends to which he has to reply, I'm not a criminal lawyer (we didn't say you were ha, ha like I've never heard that one) but the Supreme Court decision was 7-0. The case involved both teenagers agreeing that she said to stop. She was rather reluctant in the first place. It is my opinion that police and judges in this state are really, really stupid and love railroading people. So after much unprofessional study I've figured out three ways to defend against this crap for all you fornicators, adulterers and married weirdos still doing it with your spouses:

1) Deny, deny, deny that she/he ever indicated stop. Admit it was consensual. (Duh Kobe.) Only do this if it is true. Do not ever lie to the cops, I am not advocating perjury, I am against that. But don't be at all hesitant.

2) Consent form. Signed consent form to have sex and to be video and audio taped during the act to prove consent was not withdrawn. Consent form should require 30 days written notification of withdrawal of consent just to be safe and to show contempt to idiot State Supreme Court Justices.

3) Abstinence. Stop having sex with people, and don't leave any "DNA" where some crazy person can frame you. It is no accident that our seven supreme court members are six real republicans and one Davis appointee who is no different than a republican.

While I fully support the right of a woman to withdraw consent, making this a bright line issue is going to put a lot of men in prison and cause a lot of blackmail. The Cal Supremes are idiots. So are the lower court judges, but that is another rant.

[joshcryer]

54. Just be honest.

The line is basically made when the guy comes. After that point, a female really lacks a case if she claims the guy didn't pull out. Really, this doesn't change rape cases. And it's sad, because one does have to take these things seriously, it's the corrupt individuals in society that make it look worse than it is. Most people who say they were raped probably feel they were raped. Unfortunately, the ones who lie are exaggerated to absurd extents, and make it worse on the real rape victims. The exaggerations are so bad, in fact, that we have people justifying rape because of female promiscuity.

[LuminousX]

73. Another Interesting Scenario

Gal: Why is there a video camera pointed at the bed?
Guy: To protect myself against future allegations of rape.
Gal: What do you mean?
Guy: I will need physical evidence that at no point in time during coitus did you ask me to stop.
Gal: I'm not being filmed having sex!
Guy: Oh well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Wonder]

141. IF men are not crossing this line already and with regularity

how will this put many men in prison? It seems to me based on some of the responses in this thread that some men were not aware of the actual definition of rape in the more mundane sense. Some seem clearly surprised that during sex women can change their mind.

Conviction rate on rape is very low in the best of circumstance. Date rapes are probably the most underreport of all kinds of rape. I can not imagine even though this law delineates the boundaries quite clearly that it would necessarily impact conviction rate. What it might impact is perhaps an increase in reports, but even their I can not imagine it will have much impact on decreasing incidence of rape.

It simple outlines the boundaries in very clear terms, and in doing so as you see angers a fair share of the male gender, and not necessarily for logical reasons.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

182. Than again on second and third thought

there is booberdawgs very comprehensive list in post #148 I think entitled "amazing". I took the liberty of pasting below number 13 which might be another scenario that applies:

13)Women teasers - there is a special place in hell for women like this. These women aren't just stupid and change their minds, they intentionally tease to get guys excited and worked up and then drop the boom that there ain't gonna be no finish. VERY risky behavior. Anyway, it's still not okay to rape her. Give her a piece of your mind. Get rid of her as soon as possible and don't look back. She's trouble. Tell your buddies to avoid her. She needs help, but she's not your problem. Women who really have been raped are the ones who have to pay for the attitudes caused by women like this.

________

I figure all deserve the benefit of the doubt even you and I, and also this particular topic can make me a bit edgier than usual. From a personal perspective, if I am ambiguous about "going all the way" with someone I don't know that well yet, rather than to place myself in what might become a compromising position, I will pass altogether. Character and SAFETY is far more important to me than orgasm, particularly if I am just getting to know someone: Bodily harm is not a turn on if you know what I mean. I find in general as far as the dating game goes most men don't have the time to spare for too much getting to know you stuff. For safety sake at some point one just has to accept realities for what they are, rather than wishing that things were different. Now of course I can not speak for all women, only for myself. As I know you can not speak for all men.

[slackmaster]

142. I agree about those judges, JackSwift but am not worried much

I doubt that either the new Illinois statute or the precedent set by the California case will see the light of day very often. Convicting a person of a crime requires evidence, and when it comes down to a "he said, she said" issue a male defendant can invoke reasonable doubt pretty easily by simply saying "she never said that" or "I didn't hear her say that" or "I thought she was saying 'Don't stop' rather than 'Dont! Stop!'". I don't mean to be flippant, but unless there is some kind of recording of the incident or a witness withdrawal of consent would be pretty hard to prove.

[Wonder]

144. Yes Ain't it A Shame!

those inclined to force the issue can care on. At ease gentlemen...a witness withdrawal of consent would be pretty hard to prove...

There are some ways to get around the trouble which of course places the burden of responsibility on women. They take the time to know who it is they are dealing with and in the meantime take some martial art or kickboxing. I did not agree with all she had to say on the subject but the more think about this subject the more I lean toward Camellia Paglia's take on the whole thing.

Women need to know the reality as well. Some things will never change.

[TLM]

242. Sorry but the burden of proof should ALWAYS be with the accuser.

We should not set up a system where a woman makes an accusation of rape and it is up to the man to prove he is not guilty.

[Name removed]

291. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

343. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

357. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

366. Well for starters how about what you said....

"I do not know how you got from my post that I was accusing you of defending rape. I said you seemed to be unable to sympathesize with a rape survivor... how you read that to mean I was accusing you of defending rape I will never know."

Because this is what you said in the line before that...

"and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..."

I never said all rape victims claims are false... as such a claim would be defending real rapists. Yet you accuse me not only of doing that, but of doing it to make myself feel better.

[Wonder]

372. For Starters? No! We ran over the finish line several posts ago!

the conversation is over now.

[joshcryer]

52. The only way to fix this is to make everynoe wear implants.

With accept/deny buttons before and during sex. These implants would be centrally monitored by the Sexual Awareness Comission and will insure that no one has sex without mutual consent.

[uhhuh]

56. Something has to be done

This isn't it. Without actual evidence that a partial or attempted sex act has been done, how can people be reasonably protected against an accusation when no sex act may have actually even occured? Suppose that a woman just happens to dislike a man socially, or is interested in blackmail or is just mean, and she decides to claim that she started to have sex with this person, and then changed her mind and he did not stop? There apparently doesn't have to be any sign of force, and she may be able to get reasonably close enough to him to get what might be enough trace DNA to implicate him. There is no requirement for hard evidence, like seminal fluid, or some sign of force.
This is right out of the fundie playbook people! They want us all to be abstinent until marriage. Their descriptions of the horrors of extra-marital sex aren't working, so they want to legislate morality in the guise of protecting women.
I don't think anyone here seriously believes that if a man stops 2 seconds after being asked to, that he is a rapist. Laws that protect people from assault have to be very clear as to what constitutes a crime. The next thing you know, if someone were to shake your hand for a little too long, of give you a hug that was mutual for what one determines is more than a comfortable length to them, it will be rape.

Rape is a horror. I know too many people that have been raped that are still suffering years later in a variety of ways. This will do nothing to protect them, and I feel will lead to people being too afraid of consequences to allow themselves to get close to people. It's reactionary, and reminds me too much of laws like the Patriot Act getting passed out of fear. Rapists belong in jail. If two people are involved in sex, and one ask for it to stop, that's it, game over, but some reasonable protections have to be in place to protect BBOTH parties in this event. What is reasonable in this case? Does he have to jump up and immediately leave the room, inform the nearest passerby that he was having sex with x and that she asked him to stop, so he jumped right up and found them as a witness? Is he allowed to speak to her (without touching her) after she asked him to stop? If they are at his place, does he have to hide in the bathroom until she leaves? What is reasonable here?

[joshcryer]

57. Well, your definition for rape is interesting.

If I, for example, drug a girl up and rape her, by your definition of 'harder evidence' I should be able to get away with it (especially if I wear a condom, and don't do it rough, put her clothes back on, and so on).

I think what is reasonable is simple. People shouldn't make false accusations about rape. The question is whether or not the accusations that are currently out there are honest or not. I think most of them are. And I think the suggestion that they aren't, are unfounded generalizations created by fundies to make it seem as though there is no justice in the world.

Even with your 'hard evidence' approach, a woman could still bruise herself up or whatever and make the false claim. When there are no witnesses, there just happens to be no way to tell what really happened. This goes for everything, not just with sex.

[ze_dscherman]

58. Proving the guilt

This decision is just plain stupid. Of course, no means no, and this is accepted by anyone reasonable.

But making a law out of this is stupid nevertheless. Except when taped, filmed or watched, it should be pretty impossible to prove the guilt. So how to enforce it?

Hitting, knee-jerking, kicking, biting, or squeezing the then pretty exposed offender should do very much better than calling the police afterwards. Even those not reasonable should understand this means NO.

[AlexanderBarca]

59. Um...I'm confused

Why are all the guys on here acting as if this is their death shroud?

You know what, I'm entirely unconvinced that false rape charges are the rule rather than the exception (which is what you guys seem to be touting). To think that a girl would go through the public shame that still comes with "I was raped" just for some sort of satisfaction of putting a guy in jail is absolutely rediculous. Why does she want a total stranger in jail? If its not a total stranger, and its someone she knows, shouldn't us guys have enough brainpower to know WHICH girls will make such a claim? Why are you going to give such a girl the time of day, much less SLEEP with her?

And for the record I think the guys that are saying "how can you expect us to stop in the middle of it" are absolutely disgusting. Just because we have penises doesn't mean we have no self control. The way to avoid jail here is simple: Avoid sex with those (VERY, VERY few) girls who you would feel would bring false charges. From the way you guys talk, it seems as though you view rape as something girls merely cry afterward for some reason or the other, which disturbs me.

(For the record, it also seems like you guys are saying that if nobody can hear her say "no", then there's no way to prove that it was rape. Even if there is no ejaculation, there are still traces of DNA that will be left within the vagina. Bottom line, if a girl says NO, stop what you're doing and you should have NOTHING to worry about.)

[Booberdawg]

61. BRAVO!!

A REAL man with some CLASS speaks!!:bounce:

[Dhalgren]

68. Absolutely right!

This is a ridiculous thread from the stand-point of these cry-baby guys. Look, if a woman says, "Stop!" You stop and ask whats wrong. You don't just keep lowing ahead like some brain-damaged oaf! The sex act is something that two people share, together for their mutual enjoyment. If all you want is something to get your rocks off on, buy an inflatable doll - she's probably more your type.

[joshcryer]

69. That's exactly what I've been saying!

Well said!

But I disagree with the sentiment that a girl can't make a false claim even if you are honest about it. In fact, the burden of proof on her behalf does not change. Law has always sided with the female because they have no reason to believe that she's lying, it's up to the attacker to prove that the female is accusing him unjustly. Oh, and the media glamorises the situation when the 'attacker is innocent,' which makes things worse, especially when the fundies intentionally skew it so that it looks like this is a no-win for males.

Anyway, like I said, good post, and I am embarrassed that other posters here can't see it that way.

[study_war_no_more]

86. Joe's Chicken shack

The last holdouts of the he-man women haters club. Lets point it out for the pea brains. Male privalage is wrong male privalage is illegal male privalage is over. Any questions ask your Mom and your sisters.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. aw come on, you generally have more sense than that

do you really think there is a problem here for married men? Yes married men can rape their wives, but women aren't generally going to cry rape against a husband unless it really is.

That was a very misogynist thing to say BJ

[BiggJawn]

173. And tell me just HOW it was "Misogynistic"????

I wasn't denying that marital rape exists. I was cautioning those smug ones here who are parroting the "Don't wanna get sent up for rape? Get Married. End of Troubles" dogma that they too, are FOS. What's misogynistic about THAT?

I'm really offended that you would slap me with the "Misogynist" brush, and I'm demanding that you explain yourself.

"women aren't generally going to cry rape against a husband..."

"Generally"......
Yeah, like I said, I like my right hand better.

[Wonder]

226. BiggJawn

it is just a matter of no means no. Even in the case of marriage. No means no. There are numerous scenarios that surround that martial rape thing, some are domestic abuse issues.

Sometimes men and women feed the most negative aspects of one another. And as you can see by some of the stories in here a percentage of both men and women are playing with fire. It is a matter of discernment. Respect. Responsibiliy. Behind sex people go stupid.

When you diminish the views or opinions of a women whose views you may not like as "feminist" you do run the risk of being thought a misoynist.

You may not like the point of view. But no is no and stop means stop. You don't like it you find a partner that says yes and means yes. That no means no or that some understand the significance of this law does not immediately make them a feminist or a lesbian or a weak minded man or a man hater. It just means there are those that understand without too much explanation that no means no, and they understand the rationale behind the law.

For another law like this to have been enacted just means there is a problem that needs to be addressed. This law addresses that problem. although I do not believe it will have much impact on rape incidence or conviction rate. Not judging from those responses in here that needed so much clarification regarding a partners right to change their mind, particularly a women. For some of us it is just as simple as that. If you abide by no is no and do not persist behind the ambivalence of a confused girl and pick your partners well; it is not that complicated at all.

Now I do not know if you are a misogynist or not. But when you throw the word feminist around to diminish those view points of women that you are in disagreement with, it makes you suspect of misogyny. That is just the way it is. Buzz words. We all have our own list of words that are buzz words. A guy yelling feminist behind an opinion he does not like, but is a valid opinion in its own right, tends to come off as a misogynist.

that is how I would interpret it. Perhaps someone else here would interpret it differently. Clearly this is a topic that creates great polarity. I am not sure any minds can be changed. But Rape is not makebelieve and for all the girls that lie about it there are guys that refuse to take no for an answer and have no concept of the reality that woman can change their mind during the act. Men have that same right.

It is called mutual respect for the reality of another person.

[LuminousX]

65. Ah Screw It

Far easier to buy porn and masturbate. Who needs these kinds of headaches?

People need to get their heads on straight and not engage in sex unless they know they want it. Once the act has started - you are having sex.

[bicentennial_baby]

67. And

"Once the act has started - you are having sex."

and if she says stop in the middle of it and you don't, it's rape.

[LuminousX]

72. Wonderful Scenario

Guy: *thrust* Oh baby, feels so good.
Gal: Oh, yes, yes
Guy: *thrust* I've wanted this so long...
Gal: Me too, me too!
Guy: *thrust* Mmmm
Gal: Please stop!
Guy: *thrust* What?
Gal: That last thrust was rape!

As I said, far better to have nothing to do with sexual relations. I'd rather see the human race die out.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

89. Bullshit...

More like:

Guy: *unf*unf*
Gal: Oh god!
Guy: Aaaaah, yeah! *pound*
Gal: *cries* Why am I doing this?
Guy: Doing what? *pound*
Gal: Fucking you! You're not my type! Just stop.
Guy: Huh? *pound* Why?
Gal: I said *stop!* Get off me!
Guy: *pound*
Gal: *shove*
Guy: *pound*
Gal: STOP!
Guy: *pound*
Guy: *pound*
Gal: *struggling*
Guy: *pound*
Guy: *pound*
Guy: Unngg!
Guy: *pound*
Guy: *pound*
Gal: *crying* ...stop...
Guy: *thrust and extract*
Guy: I stopped. *smiles*
Gal: *crying* Why didn't you stop?
Guy: You stupid slut. What do you expect me to do? I was already fucking you. You came over here at 4 in the morning, dressed like a slut and you don't expect to be fucked? Get the fuck out of my face you whore.
Gal: *cries and runs off*

(Or alternatively, she kicks him in the balls, or he realizes he's not near climax and stops because her struggling is making it more difficult.)

That is rape.

It would be rape if the girl didn't say so in the first place. This 'new' rule changes nothing. The problem is with perceptions and motivations. Most women can percieve then they're being raped. Most women aren't motivated to put someone in jail for something as trivial as a mere thrust.

Damn, this is beginning to piss me off, because of all these guys going on about how they're victims here. I gotta stop reading this thread.

[LuminousX]

119. Point out the victims

I haven't seen anyone say they were the victim, only that this 'new rule' is fundamentally unnecessary. I see people, like myself, trying to highlight the absurdity of it.

As you plainly point out, rape is obvious. We don't need specific laws to tell us when it occurs, it occurs when the violation of the woman occurs.

[joshcryer]

187. Well, post 1 would qualify in my opinion.

But I guess post 14 is the first obvious one. There are several more, but I'm not going to reread the whole tread for you. Other people felt that people were crying victims here, so I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

[Wonder]

164. guys going on about how they're victims here

I see you have picked that up as well. Yet those that are coming off like victims are completely unconscious to this fact. It is the interpretation that somehow this law will effect them adversely in some way. Oh those bitches now so many guys are going to put in jail because these bitches don't know how to communicate what they want. Now what I have to be telepathic!

What this tells me, or should I say how I interpret is boo hoo hoo this law is going to get me in trouble I can't overpower these bitches anymore. Those so adverse to this law clearly feel victimized by it rather than to understand it clarifies a very important point. A point that it clearly seems some guys are sadly in the dark about if not trapped within the dark ages. It even seems to me those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once, because of all those lying manipulative bitch's.

To some degree (and in some case not all) it is the mother whore bullshit or what I have come to call the Cleopatra Complex. Is is never their responsibility but all the fault of those lying bitches.

[TLM]

513. I do not see how you make that giant leap from concern to rape.

How do you get from a guy saying that this law could be used to prop up a bogus rape accusation... to that meaning that guy is a rapist who is afraid this law will put an end to his days of raping?

Your position seems to be that if a guy is worried about false accusations and potential abuse of this law, that means he must be afraid because his SOP is to overpower women.

"What this tells me, or should I say how I interpret is boo hoo hoo this law is going to get me in trouble I can't overpower these bitches anymore."

and " It even seems to me those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once, because of all those lying manipulative bitch's."

You are saying that men who disagree with this law or are at all concerned about it being misused, are therefore rapists.

And when one looks at the ease with which you toss out accusations of men being rapists, simply because they do not agree with your support for this law, it makes it perfectly clear exactly why men are afraid of false accusations and abuse of this law.

After all, look how easily you say “those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once.”

In the above post you broadly accuse men not only of being rapists, but REPEAT OFFENDERS, over nothing more than that fact that those guys dared to disagree with your opinion on this law.

Clearly men have good reason to be concerned, given the obvious prevalence of the current feminist mentality that is willing to use false accusations of rape as a weapon... even for something as insignificant as trying to silence disagreement in a DU thread.

[Wonder]

518. I hope she doesn't mind being quoted but.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=49816&page=

[TLM]

526. "those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once"

How is it you figure that accusing all men who disagree your feelings about this law, of being rapists, isn't sexist?

I would hit alert on your post, were it not for the fact I want it to stay and stand as a perfect example of how easily women will accuse men of being rapists for even a reason so frivolous as anger over disagreement on a message board debate.



Now will you answer these questions... or does asking make me a rapist too?



How do you get from a guy saying that this law could be used to prop up a bogus rape accusation... to that meaning that guy is a rapist who is afraid this law will put an end to his days of raping?

Your position seems to be that if a guy is worried about false accusations and potential abuse of this law, that means he must be afraid because his SOP is to overpower women.

"What this tells me, or should I say how I interpret is boo hoo hoo this law is going to get me in trouble I can't overpower these bitches anymore."

and " It even seems to me those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once, because of all those lying manipulative bitch's."

You are saying that men who disagree with this law or are at all concerned about it being misused, are therefore rapists.

And when one looks at the ease with which you toss out accusations of men being rapists, simply because they do not agree with your support for this law, it makes it perfectly clear exactly why men are afraid of false accusations and abuse of this law.

After all, look how easily you say “those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once.”

In the above post you broadly accuse men not only of being rapists, but REPEAT OFFENDERS, over nothing more than that fact that those guys dared to disagree with your opinion on this law.

Clearly men have good reason to be concerned, given the obvious prevalence of the current feminist mentality that is willing to use false accusations of rape as a weapon... even for something as insignificant as trying to silence disagreement in a DU thread.

[Wonder]

541. If you insist

There always exist a number of subcategories within each gender or defining characteristics wherein one might make various assessments, when narrowing in on compatibility per se. When one makes a call in an attempt to distinquish one type from another, there always exists defining criteria. And the existence of that criteria is considered and weighed accordingly. Also there will be a number of calls one might make.

For instance when making or considering a call: "those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once"

Various criteria would have to be evident to even prompt the thought or consideration of that nature. A male would have to exhibit a number of very specific criteria (memes, choice of words, chosen mantras, degrees of obsessions, etc) before a woman might find herself considering whether or not any given male might fall into that catagory.

I rarely delineate ALL in any group (sex, creed or color) to any ONE specific category. Nor have I here. In this setting, can a call like that be made beyond a reasonable doubt? of course not. So I would not classify it as a call, but more a consideration.

[Wonder]

543. Post #528 lists the criteria I mention in my post : "if you insist"

Any woman who has been raped and undergone crisis and trauma rape therapy (or for that matter women who are discerning) is generally sensitive to the exhibition of that criteria listed in Post#528. Some have developed even a kind of radar to it.

As a rape survivor's healing process progresses, she will learn not to disregard or ignore her instincts when criteria of this type are exhibited and her radar's warning lights start blinking. Does this mean she is correct in all cases? Let's just say if that criteria is evident to her, wrong or right is not something she'll hang round wondering about.

[THUNDER HANDS]

66. this is a really disturbing thread

If a woman says stop, at ANYTIME during sex, I stop cold.

As any man should.

If she says stop more than once, than tecnically, in my opinion, you're forcing yourself on her, and that, my friends...

...is rape.

[BiggJawn]

70. Rat, just HOW many women have told you "STOP!" in mid-spurt?

Sounds like you could give us all some practical insight here?

Or are you just blowing off with "Well, I know what *I* would do..."

[THUNDER HANDS]

71. it's happened to me

My ex girlfriend (of two years) had been molested and sexually abused. The first couple of times we had sex she would get real uncomfortable and tell me to stop.

I immediately froze and pulled out. Then we talked and I comforted her and told her that I would be by her side for as long as it took and that I would be perfectly okay with taking it as slow as she wanted.

After a few months we enjoyed great sex and she appreciated my patience and understanding.

So it can be done. And should be. Anyone who says or thinks differently is, to me, a lower life form not worthy of the pleasure of a woman's company.

[joshcryer]

106. Amen.

:)

[Wonder]

135. I like your story very much

I won't go into why. I am glad you detailed it. I am not sure that some here are attuned to the fact that many more women than one would ever know have been the victim of sexual abuse in one form or another. And that patience that you are talking about would be greatly appreciated.

Of course it also seems she was conscious of her own pains and struggles, her consciousness is just as important. Some woman remain in denial about the abuse for years without ever having dealt with it. It manifests itself in sometimes negative behavior that she herself can not explain, until the time the event(s) are truly triggered in a very big way at which time it becomes difficult for the incident(s) to be any longer ignored. It is at that time I have been encouraged that an actually healing process begins.

The whole dating process in general does not leave room for exchanges between two human beings, both genders more caricaturized, everyone is in a rush going nowhere fast it seems. And this prevalent abuse mentality you see in these threads is something one encounters more often than one would think. Anyway, I was hesitant to read through this thread, as I have come to know the kind of bullshit they generally hold. In this one I kind of pick and chose. I am glad I fell upon yours.

[BiggJawn]

176. I don't think that's the same thing. Apples and Oranges.

She had "Issues", which it seems that she was up-front with you about. You were caring enough to put her needs first.

You Da Man!

We wouldn't need stupid laws like this if more guys were like you (and me, I think I must admit.)

I think the main objections here are that here is a new tool for situations where somebody is thinking "BORING! Wish I could get out from under his guy and get back to the club..."

[Wonder]

210. well BiggJawn it is kinda of the same thing in that

their are guys that are not like you and would have not stopped when this girl asked the first time so if it was another guy she was with he'd have proceeded and just done her more harm than good.

Something tells me that by this time she knew she has placed herself in the right hands which is what might have encouraged her to be upfront. See. It takes two. Someone else might have disregarded this girls first plea and never even found out she had issues.

[study_war_no_more]

235. yes me too on both sides of the coin

I have stopped and I have asked to stop (i was molested and sex can be very discomforting when unfamiliar it has nothing to do with the partner) its worthwhile to wait until both of you can be there together(why would you want to have sex alone?) It has to do with trust and power because vulnerability (the ability to be vulnerable) takes trust to give up power.

[study_war_no_more]

90. read "Transforming rape culture-milkweed editions"

From some of the male opinions expressed here it is obvious why rape won't go away anytime soon as an issue.

[Wonder]

136. Yes it is obvious, isn't it?

why rape won't go away anytime soon as an issue.

[dolo amber]

75. Scenario # 32...

So my sorority sister is dating this guy across campus I've never met, and he dumps her for some tart from our rival sorority...I get all dolled up, go to the club and end up going home with him, in the middle of things I say *stop* and as previously stated, he's too worked up to even process what I'm saying, so I shout rape...heehee, I showed him, huh? And that WILL happen. I'm all for protecting women from violent attacks, rape is wrong under any conditions. But I must add that women can also be a vicious breed, many will stop at nothing to get revenge on a man who has rejected her. This kind of law would apply legitimately to so very few cases women would use it for that purpose alone. It's just much to abstract to try to enforce something like that without catching far too many innocent guys in the crossfire. Sorry girls, I'm not trying to be anti-female here (considering I AM one) but if you're honest with yourselves, you know I'm right...:shrug:

[LuminousX]

77. I appreciate

the intentions of this law.

It is about a woman agreeing to sex (notice our language, it is all about getting the woman's consent, we already have a built in bias against men as sex crazed) who, during the act does not want to continue, tells her mate du jour of this who responds in confusion requiring the woman to struggle to make him stop. Yes, that is rape. Consent is not a one time thing, it is a constant thing and like a light switch it can be switched off.

The law is meant to protect against that. But, it won't. The law will help define sexual regret as rape. I can't speak for everyone but I've had sex with people that I regretted. It happens. But THAT isn't rape, that is just bad decision making.

[joshcryer]

85. Anyone with brains...

...would be able to differentiate sexual regret and rape. Even 'no' isn't 'no' until you make it clear that you mean no.

[Booberdawg]

87. No

It is not a law to define sexual regret as rape. Where are you getting that?? It says that if a PERSON says no, and the other PERSON continues, it is rape. It doesn't specify the person saying no has to be female either.

The law does NOTHING about regret. That would indeed be ridiculous. And you're right, that is not rape, it's just realizing in hindsight that you made a bad decision

[LuminousX]

116. I didn't say that was the intent of the law

I said that this law allows sexual regret to become rape. And all the evidence that is available will be "I said no, but he kept going."

How does a prosecutor present that in court?

[Booberdawg]

138. I'm not following you

The first time you described two distinctly different scenarios. The first she said no. It was rape. In the second you said it was regret. That is not rape.

The law does not allow regret to become rape. If there is, as you say, evidence that "I said no, but he kept going", then that is not regret, it is rape.

How does a prosecuter present that in court? To be honest, without physical evidence of a rape, one or more eye witnesses, or people nearby hearing the struggle, a prosecuter wouldn't have enough evidence to prosecute. unfortunately, rape cases are hard to proove.

[LuminousX]

158. That is my point.

My point is without evidence of a crime you are in a He Said/She Said situation. So what is the point of the this statute?

I've pursued this on many different levels: 1. the absurd lengths a guy could take to protect himself which would end up with the woman walking out on him, 2. a couple in coitus where she says a simple non shouting screaming attacking no and the guy thrusts one more time making the act officially rape, and 3. pointing out that after a sexual encounter if the woman has sexual regret she can claim she said no but the man didn't stop.
on edit: corrected Freudian slip

None are meant to claim rape is okay, none are meant that it is okay for a man to continue a sexual act after he has been explicitly told to stop. The whole point is the law in fundamentally unenforceable without getting into the He Said/She Said situation. So do we dredge up the woman's sexual history to prove she's completed the sexual act a hundred times before? That's unfair, past performance does not predict future performance. A woman is allowed to change her mind. Do we call forth every woman the man has ever been with and have them explain what a perfect gentleman he's been with them? That means nothing, a rapist doesn't rape every person he has been with and maybe none of these women attempted to stop him in mid-act - something that brings are the rapist in him.

So, addressing this law, not as a 'It makes sex illegal' or 'it victimizes men' law, but as a criminal code that will have to be enforced, how would it be done? And how many reputations will this affect and how will this affect rape trials in general? I think that there is a much bigger picture that needs to be looked at. This is a 'bad law' that won't ever be enforced, thus offering no protection for anyone.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

159. this is one of those laws that causes the pols to pat each other

on the back, or elsewhere, but won't result in anything changing. I would be willing to eat a shoe cake if one conviction results from this law in the next 12 months. Tax dollars paid for a lot of time and energy wasted. Must be some folks in Illinois up for re-election.

[Booberdawg]

84. Utter bullshit

First of all, women don't just accuse innocent men of rape and get away with it. There has to be EVIDENCE that a crime has occured, and the burdon of proof is on the DA/prosecutor, who must believe they can proove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a has rape occured.

Secondly, you say:
"This kind of law would apply legitimately to so very few cases women would use it for that purpose alone" You don't know what you're talking about. This is not a new law. It has been in effect for many years. The point of the article was to point out that this new statute CLARIFIES the part of the law that ALREADY states a person can change their mind during sex, and if the other person doesn't stop, it is RAPE. Women can't "use" it for revenge, as you suggest. There has to be EVIDENCE to support the charge.

And finally, innocent men do not get caught in the crossfire. . Puh-leeeze. Most rapes do not get reported, those that do get reported must be proven in a court of law, and it is not easy to proove a rape case. Contrary to popular male belief, they DO have control over their penises - it does not have a brain of it's own, and it does not keep going without their permission. No means no. Games over. And what self respecting man would want to continue having sex with someone who is saying no and resisting anyway? Only a pig.

Now, that little trick you played to get revenge for your girlfriend could have landed you in plenty of trouble. You see, while it is utter bullshit that most rape accusations are false, there are the few like you that give the real pigs that sense of victimization they crave because deep down inside they think the girl "deserved it" or he "was entitled to IT" anyway. For the record, there are also laws against falsely accusing someone of rape, and I would throw the book at them just as hard as I would a rapist. What you did is disgraceful. You seem to think it's funny, and that you "showed him". Well, you are lucky he didn't turn on you, and you didn't get raped and roughed up yourself. Think about it. Would have been a tough case to prosecute.

[joshcryer]

92. Exactly, that's what I've been maintaining all along.

This whole 'idea' isn't 'new.' It's common fucking sense.

No means no before or in between.

[dolo amber]

97. Thank you for missing the point...

I did not imply that the scenario would conclude with a conviction, but the mere accusation is enough to ruin a person's life. As sad as it is, I happen to live in a part of the world where people's lives are so miserable and empty that accusations are made if for no other reason than to give the accuser some sense of importance. I CLEARLY stated that I am all for laws protecting women from vile sex predators, but I am NOT in favor of laws that can be twisted to suit jealous/spiteful/vidictive persons of either gender. I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN. I didn't just pull that scenario out of my bottom. Although that exact scenario is fictitious, (which I didn't realise I needed to point out, my bad :eyes:)I have known at least 2 people who were in that exact predicament. So don't tell me it isn't a law that is/would be abused.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dolo amber]

110. Being an *idiot* and all

I'll do my best to attempt to spell the words I want to use here (for FUCK'S sake)...

Rape laws have the POTENTIAL to be abused more than most. Period. And all the micro-dissecting of them only widens the gap where accusations can be made falsley. This is my entire point.

[joshcryer]

186. So you think all rape laws should be abolished...?

Well? It does, after all, have “more potential for abuse,” right?

Molsetation laws have more potential for abuse, too. I know of a teacher who had his life ruined because a 14 year old girl lied about things he did.

Should we get rid of molestation laws?

Man, what a wonderful world we'd have then, huh? Where rapist and pedophiles could run around all they wanted and get away with it because we “can't prove one way or another who is telling the truth.”

Be realistic.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

391. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dolo amber]

239. Thanks ChillEB

For taking the time and having the patience to make the exact point I was trying to :)

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

401. Dolo, you need to know that these people seem to feel that

if you point out that women do lie about rape, or that you worry about innocent people being subjected to false accusations, that means you are either a rapist yourself or you are defending rapists.

Look at the level of personal attacks and ridicule I have had directed at me for daring to step up and admit I was falsely accused of rape. It hank you for having the guts to step up and stand up for the fact that men are falsely accused and we need to make sure that women who do that kind of thing are not given laws that make it even easier for them to do so.

[dolo amber]

417. In fact...

That's pretty much all I was trying to say in the first place. I find it really surprising and sad that so many supposed *enlightened* people can be so reactionary and agressive. The issue here isn't whether or not a man should stop when a woman says so; the issue is that this new stipulation only reinforces the burden-of-proof on the accused, not the accuser. Which, if applied to any other law I daresay would have gotten an entirely different response. But as soon as the word *rape* comes into play, everyone gets all up in arms and goes to their respective gender corners. It's just silly, really. And before I get slammed (yet AGAIN) for this viewpoint, I have been a victim myself; I just made the decision to move on with my life, as I was young, intoxicated, and had no real evidence. I saw then and see now no point on dwelling on something that has happened, cannot be changed, and only my reaction to it determines how much it affects my life. That aside, I stand by my original point; This law is a) highly unenforcable, and b)leaves much too wide a margin for those with foul intentions who have something to gain by destroying someone's life and/or reputation.

[study_war_no_more]

91. The innocent guys are probably in healthy relationships so not to worry

scenario 33- If I am using my body in such a way as to not make a person feel safe and comforted then what a small thing I have become in my own eyes.

[zizzer]

99. In some states this is

rape. If you do this it is rape. Anyone found to have perpatrated such a farse should be procecuted.

Zizzer

[TLM]

254. How about this one....

A guy and a girl are both at a club, and both drink the same amount, then go have consensual sex... a lot of places consider that a case of the guy raping the girl because she was drunk. Even if the guy is just as drunk and they both consent to sex in that state.


A lot of college age girls hide their irresponsible sexual behavior behind alcohol. I have seen girls do crazy nasty things in clubs after half a sip of one beer, and then try to claim they did it because they were drunk. Because “I was drunk” seems to be the magical responsibility white out that erases all sluty behavior.

That has become this policy that if she says she was drunk, the guy raped her. Even if he was drunk and they both were consensual. Imagine your are a young college guy and you’re at a party and a little drunk and some girl is all over you asking to go back to your place. You go and have great consensual sex and all indications are both of you dig it and are into it. Then the next day, because she was drunk, you’re a rapist.

[canuck]

76. I think alot of this comes from the movies.

Films are full of this: the beautifull cunning woman uses her looks and guile to entrance and befuddle the honest, simple guy, then BLAMMO! The "poor shmuck" is in for rape.

I think many guys remember having their heart broken, and they superimpose the movie plot on their mental image of "those girls", and imagine it happening to themselves. Feelings of powerlessness and suspicion are a common ailment these days, ie: well, read the news.

and the possibe scenarios are endless -like in the movies. Think of all the skullduggery they can now use to entrap you!

in reality of course, any decent guy would stop immediately, no decent girl would make false rape charges, no smart guy would hook up with a girl who would screw him in the first place, no reasonable girl would press charges if it took the stupid oaf "2 seconds" to get off her, any reasonable cops would see through a false rape claim, and in 99% of cases, if you've manages to get that far, then she digs you, so she probably WON'T tell you to stop. But it's the 1% of people who are not decent, reasonable or smart.

I don't think any of the guys here ACTUALLY think this will affect them, but imagine their ex using this law to fuck them over. Most guys would hope they are smarter than to fall into some kind of entrapment scenario, and a better judge of character than the schmuck in the movie.

[Generic Other]

79. So everytime a woman yells "No" when a guy prematurely...it's rape?

More control issues than an S and M relationship!

[zizzer]

98. S and M relationships

Have safe words that END all activity immediatly with out question PERIOD upon utterance.

Seems all you vanilla people are the ones with problems crossing other peoples limits!

If anyone says "No" or "stop" or "Enough" it should END no matter what is happening be it misionary sex in the dark or flogging someone tied to a wall.

If it doesn't it is rape.

Zizzer...why is this so hard to understand?

[joshcryer]

104. Good relationships don't even *need* words.

People should *know* when their partner doesn't want to continue a certain activity.

[zizzer]

112. WOW

Do you sell your mind reading potion or do you just make this up?

Zizzer

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

151. Do you know someone in Jail right now that is innocent

or once again are you just talking off the top of your head?

[joshcryer]

189. You're not complaining about the ‘few innocent.’

You're complaining that “Chances are increasing that I'm going to be one of the innocent.” This is obviously not the case because law hasn't really changed here.

When I complain about the death penality not being 100% accurate, I don't complain that “I'm going to be someone who gets hit with the death penality,” now do I? You're basically expecting me to accept that line of argument from you. I don't buy it.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

279. body language and facial expression are enough

if you give a damn enough about the other person to be sensitive to those cues, of course.

[Wonder]

152. I am not into S&M Zizzer but you have driven the point home

by taking it to that extreme. Yes perhaps it is more a quandary among us "Vanilla People" as you say. Probably because some of them may actually prefer to cross over into a more S&Mish realm and don't even know this about themselves. Particularly the bunch who seem so at odds with no and tend to have to forcibly overpower the woman.

Maybe these types should find a partner willing to role play with them. Perhaps in certain instances it is just a matter of these guys knowing what their sexual preferences are. And there is quite the menu too. Might even be able to find a female partner who might get off on the rape fantasy. There are all kinds.

I am with you Zizzer... I have really no clue why no is so hard to understand. And on that note... I will leave this topic be.

[Wonder]

101. WOW you mean a GIRL can CHANGE HER MIND ABOUT SEX

Right in the middle like that. My word and as if that isn't a surprise at all THEY NEED A LAW TO ENFORCE THIS.

MY GOD I can't get over it YOU MEAN A GIRL CAN CHANGE HER MIND ABOUT SEX... RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE and if the guy forces the issue I suppose that now they are saying THAT IS RAPE... what next?

BUT WAIT ---------- DOES THAT MEAN A GUY CAN TOO --- and I won't be able to force them to have sex after they've changed their mind because NOW THERE IS A LAW ABOUT IT... well well well. I must be careful in the future than, might break this new law if I force a guy to get it up when it seems they'd rather chill... THAT IS if this PAIN IN THE ASS LAW applies to guys changing their minds too.

Can you imagine THEY NEEDED A FUCKING LAW.


Judging from the tenure of the debates within those Kobe Threads, I will spare myself the aggrevation of reading through this thread.

AND SOME SAY THE ARABS ARE LIVING IN THE DARK AGES.

[joshcryer]

103. Good idea, this thread is a mess.

Pretty sad.

[Wonder]

107. you don't have to tell me...

I participated in some of the Kobe threads...

heads up the RAPE MENTALITY is alive and well and most are completely UNCONSCIOUS as to what constitutes that mentality.

what many do not realize with their fast accusations that women falsely accuse all the time ALL OF US liars. Is if you read through the threads carefully, what becomes clear is often these neanderthals are actually posting to RAPE SURIVORS who one would think would be somewhat an authority on the subject, particularly those that have been through trial (whether they got a conviction or not). Yet they have no qualms about telling RAPE SURVIVORS what the facts are, based on no knowledge of the laws, the judicial process or the crime itself, and without any actual facts, but that all women are manipulative and wicked liars out to get boo hoo hoo all these poor defenseless men, because we women have nothing else better to do with our time but botox, extentions and falsely accusing men of rape.

VERY SAD INDEED!

[chimpy the poopthrower]

108. it certainly is sad

With the exception of a few sensible posters (Booberdawg's post #47 stands out in my mind), this thread is an embarassment. If I told my husband to stop at any point during sex, he would stop immediately. I can't imagine him behaving otherwise. Think of it this way, what if you were having sex with your spouse and you heard one of your children scream in terror from another room? You'd stop immediately, throw on some cover, and rush to see what was the matter. It's ridiculous to think that a guy can't stop at any time and heartless to think he *shouldn't* stop just because the woman changes her mind. And this has nothing to do with burden of proof. That's a red herring.

[Wonder]

109. IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE RAPE MENTALITY

some of the archaic objections you have encountered on this thread.

This particular issue (a change in mind) is actually a no-brainer. I refuse to waste my time countering some of the insulting view points that I can bet my house are in this thread. They are NOT a matter of any real thought, just archaic male privilege upheld by truly weak minded men. Oh wait will come one to accuse me of male bashing that is how weak the egos are of this particular ilk I speak of.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

131. I am telling you

<<I am also enraged by the continued idea that 1) a man can't / shouldn't stop when a woman says "No." and 2) the paranoid idea that women are out to entrapp men in rapeing them for revenge.>>

number 2 seems quite prevalent in these kobe threads and those related. What these guys don't get is what a myth that is which seems ingrained by the society itself. The whole subject is quite complex for however simply it might seem to you and I... why perhaps violence toward woman is on the increase... there is something about saying no that angers some of the guys so much that they than have to go about diminishing the crime itself in their attempt to suggest there is no such thing as rape, just false accusation.

I am single right now. I must say I proceed with great caution now, because this mentality is not just isolated to a tax bracket or a level of intelligence, or any one job title, but is mythology put forth by even some of the most intelligent men. I will not have it near me. And I like men. I tend to get along better with men than women as a rule. But for intimacy. I do not want to make a haphazard choice only to later find myself regularly insulted the next time another high profile felony rape case rears its head. It is a disgusting and inaccurate view of things, based in my mind on some man-eating female fantasy these men feel victimized by in their own mind. All in an effort to exercise male privilege even in the face of a no. Very disturbing. I say they may want to look at changing their type. Exactly what they seem to revile in these man-eaters they also find alluring only because it seems they wish to dominate them.

Very fucked up convoluted.

[Name removed]

311. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonder]

314. Hahahahahhahahhahahah!!!

okay on that note I have to get out of this thread...

[yella_dawg]

111. I stopped

dating around five years ago. Every time I start second guessing that decision, something comes up to reinforce it. The intense nastiness directed towards males in this thread is enough motivation to keep me in my shell for months. Thanks ya`ll! Single status is wonderful, even with the loneliness.

yella

[Wonder]

115. oh yes boo hoo hoo you poor guys

and none of you bear any anger or resentment for the opposite either.


You must forgive my cynicism. But if you can not read through a thread like this and understand that males are significantly angry of their own accord, perhaps you are also misunderstanding those very legitmate counter arguments. Those arguments in opposition to what is pretty archaric male thinking. Perhaps you are just misreading them as unjustified anger rather than justified opposition to a male mind set that is based in male sexism and hatred of the female this particular ilk to whom I refer seems controlled by. A female that lives mostly in their mind. Because if you had read more carefully through the thread you would see that some guys are actually arguing in opposition to this archaic rape mentality as well.

could it be perhaps you might need to look at the type of woman that attracts you and change your type? Because black and white positions on a topic such as this makes for much wasted time.

[yella_dawg]

133. After reading your response several times

I have no idea what you're trying to say. My position is simple. There is a mindset growing in this society, in both genders, as you point out, that males are disgusting beasts, among myriad other shortcomings. I mentioned nothing about rape. My point was disgust at the inherent misandry of the thread. My experience has been that both genders can be predatory, abusive, selfish, and mean. And in my experience, both sexes are capable of rape.

Nothing is gained by lashing out at gender stereotypes. And the anger that is expressed in this thread is no different from racial or religious hatreds. (Except that some crawl in bed with it at night.) It seems that enlightened liberals are just as capable of nurturing hatreds as a freeper redneck.

If you would care to continue this debate, please clarify your arguments.

yella

[Wonder]

146. My Apologies

I have been following this same arguement since the Kobe Issue reared its head. Yes the anger is real as are the polarized prejudices. I apologies for unduly hitting you with that, it was not specific to you. It was a summation of a kind of male mentality that is prevalent in thise sex crime threads.

To tell you the truth, I don't date much either anymore, it is way way way too much of a game for my tastes. I guess I have become a bit intolerant of the poor victimized guys one meets in these particular threads. All the girls are just out to get them. And it is that protype I am opposed to.

Both sexes are capable of rape. I guess that is true too and over time I guess statistics will rise on that as well. As will a rise in incident of female psychopathic sex offenders out on a vendatta after years of sexual abuse. And at one point the whole thing will really even out.

I did. I jumped in on reflex with you. I am doing that more and more as my intolerance level is surpassed with the neanderthalish she deserves it or lies about it mentality. Or wow now this law is just something meant to get all guys. That is ridiculous. This law which will not make it any easier to get rape convictions, as I state more than once in the thread, just delineates a boundary. Women do and can change their mind. I find it so interesting that some are not only surprised by this, but seem also a bit miffed by it, if not even angered, to say nothing of surprised as if this is new news to them.

Again my apologies I am most generally a rational person. And most of my best friend in my life have been men. Interestingly, I am more comfortable with male best friends than female best friends. Believe me I even share with men some of the annoyances they have with certain types of women. I wouldn't date them either. It just seems also true that those very same types of women that seem to anger certain men. These are the exact types of women they chase.

I speak more in protypes than sterotypes. This kind of thing requires sometimes well articulated conversation between those interested in having them and on this particular topic. I mean really who wants to talk about rape on a regular basis? So manym, even some women don't even feel there is such a thing. They relegate it to some lapse of judgement on the part of the woman. And of course it is also true women aren't all terrific either, in fact I had two last year, supposed friends, stab me in the back over business. People are people. Rape just happens to be somewhat endemic for a crime that doesn't really exist but for false accusations. I respond to these particular prototypic responses only because they constitute in my mind the rape mentality.

Please forgive my thoughtless post to you.

[moroni]

114. Here's a good law. Teach yourselves and those you love.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 & 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

[Not a robought]

148. and some day if I'm lucky, I too will write some moralizing prose and

will be idolized and regarded another holy prophet 2000 years from now by people who have misinterpreted and maligned my words. I just hope there won't be any small minded smug people in that time to come as there is now who would use my words as an excuse to judge, or punish others by. Oops...

Did I just hijack the thread?

Back on topic. You know it's a sorry state of affairs that a law has to be declared which spells when it's fine and not so fine to continue sex. I guess there are people who can't tune themselves to a state of mutual sensitivity and ecstacy with another human being towards making love. That makes for a selfish and bad lova.

Who among us has not been in a position where something was just not right for the moment? It could have been premature to jump in the sack, the person was not right for you among other varieties of reasons. You should know by the way your body reacts and in the very least, the words that are spoken to you that it's not right to continue if you have any respect for yourself and the person you are with.

I'm a guy and I have had to call off sex in the middle of it a couple of times in the budding stages of a relationship when I realized, WTF am I doing? I shouldn't be with this woman. On a couple of occasions this was pretty devastating to the women but it was called for because continuing on would not have been right.

edit: spelling

[slackmaster]

140. This law should not be necessary, but so be it

From the cited article:

"Sen. Dan Rutherford, R-Pontiac, said the bill was inspired by a California case involving two teenagers. The girl changed her mind about having sex, but the boy did not stop immediately.

He was charged with rape, and it took years for the courts to decide that he was guilty under California law.

Rutherford said the new Illinois law should prevent that kind of protracted court battle."

Next time a similar case comes up at least in California the precedent set by that case will avoid any kind of protracted court battle. It isn't often necessary to write an entire new law when case law clarifies the meaning of existing law, and as one who desires to keep the amount of law to a minimum it bothers me that anyone would take this tack. But if that's what the people of Illinois want I can't fault them. I wonder how often this law will actually be invoked.

Although I often criticize others for invoking arguments about "common sense" it seems clear to me that any decent person would immediately cease and desist any kind of unwanted body contact on demand. I mean that very strictly. I am very ticklish and consider unwanted tickling to be a form of assault, and have made it clear to a few individuals that if they persist in unwanted contact I will respond with my fists. Maybe we need an anti-tickling law...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

147. A word after all the flaming...

This case is particularly toubling because the California girl in question did not even say "NO". Instead, she simply said she "Needed to go home". This left it up in the air as to whether she: A] Wanted him to stop immediately, B] Take her home after the wonderful time they were having together, or C] Hump her on the bus all the way back to her house. I think most reasonable people would assume "B".

So I propose as a compromise tothe various flamers on this discussion the following moral compromise: no means no, even during sex -- but if a girl has already agreed to sex, she has to be crystal clear that she's changed her mind or it isn't rape. Men should not go to jail because they're not telepaths.

- C.D.

[Wonder]

150. You raise an interesting point.

But I am unclear what were the other particulars here. Do we know. How did she come to say she "Needed to go home". It just seems to me that for no reasons would this be enacted into a law just on a fanciful whim.

It seems to me that the law spearheads instances when the girls or the women change their mind period. It happens. Something about the mans feel might turn someone off. The man might be into something the girl is not into. Or it might just be a simple case of ambiguity wherein the girl has her own guilt issues and she changes her mind.

Although I have heard some very strange stories from male friends regarding various female ettiquettes or lack of them in the bedroom, I don't know, I just don't get all the opposition to this law. When it comes to no, whenever it comes to no, it's no. Simple.

I do not know the specifics on this girl that said she wanted to go home. But in the middle of fore play if a man says to me he wanted to go home... I would not take that to be an encouraging sign... if you know what I mean.

An anecdote comes to mind. I had made dinner for a friend of mine recently. Him and I had been in and out of relationship in the past. Had gotten back together and had been intimate with one another again prior to the dinner. I certainly expected we would be intimate after dinner. And though he initated foreplay, he seemed ambivalent. I picked this up his body language. At one point at the very beginning of foreplay in the Kitchen he more than once stated he was tired. I can not remember his exact phrasing.

Long story short. I sent him home. In my mind. He was ambivalent and tired I didn't want to bother. Since we were not in a formal relationship, I wasn't sure exactly what he might have been really telling me so I chose not to push it.

He felt so bad he called me from his cell phone.... I said look it happens... I understand. I am not taking it personally. I'd rather wait till you feel more sure of what it is you want to do.

Point being: He changed his mind. It happens. It is a matter of respect not ego period.

Quite frankly it seems to me that if a girl is not into it reading that is not always a matter of telepathy either. It is being mindful of the other person. When to have sex it seems to me it takes two not one intent on just insertion and ejaculation. Even in casual settings it is a play between two for both parties. It is simple.

Of course every case is specific onto itself. Chalk it up as just another anecdote.

[Booberdawg]

160. Cop out

feel better ? :nopity:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

153. A valid reason for a woman changing her mind mid sex act

Some men don't know what the hell they are doing in bed. IF they are a bit longer than the norm and they are pounding away mindful of their own pleasure (not the woman's) and doing so in a very uncoordinated manner, it can cause their penis to slam against a woman's bladder which can be extremely painful. That pain can dry up even the most sexually excited woman in a matter of seconds...it hurts..and can result in a bladder infection for the woman. Pain (not necessarily induced by violence but ..for lack of a better term..bad driving) is a very valid reason to end an act of sex.

So for all you guys who say "well gosh once I start, I shouldn't have to stop" Consider that there may possibly be a reason beyond she just changed her fickle mind.

Frankly it's why I have sex with women. Most of you I have tried are lousy in bed.

But keep being neanderthals about the subject. It only results in more women accepting dinner invitations with me :evilgrin:

[Not a robought]

154. LOL NMSA

Out of curiosity.

Ever been with a woman who made it uncomfortable for you and you had to call it off? Did any of them ever not take no for an answer or get rude about it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

155. Nope!

And never had one ask me to stop making her happy either. Funny how that one works.

[noiretextatique]

227. the reverse...a woman who had been raped

she got uncomfortable, and though she didn't acutally say "stop," i sensed that she want me to stop...and i did. she was still very traumatized by the rape, so i just held her while she cried. it was heartbreaking to see this woman in so much pain...and heartbreaking to see how the trauma of the rape still controlled her ability to enjoy her sexuality. i lost touch with her eventually, but i ran into her recently, and she is in therapy. i hope it helps her.

another friend of mine was with a woman who she asked to stop, but this woman wouldn't. she called it rape.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

157. I've been known to bring women back from the dark side

I'm not a neanderthal, though. Don't hate me because I'm irresistible!
(head and body now in duck and cover mode)

[Wonder]

162. well NSMA that's what I call calling a spade a spade

the neanderthal's that seem to out themselves from their shear arrogance could care less about the woman's bladder or her blather either. It's probably a complete nuisance to them that she breathes or bleeds for that matter. For those of us Heterosexuals still single, after a long downtime, when I started dating again (I have since stopped), I was astounded how completely clueless some men can be.

I guess this is the thread for anecdotes. I had the misfortune to have encountered a guy clueless in the way you describe. of course before I could take control of the situation he climaxed. THANK GOD. I remember feeling like I did not even have to be there. And then he had the audacity to actually ask me if it was good for me. I told him not to worry about it too much he rolled over and fell asleep, but thought to myself I should have left him in the bedroom with the uncorked wine bottle, taken a good book into the livingroom, I am not sure he would have noticed I was gone until I yelled from the other room IS IT GOOD FOR YOU.

I was so shocked by the utter ineptness and unconsciousness I asked a girl friend of mine who plays the dating game much more regularly than I if this was a common occurrance. Prior to the rape I had always been in relationships. She admitted that was a scenario more common that she would like to admit which was why out of anger she had gotten to the point that when she could bring herself to organism first, if she wasn't really interested in having a relationship with whoever the guy was; she would simply announce she was done whether he had acheived orgasm or not and tell him she was tired and just either leave or would fall to sleep herself. I told her I passed on those kind of games, however the alternative is dating rarely or not at all.

Male anger is pretty evident in these threads. Some of it is just seems to be their need to overpower and dominate completely (an over simplification I realize). However, little attention is paid to female anger, and not that associated with the rape survivors one encounters who can become enraged by some of the more off handed insults one finds in these threads, but instead that anger that has women participating in these dating games wherein it has come to the point now that some females reach their orgasm and now they are done with little attention paid to the males sexual needs. An interesting play on the theme. In my mind they have embraced the male role almost completely, aping them as it were. I have heard now of this scenario more than once. I often wonder if so angry why they bother at all.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

163. I'm sensing your anger/frustration

Most of what I get from the male posts are questions regarding ability to defend oneself from this accusation. A sensible question - considering all the questions that have been raised. Not neanderthal-ic in the least.

[Wonder]

166. then you are not reading all the posts AND

I wonder if you've noticed the neanderthals at all.

I infer, however, are you operating under the premise that girls now have more ammunition with this new law which enables them now to falsely accuse more easily? Because it seems to me that not one guy will have to defend themselves from the accusation if they stop upon hearing no and do not opt to force themselves on a girl saying no. It is just that simple. Or is it that the Law will be infringing on some of their fun? It does get hard to tell what the big problem with this new law actually is.

All this law does is delineate boundaries in such a way that in actuality it clarifies the definition of those rapes that fall within the more mundane categories. Those in here, so put off by this law seemed to have not known what that boundary was. This Law clearly states it. It is simple. You do not force sex on a child, boy, girl, man or woman, if they at any time say no or express they want the act to stop. Nothing complicated about it. Those at odds with this law are just plainly missing the point. It rids us of this notion that when a girl says no she really means yes. Especially when she is saying no graphically drawn out by one of the posters, I think it was joshcryer. Apparently he felt it needed further clarification. Perhaps we need a slide presentation as well.

Those that believe the myth that women just run into the police station or put a call into 9/11 with an accusation and the police just run right out and pick up whomever the girl accuses on just her word are grossly mistaken.

The truth is this law will have little impact on rape conviction, or even whether all rape accusations are even tried. The only thing it does do, for those of us that are aware of the law, is it makes very clear when sex becomes rape and it states in no uncertain terms a women is well within her right to CHANGE HER MIND. If it will decrease rape incident, I am not sure, but it has impacted one of many misconceptions within the rape mentality I speak of and that is definitely a good thing.

[TLM]

347. The answer is simple... you just don't want to hear it...

"It does get hard to tell what the big problem with this new law actually is."

A man and woman have consensual sex. After the fact she accuses him of rape. When he tries to defend himself by saying it was consensual, she can say it was... right up until about 5 minutes from the end when she said stop.

Now the man has no way at all to prove he is innocent. So the case becomes a matter of her word against his... and with a law like this the lack of physical evidence can be completely dismissed as a source of reasonable doubt. And no matter what the verdict in court, his life is ruined, and he is convicted in the public eye.

How can you not see that as a problem?

Well if your personal attacks on myself and others posting in this thread are any indication, you need not answer that.

[Name removed]

345. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaraJade]

178. You are SOOOO right!!

Far too many men lack in empathy for the woman that they are
having sex with. They seem to literally lose their minds during
the sex act. I believe that selfishness causes this. They simply
don't care whether or not the woman enjoys it, just as long as they
do. And they will do whatever they have to for their own personal
enjoyment. Tenderness, caring and affection be damned! Pound away!!

Sickening!!!

Some idiot men don't seem to understand that PAIN DOESN'T FEEL GOOD.
Besides, this type of pounding can cause actual physical
damage as well.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

180. I was just offering up an explanation for the ones that think any woman

who says stop in the middle of an act is only doing it in order to set them up, or fuck with their tiny heads. You can be hospitalized for a bladder infection if it's severe enough.

[noiretextatique]

238. pain is a reason to stop sex

physical and emotional pain.
and you make an excellent point. why just the other day while at a new client's business, she was telling me her husband wasn't sensitive to her needs. we are going out to dinner tomorrow :D

[Forkboy]

156. To quote the name of my fav band

NoMeansNo

if you other guys can't control your lil winkies you shouldn't be using them.Some of you guys make it sound like stopping is impossible :eyes:

[freeforall]

165. WTF? ROLFMAO! eom

[Yavin4]

167. May I Ask Supporters of This A Question

Many of you keep saying over and over that a woman would never lie about a rape. That she would never put herself in that situation to be ridiculed. Okay, here's my question:

Did you believe Juanita Broderick when she accused Clinton of rape? Should Bill Clinton have stood trial for rape? What's to stop the right wing from using women to seduce candidates they don't like and then claiming rape? Or, do you not think that the right wing is capable of such things?

[joshcryer]

191. It's a tough line when it comes to celebrities.

A ‘rape victim’ has more to gain when it's someone who has money or is popular. Plus, the attention that is brought upon celebrity cases muddles common sense and makes it totally ridiculous. But, that's not what this thread is about. A very huge majority of cases are average. There is usually no intent or motivation to lie (and when there is, the defense lawyer can usually argue these motivations).

The women who lie about rape need to be sent to re-education camps, or something. It's wrong.

[Booberdawg]

168. Amazing

No deleted posts in this thread. :thumbsup:

Remember:

1)No means No (immediately - no "grace period" :eyes:)
2)Women have ALWAYS had the right to change their minds - this is not a NEW law
3)It is FAR, FAR more likely that a woman will be raped and the man will get away with it for lack of evidence or proof than it is likely that a woman will falsely accuse a man of rape
4)A determination that a woman is stupid, gullible, or a tease, for walking around alone at 2:00 a.m. is not "permission" to have sex with her, nor does in mean she is "asking for IT". Stupididy and gullibility is not consent. It just means she is stupid. It's still RAPE.
5)The notion that a man can't stop is nonsense. The penis does not have it's own brain that causes it to keep going without his permission or out of his control. He can stop immediately :eyes:)
6)Guys - there is nothing new here. It has never been okay to force sex on an unwilling partner, whether you get busted for it or not.
7)You can't be convicted of rape just on someone's word, or on the word of someone that you didn't even have sex with, just because she wants to bust your chops, make your life miserable, or she has nothing better to do. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and the prosecuter will only file charges if he/she feels they can prove rape, by you, beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires EVIDENCE, not just her word against yours. It is FAR, FAR, FAR more likely that a rapist will go free than an innocent man would get convicted.
8)To continue with #7, don't cross the line, and you don't have to worry about it.
9)If you're still worried about it - you might have some "control" issues, and possibly some unsavory attitudes about women as well. Maybe, maybe not.
10)But, if the notion that a woman ALWAYS has the CHOICE to change her mind and say NO to any further sexual contact causes you to feel totally victimized and/or enraged, or this notion of a CHOICE on her part is an entirely foreign concept to you, then I suggest you are in need of a good therapist. Again, this is not a new law, it is simply a clarification of a law already on the books, and it has never been okay to force unconsensual sex on a partner
11)For the record, the law says "PERSON". It is not limited to women. It's a "person" forcing another "person"
12)There are plenty of stupid women out there who don't know what the hell they want, go home with some guy they just met, then changes her mind when things get hot and heavy. I know - it's frustrating - it's very annoying. Life isn't fair. Be decent about it, chalk it up to another life experience. Pretty risky behavior on her part. But it still isn't okay to force the situation.
13)Women teasers - there is a special place in hell for women like this. These women aren't just stupid and change their minds, they intentionally tease to get guys excited and worked up and then drop the boom that there ain't gonna be no finish. VERY risky behavior. Anyway, it's still not okay to rape her. Give her a piece of your mind. Get rid of her as soon as possible and don't look back. She's trouble. Tell your buddies to avoid her. She needs help, but she's not your problem. Women who really have been raped are the ones who have to pay for the attitudes caused by women like this.
14)A "truly" false rape allegation. It doesn't happen as often as many of the guys here seem to think, but it does happen. You'd have a better chance of hitting the lottery than of being charged with a rape that was truly false. There has to be EVIDENCE, and it's not enough just to have her word. A prosecuter would have to believe he could proove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was forceable rape, that you did it, and that there was physical and circumstantial evidence other than her word that would convince a jury. Not likely to happen.
15) Women who make false rape charges - this is a crime. A very serious one. These women should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is the one that everybody remembers for the rest of their lives, and countless other true rape victims get revictimized for and their character assassinated over and over again for. This is the one that the truly abusive men latch on to in order to mask their true attitudes about women in the mask of victimization when the subject women and rape is discussed. Women who falsely accuse rape are not given a pass by other women just because she is a woman. No way. She's a crook, and deserves to have the book thrown at her. She's a pariah.

Common sense, respect, a little sensitivity.

[Wonder]

172. I have one small problem with #4

4)A determination that a woman is stupid, gullible, or a tease, for walking around alone at 2:00 a.m. is not "permission" to have sex with her, nor does in mean she is "asking for IT". Stupididy and gullibility is not consent. It just means she is stupid. It's still RAPE.

_____


I am single and sometimes I have insominia so I will walk over to the newstand in my neighborhood. Or I might walk to the am/pm to get juice or if I ran out of toilet paper. Sometimes it is after dark, could be 2:00 3:00 am. This woman walking on the street alone thing is another strange issue. Many of us are single now in these strange days and times. How is it that it is an issue when women walk on the street alone. There could be many reasons why she is doing that besides stupidity.

All your other items on your list I have no problem with at all. as for #15 I wrote something very similar to your suggestion if proven an alleged victim consciously and purposely lied. Throwing the book is too good for her. She should simple be given the sentence that was meant for the alleged rapist. You are right this is something that happens infrequently in comparison to the high incidence of sexual assualt, but seem to receive so so so so so so much more attention than rape incidences do. A woman who lies about it should be punished severely.

also --
rape has very little to do with sex --
rape is an violent exhirtion of power
rape is a theft of the woman's sexuality itself
rape is a violation of her body mind and spirit
rape requires many years of healing
rape is followed by post trauma and for some delayed post trauma which can come upward to a decade after the incident

rape victims can be abandoned outright by their boyfriends, husbands, girlfriends, mothers fathers family

rape is a stigma for the victim as much as for the rapist, as the victim can be blamed for the occurance even if justice is served as the myth remains that there must have been something the victim could have done to prevent it.

depending on the severity of the violation rape victims can suffer a irreparable sense of disconnection from the world at large, as well as a deep sense of abandoment, and an as equally serious lack of trust, in others and their own ability to protect themselves.

rape is a violent infringement of a victims sense of control as well as her sense of her own sexuality.

In living through the incident depending on the kind of power exhirted by the rapist and the level of violence, rape actually causes a death of spirit, in that the victim will leave her own body in order to bear it. Some might call this a state of shock. In mending, I have come to describe it as an evacuation of spirit that leaves the woman's body, so as not to be killed and it may take years for that spirit to return.

the victim may suffer delusional fear episodes that can have them running out of their own homes at night convinced someone is in the apartment, griping fears, anxiety, only to then have to talk themselves back into their own homes after realizing it was just that delusion fear again

Eventually she will succeed to swallow it back in an effort to get on with life cause quite frankly besides the rape crisis people, if the victim has been abandoned she walks through the whole think alone and to do this she must ice the incident out and really does not begin to deal with the incident till several years later. It is incomprehensible to even her and takes years for her to understand it herself. Most people could care less and no one really wants to hear about it because no once can relate to the crime itself in real terms. Her misfortune even to painful for them to bear.

and then there may be delayed post trauma which can hit with the kind of emotional intensity that is even worse than the original trauma itself, at which time the victim will be overtaken by the most amazing rage that will frighten even her.


No rape is not just one night of bad sex. rape has nothing to do with sex what so ever and only the victims get it, not mothers, or fathers, or sisters, or lovers, or girlfriends, or boyfriends. Beside the crisis therapist, the rape victim is generally left completely unconsoled and on her own.

And people wonder why she might harbor resentment especially when encountering some of the bogus considerations as expressed in this thread over law that actually does rape a service. it defines it beyond a reasonable doubt and booberdawg is correct this isn't new news at all.


Oh I didn't even get to the damage caused by the trial itself... I guess I will upon the arrival of another Kobe thread... because I am sure the neaderthals will miss the point altogether they generally do. As do too even some what we call modern women. The lack of compassion is mindboggling really.

But that is life -- love it or leave it.

[Booberdawg]

177. #4 Stupidity

First of all I have to say you had me laughing my ass off in another post about an unfortunate encounter with a partner who (fortunately) got off quickly but could have screwed a wine bottle and not realized it wasn't you. ROTFL! Oh girl, you're killing me! There were a couple others. You do have a sense of humor that breaks through the serious side.

I can see you have been through a lot - just a suggestion, but there is nothing that says you HAVE to participate in another KOBE thread. This one is mild compared to the KOBE threads I've seen. You don't have to participate in this one either. You need to heal yourself, and it is certainly not your job to fix the attitudes of men who feel victimized by a few common sense rules. Perhaps you need to get some of this out, or perhaps you are expecting to much from yourself too soon. You are your own best guage of whether this is doing you more harm than good. You still have the right to change your mind. ;)

Your question was: in #4, aren't there many other reasons a woman could be walking down the street at 2:00 a.m. besides stupidity.

Well, of course there are! When I wrote that it was directed toward a male point of view in which I had one particular post in mind where he brought up a similar scenario about someone wandering around alone late at night or coming to his room or some such thing, as if his wheels were churning that this were some kind of "loophole" where he might cop a free pass for rape. I don't recall all the specifics, but I read where some posters had to spell it out for him.

I might point out, though, that if you are in the habit of walking alone after dark, especially in the wee hours of the night, this is very risky behavior. The perception that counts is the one of the potential rapist. If he is one of those guys that thinks your vulnerability gives him a "loophole", which in his sicko mind is permission to rape you, then it is his perception of vulnerability that counts.

Of course you are not walking the street alone at night for reasons of stupidity. But, I hope you will reconsider this risky habit. You have a lot of healing to do. It would be tragic for something else to happen to only compound your wounds.

Linda

[Wonder]

179. You still have the right to change your mind.

I know this goofy. It is some of the men in these threads that are having a problem with this concept not I. And I also can make the needed distintion between these neanderthals and the regular guys in here. The neanderthals out themselves as soon as they open their mouth.

Now as for my healing and why and how I approach these particular threads. I guess some of my candor might even make you uncomfortable. On the other hand these provide me the opportunity to get some of this stuff off my mind, especially when I encounter some of the bogus bullshit that seems standard fare in these particular kinds of threads. And you are right this one is mild in comparison. I participated in some of the more insulting ones which I guess would account for this edge you are picking up. But at this stage I do not need a chaperone nor do I need anyone to hold my hand. I counter the mythology when I encounter it. And if there are those here that are free to spew forth archaic myth... speaking out within the framework of my experience is my freedom as uncomfortable as this might seem for some. As to where I am in my process. That is not for you or anyone to judge.

Walking alone at night is another point wherein one comes to the time when they can not remain a prisoner of their own fear. While the delayed post trauma is a drag and came as a great suprise triggered by 911 of all things, I have worked through a number of the important issues, and have come to understand what triggers an episode and why. As such my consciousness level is much higher than average, as is my ability to empathesize with an assortment of other people and the struggles they might be going through.

I do not anticipate anything happening to compound any of my wounds with a walk through my own neighborhood, and of course I am much more cautious than most of the younger girls that seem to think this kind of crime only happens to other women. I know the real deal, and conduct myself accordingly taking whatever precautions that enable me to maintain my emotional balance.

I am not sure whether you are talking from real knowledge or just what you imagine to be the fall out from this particular violation, so I will take your comments in stride. I thought you were a male at first which is why I got picky about the stupidity issue with women walking on the street alone at night.

I wouldn't bother with these threads if they did me more harm than good, as there is an aspect about them that is disturbing. Interestingly, in participating and speaking out in frankness they have enabled me to strengthen my sense of control and walk more from victim to survivor. It has been interesting mulling through some of the bogus fantasies one encounters in these threads and speaking out on behalf of myself (I know I am not the only rape survivor among us though I might be the most vocal) In the virtual it gives me the anonymity to feel safe and provides me with this opportunity to get a load off my mind.

As I said generally this is the last thing I am permitted to speak out about. Many only believe they understand the issues, most don't, especially not those that have no personal experience with the crime itself. Now if I make you and others uncomfortable, that of course is not my intent. I take the opportunity to counter some of the more bogus misconceptions. In the process I tell a little of my story and put a face on a crime it is clear people see as this just one night of sex. And of course those posters I would classify as the most bogus, I also I can see do not account for the all.

Yes I do realize there is nothing that says I have to participate. Like you know DUH... and I do mean that in a nice way. In other words you do your thing and I will do mine. But your concern is appreciated.

[Booberdawg]

183. Booberdawg ...

is my faithfull pooch. His name is Boober. It wasn't my intention to have people beleive I am a male, I just didn't think about it when I registered with the name. My profile correctly lists me as female.

There is not anything you have said that makes me the least bit uncomfortable, on the contrary, I think you quite courageous to lay it all out and take ownership of your feelings and experiences in the way you have. You obviously intelligent with a lot of insight.

Perhaps it was presumptous of me to suggest you didn't have to participate in a "KOBE" or "this thread for that matter". In fact, it was presumptuous, and I apologize. There was something you said that I misunderstood about the upcoming "KOBE" threads that struck me as a "duty", so that's why I got buttinski and suggested you really didn't have to. Not because I was passing any judgement on what you choose to share, where you are in your process, or your approach.

As far as where my own perspective and experiences are and where I draw my insight, let's just suffice it to say that I am not a stranger these and other abuse related issues. I see quite a bit of annoyance about hand holding and playing chaparone, and basically telling me to mind my own business, so I must have come across to you as condescending or judgemental or rude in some way. Presumptous. I do come across that way to people; I'm really quite opinionated, and not interested in changing my ways. Again, my apologies if I offended you. Which I apparently did.

Maybe it was the thing about walking alone at night. I just think it is risky. It isn't my call. My own philosophy of such things is that if my name is on the bullet, so be it. I'm not going to quit living life out of fear. But at the same time, I'm not going to walk in front of a loaded gun either. Just my opinion.

Well, I hope there are no hard feelings. I promise I'll refrain in the future from offering free advice, and just stick to my opinions.:hi:

[Wonder]

201. I can be quite edgy

For the most part is it has come from people telling me what I should have done and how I should have felt. And these are people operating not from experience, just societal prejudices. We all have our levels of fear to cope with. And I do still have mine. Prior to the incident I had none. I did not operate in fear. After I had to cope with crippling fear. Not that I have to be a stickler, but it has been a decade past and walking in my neighborhood which I know to be safe is a far cry from looking for mr. goodbar, if you know what I mean.

I spent almost the first 5 years after not going out at night at all. If I did if I stopped at a light and a car pulled up next to mine with a lone man in it and it just so happened that it was just me and him on the street, sometimes I would get so panicky I would jump the light. I don't mean little panicky either. My life was ruled by fear.

We are all the best judge of our comfort zones. For instance, I am not one of these girls that plays these ambivalent games the likes of what is general described by some of these guys, wherein the girl has to be coaxed for an hour or so in various stages of undress. You will not find me doing this. In fact I can't imagine why a guy would put himself through paces such as this. In my mind it seems if that kind of coaxing is required, personally I wouldn't need a no, it would just seem to me that the person was way too ambivalent for my tastes. What is the allure of this particular game from the male point of view I mean? I wouldn't waste my time playing that game over and over.

On the other hand I am not going to spend that much time judging the girl either. There could be numerous reasons from guilt of her own desire to psychosis. I hear women telling me all the time. I just really wanted to cuddle. I try and tell them in a casual situation while I can understand you wanting to cuddle don't you think it is a little naive to expect that is what is on the guys mind. But it is like talking to walls half the time. YOu would be surprised in this day and age the naivete that still exists.

While I am grateful that my fear has subsided enough to walk to the newsstand if I happen to be awake at 2am or running out on foot to pick up some toilet paper that I might need because I happen to be awake at 2am, there are other areas wherein I can not be coaxed into anything if my comfort safey zone is being infringed upon. To this day, no man that I do not know can come pick me up, especially not on a first date. I meet at the the resturante or whereever it is.

I can not tell you how often the guys have not been alright with this, and have insisted so strongly that they must pick me up. So insistant then even their insistence about something so minor will scare me and I have cancelled the date altogether. The point being I have an extraordinary inner radar. What it picks up are those guys that might have issues of control. If one insists they must pick me up at my house and it is such a big thing. This tells me they are not sensitive to the fact that I am not comfortable with this, my radar goes off. I may be right I may be wrong doesn't matter, my sense of comfort is more important than whatever that fantasy is in their head.

The point is there remains various areas wherein I still harbor great fear. It never ceases to amazement just how insensitive some man can be to just the simple wishes of a woman who says she would rather meet him at the resturante. The dating game is not a game of getting to know you. for the most part it is a sex game primarily wherein one or both parties are actually not their in the moment but instead are caught up with some fantasy in their head. These fantasies have come to bore me. Men it seems to me seem to operate within a fantasy more than women, and sorry I am not some fantasy that must play a date out based on something in some guys head. And I will not play the games.

For all the bellyaching one hears in these threads I can not help be struck by the male ambivalence either. On the one hand they will play these scenes with woman that from what they describe are extremely ambivalent about sex. Yet on the other hand if they meet up with one that wants to slow the game down a bit they take a pass, while at the same time that they are obsessed by the manipulative women that mean yes when they say no or my all time favorite the women that are looking to black mail them. I chalk this up to two things:

These guys have a real problem with women that know their own minds, so they steer clear of those women. Because when I regulaly encounter guys bellyaching to me about these same women that I am not and with regularity, I can not help want to scream to them open your fucking eyes. I am not her. or...

They are type specific and are judging all of women by this one type. And believe you me this one most popular type of woman that seems to the bain of these guys existences becomes the bain of mine, because quite frankly I am tired of hearing about her. From the stories I keep hearing about these woman I can not imagine why these guys even bother with them. These girls are selfish, self centered, insensitive and for the most part could care less about what she might be able to do for these guys but instead what these guys can do for her, and for the most part these girls are not in the majority, yet they splatter her across the silver screen.

This quest for power over another has also become endemic and in their own way some women are playing what I believe to be a very risky game. Those that go for this game and play scenes the likes of what JackSwift described whether it be the male or the female seem to barking up the wrong trees, especially if than they have to come boy hoo hooing to me about with regularity. And yes in their own way women have decided to play this game too, it seems part and parcel of what defines their femininity. I reject it completely. Of course once you do reject you come to find... the dating sex game is a very popular game. Might be the only game in town. Once you realize that you have two alternatives you either play it or you pass. I pass. The pass narrows the field considerably.

From my perspective I am just as tired with these babes who seem to get involved over and over with guys that in no way shape or form intend to give the babe what she wants. Which generally is commitment and then I have to also be bored to death by girls boo hooing on my shoulder asking do you think he loves me do you think he loves me. Well baby girl if you have to ask me, I guess that answers your question.

From this perspective what I find is many men are generally upfront about what kind of relationship they are having. The girls refuse to hear it. It is many times the girls that are compromising their needs and wants based on some fantasy in their heads wherein they think the guy will change. Because guess what. While many guys can't seem to keep it in their pants many girls involve themselves over and over with Mr. Wrong because quite frankly there are still many girls who just need to cuddle and can't deal with being alone wherein their sexuality makes them a women. I know women like this. More than I care to admit and some are quite successful in business too.

I keep wondering when everyone is going to grow the fuck up because in the middle of this bullshit game playing comes rape, wherein most unfamiliar with the issue is operating upon pure mythological bullshit the likes of what has just been expressed by conservative dem. When the fact remains if anyone goes back through those Kobe threads they will see just how many rape survivors there were in that thread so this insistance that rape is not a problem but false accusation is is just another male fantasy which more women than I would have prefered to encounter also seem to believe in their desire to remain irresponsible with their own sexuality.

It is simple to me Respect and Responsibility. When it comes right down to it both sexes seem to fall short of these two simple virtues. And I get oh your just a prude, stop moralizing, which is another fantasy. I am careful and discerning. I love sex and can be somewhat insatiable, but I must know I am safe and quite frankly many times than not in this bullshit dating game guys do not seem to be the least bit concerned with earning trust and could care less about helping to make me feel safe, but for their own desire which somehow I am made accountable for with little reciprocity. In my book it is simple sex can kill and even a guy without a weapon is armed. My statistics are a hell of lot more real than those statistics they wave around about the women that falsely accuse and those that lie just to blackmail these poor guys. These guys are as much victims as those girls who boo hoo does he love me does he love me when the writing is clearly on the wall.

I would say I am sick of it, but it would be more accurate to say that it bores me to death. That said, none of us can judge others or their processes by our own experiences or where we are in our own processes. You have an issue with walking at night alone. While I will certainly use caution more regularly than others. My neighbor is safe enough where walking to the newstand is not walking in front of any guns and if I should pass by a lone wolf which I never have. I have taken the appropriate precautions and feel about to defend myself... thank god. I have other fear issues which you might not have. It is not my place to preach to you about what are my fears.

I think it boils down to some degree that yes I am edgy. I was not allowed to feel or speak about an incident that changed my whole life for the worst as well as the way I saw the world. Finally I am coming around to the middle. It was a very long and lonely walk and I just wish some people would grow up. (not you booberdawg I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your candor).

[ConservativeDemocrat]

181. Major problems with #3 and #7

3)It is FAR, FAR more likely that a woman will be raped and the man will get away with it for lack of evidence or proof than it is likely that a woman will falsely accuse a man of rape.

7)You can't be convicted of rape just on someone's word, or on the word of someone that you didn't even have sex with, just because she wants to bust your chops, make your life miserable, or she has nothing better to do. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and the prosecuter will only file charges if he/she feels they can prove rape, by you, beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires EVIDENCE, not just her word against yours. It is FAR, FAR, FAR more likely that a rapist will go free than an innocent man would get convicted.

Neither of these are true. Not anymore. Rape is the ultimate he-said she-said because the issue is nearly always consent. The courts - probably correctly in my judgement - give more credence to the accuser than the accused in these cases. "Innocent until proven gulty" and "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" are mostly slogans in the U.S. anyway; in cases of rape, the issue is almost completely settled on the woman's version of what she was feeling.

There's a lot more to learn about rape. In particular, several misandronyst sociologists who call themselves "feminist" (in the same way that right wing fundies call themselves "Christian"), have come out with various cooked statistics on rape; this includes the infamous "27% of all women have been raped" (of which only 7% would agree). In my opinion, these kinds of misrepresentations have done more to hurt the feminist cause than just about anything else.

I believe the vast majority of rapes could have been stopped if the woman simply said "NO" clearly; or if that didn't work, "RAPE". This doesn't let men off the hook, obviously, but it is pretty obvious that the courts are not stacked against women when they throw a teenage boy in jail (and brand him a "sex-offender" for life) for not stopping when his girlfriend says "I wanna go home".

[Booberdawg]

184. You are misinformed

#3 and #7 are absolutely, 100% correct

The stuff you cite is bullshit, and I won't even address it

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

206. Christina Hoff Somers was funded by a right wing think tank and is

full of shit. The FBI tatistics she used for her book were proven wrong already, did not distinguish FALSE CLAIMS from UNFOUNDED claims meaning the police agencies either did not investigate or could not come up with enough evidence for charges ( that should take care of the "he said, she said" crowd. Furthermore the FBI was forced to revise their own statistics in that year and subsequent years due tothe manner in which they had classified these issues.

A great way to continue to cause a problem to persist is to ignore that there is even a problem.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

419. Regardless of her funding, she is less full

of it than those who are cooking the books to try and make it seem like 1/4 of all college age women have been raped.

Insofar as the FBI is concerned, it is true that political pressure forced them to reclassify what they called rape or not, but it doesn't change the underlying statistics. FALSE CLAIMS merely speak to the percentage of women who recant their stories. UNFOUNDED claims are ones in which the evidence conflicts but the woman does not voluntarily confess to the crime of lying to the police, or the behavior she complains about is legally NOT RAPE (e.g. "he was mean to me in the morning", or "I said yes, but then I didn't want it, even though I never actually told him to stop"); it does NOT cover the ludicrous idea that the FBI simply fails to investigate a potential felony.

There are other studies that have shown that as many as 41% of the forcable rape accusations in a precinct were false.

Again, while rape is a horrible crime and is terribly underreported, it is also one of the crimes with the highest rates of misreporting. While many men are monsters, many women are too - and the accusation of rape is a powerful weapon in the hands of someone determined to misuse it. The concept that women are all perfect little angels that need to be protected from the rough brutal world of bestial men, seems downright insulting to women. This pervasive misogony/misandrony in the so-called "feminist" movement is what poisoned the word in the minds of the U.S. public. And it's a shame.

[TLM]

422. Very well said...

It gets very frustrating when men who absolutely agree that rape is horrible and agree that no means no etc. are attacked and insulted with insinuations that they are defending rapists or worse are rapists themselves, simply because they question this law or point out that there are women who do lie about rape.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

488. No the male backlash that benefits from denying that a problem

exists is the larger issue. BTW, maybe if you read something other than the internet ..LIKE A FUCKING book...you'd know a bit about the myths you are spitting out.

Here's Kanin's own words:
""Most problematic is the question of the generalizability of these findings from a single police agency handling a relatively small number of cases. Certainly, our intent is not to suggest that
the 41% incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations,
particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural
variables that might be influencing such behavior and which could
be responsible for wide variations among cities. But a far greater
obstacle to obtaining "true" incidence figures, especially for larger
cities, would be the extraordinary variations in police
agency policies (see Comment, 1968; Newsweek, 1983; Pepinsky and
Jesilow, 1984); variations so diverse, in fact, that some police agencies cannot find a single rape complaint with merit, while others
cannot find a single rape complaint without merit. Similarly, some
police agencies report all of their unfounded rape cases to be due
to false allegation, while other agencies report none of their unfounded declarations to be based on false allegation (Kanin, 1985)."

Therefore...as I said, that statistic and by way of refernce YOU are full of shit. There are no more FALSE reports of rape than false repoorts of car thefts.

Kanin is a proud member of the "no it isn't crowd"...don't bother to acknowledge a problem exists when you can obscure the facts with dishonest studies.

[noiretextatique]

248. you are seriously misinformed

there is a post in the lounge right now about DU members neighbor who was raped last night. there have been four rapes in the area where this man lives. he and his wife are so terrified, they are considering getting a dog.
do you think saying "no" could have prevented this rapist from breaking into this woman's house and raping her? or is this a different kind of rape than the "vast majority" you think can be stopped by "no?"

what a load of self-serving :hurts:

and as others have mentioned, you should do a better job of checking your sources.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

420. When they catch the guy...

...he'll be sent to jail for a long long time - which is where he should be.

However, despite the sad anicdote, stranger rape is one of the rarest forms of the crime, constituting only about 17% of all rapes committed in this country. In the typical case, the rapist is an aquaintence of the victim, who he hopes to keep quiet by shame or intimidation.

Yelling "RAPE" informs the assailant in no uncertain terms that he isn't going to get away with it. ( Biting and giving him a bloody nose doesn't hurt either. )

Insofar as your use of insults, I'm sorry to inform you that your use of them is neither persuasive nor warranted. I am correct. You are not.

- C.D.

[noiretextatique]

433. thanks for the advice, but it depends on the situation

your advice could get a woman killed. say, for instance if the rapist has a knife to her throat, or a gun to her head, and says: "if you scream, i will kill you." or, he may use his fists. some rapists are prepared to kill...some do kill. all rapists are prepared to be violent, since rape is an act of violence.

the rapist may use weapons, even in cases where the rapist is an aquaintance of the victim, btw. a gun, a knife, or fists might help keep victims quiet also....this would be intimidation and shame.

rape is always experienced as fear, violence, and humiliation...by the victim. it doesn't matter if it's an acquaintance or a stranger.

[Rich Hunt]

283. FYI - your stats are a MYTH

The study said that 27.5% were the victims of a rape OR attempted rape.

This is a good site that takes Sommers to task, and which explains what the Koss study really covered:

http://katesfeminist.info/rape/controversy/

[ConservativeDemocrat]

425. That site twists the facts and ignores others:

For example:

Roiphe goes on to say:

"... 73% of the women categorized as rape victims did not initially define their experience as rape; it was Mary Koss, the psychologist who conducted the study, who did."

But Koss didn't define the women's experiences; the law does.

This issue was addressed by Sommers both rhetorically and factually. The rhetoric was persuasive:

Koss and Pollitt make a technical (and in fact dubious) legal point: women are ignorant about what counts as rape. Roiphe makes a straightforward human point: the women were there, and they know best how to judge what happened to them. Since when do feminists consider "law" to override women's experience?

The facts were devistating:

Nara Shoenberg and Sam Roe, revealed that Koss was quoting the Ohio statute in a very misleading way: she had stopped short of mentioning the qualifying clause of the statute, which specifically excludes "the situations where a person plies his intended partner with drink or drugs in hopes that lowered inhibition might lead to a liaison."<19> Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded.

In other words - Koss's survey called going to a frat party, having your date give you drinks, getting horny, screwing him, and then regretting it in the morning as "rape". No wonder she got a one in four response.

- C.D.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

483. Funny that's what roofies do only they are considered drugging

a person. If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her :shrug:

[TLM]

509. And if there is no directed action on the part fo the guy...

If it is a case of two people meeting at a party or club where both have been drinking... rather than the case you present where someone is purposefully giving a woman alcohol to incapacitate her to the end of having nonconsensual sex with her.

If it is rather simply a case where, quite of her own accord, a woman and maybe some of her friends etc. go out to a party or club and drink and get a little crazy, then she ends up hooking up with some guy who has also been drinking. They, in that state, both consent to have sex, and the next morning, she feels ashamed or embarrassed about how she acted, regrets having done it, and probably would not have done it had she not been drinking.

Is that guy guilty of rape?


It seems like this situation is being twisted into a much more nefarious context of intentional drugging with alcohol for malicious intent, that we all agree is wrong and is rape, in order to avoid addressing the much more common example where there was no malicious intent that resulted in arriving at the inebriated state, where the issue is much less clear.

Now according to the study, the situation I describe was counted as rape. This is what I'm talking about when I say the line between regret and rape is being intentionally blurred.


I would say no, it was not rape. I think a lot of guys have had the "beer goggles" experience of getting drunk and waking up next to someone they would not have had sex with had they not been drunk. Does that mean they were raped? Or does it mean they did something stupid and irresponsible and ended up doing something they regret doing?

If you consider it rape, does that also mean every fat and/or ugly chick who has ever had sex with a drunk guy who regreted it the next day, guilty of rape?

Or is this yet another double standard that only applies to men, because men are all such brutal monsters just out looking for their next rape victim?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

512. "every fat and/or ugly chick "

Your postion is so obvoiusly grounded in the language of sexism that there is no hope for meaningful dialogue with you.

[TLM]

514. Oh and the real issue is again avoided... surprise.

"Your postion is so obvoiusly grounded in the language of sexism that there is no hope for meaningful dialogue with you"

So if I replace "fat and/or ugly chick" with "overweight and/or unattractive gyno-american" would you address the point of the example given instead of whining about my language?

Here...

If it is a case of two people meeting at a party or club where both have been drinking... rather than the case you present where someone is purposefully giving a woman alcohol to incapacitate her to the end of having nonconsensual sex with her.

If it is rather simply a case where, quite of her own accord, a woman and maybe some of her friends etc. go out to a party or club and drink and get a little crazy, then she ends up hooking up with some guy who has also been drinking. They, in that state, both consent to have sex, and the next morning, she feels ashamed or embarrassed about how she acted, regrets having done it, and probably would not have done it had she not been drinking.

Is that guy guilty of rape?


It seems like this situation is being twisted into a much more nefarious context of intentional drugging with alcohol for malicious intent, that we all agree is wrong and is rape, in order to avoid addressing the much more common example where there was no malicious intent that resulted in arriving at the inebriated state, where the issue is much less clear.

Now according to the study, the situation I describe was counted as rape. This is what I'm talking about when I say the line between regret and rape is being intentionally blurred.


I would say no, it was not rape. I think a lot of guys have had the "beer goggles" experience of getting drunk and waking up next to someone they would not have had sex with had they not been drunk. Does that mean they were raped? Or does it mean they did something stupid and irresponsible and ended up doing something they regret doing?

If you consider it rape, does that also mean every overweight and/or unattractive gyno-american who has ever had sex with a drunk guy who regreted it the next day, guilty of rape?

Or is this yet another double standard that only applies to men, because men are all such brutal monsters just out looking for their next rape victim?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

517. Give me the case you reviewed so I can read it for myself

I have trouble trusting your intepretation since you had formed an opinion on this case without all the facts.

Pigeonholing me into defining rape is debate on YOUR terms. I won't play on your terms. Let me look the case up and form my own conclusions and I will then respond.

[TLM]

520. What case, this is a hypothetical addressing a standard of judgment

If your positions are objective and you apply your standards consistently, you should easily be able to address the situation I described. So your continued avoidance of the circumstance I present, begs the question...

If it is a case of two people meeting at a party or club where both have been drinking... rather than the case you present where someone is purposefully giving a woman alcohol to incapacitate her to the end of having nonconsensual sex with her.

If it is rather simply a case where, quite of her own accord, a woman and maybe some of her friends etc. go out to a party or club and drink and get a little crazy, then she ends up hooking up with some guy who has also been drinking. They, in that state, both consent to have sex, and the next morning, she feels ashamed or embarrassed about how she acted, regrets having done it, and probably would not have done it had she not been drinking.

Is that guy guilty of rape?


It seems like this situation is being twisted into a much more nefarious context of intentional drugging with alcohol for malicious intent, that we all agree is wrong and is rape, in order to avoid addressing the much more common example where there was no malicious intent that resulted in arriving at the inebriated state, where the issue is much less clear.

Now according to the study, the situation I describe was counted as rape. This is what I'm talking about when I say the line between regret and rape is being intentionally blurred.


I would say no, it was not rape. I think a lot of guys have had the "beer goggles" experience of getting drunk and waking up next to someone they would not have had sex with had they not been drunk. Does that mean they were raped? Or does it mean they did something stupid and irresponsible and ended up doing something they regret doing?

If you consider it rape, does that also mean every overweight and/or unattractive gyno-american who has ever had sex with a drunk guy who regretted it the next day, guilty of rape?

Or is this yet another double standard that only applies to men, because men are all such brutal monsters just out looking for their next rape victim?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

521. ACCORDING TO WHAT STUDY?????

I want to know WHAT STUDY considers two people equally drunk and equally consensual having sex as rape. Here are your words:
Now according to the study, the situation I describe was counted as rape. This is what I'm talking about when I say the line between regret and rape is being intentionally blurred.

How is it that it was counted as rape? Give me the study which will give me the info.

I cannot determine based on your facts as presented. Who COUNTED IT AS RAPE? A prosecutor? The author of the study? Some ANTI_FEMINIST men's web site out to grind an axe? Some anti-male feminist site out to grind an AXE?

In a DA's office, that would most probably NOT AUTOMATICALLY count as rape unless there were other extenuating circumstances present.

So, pony up the facts or I will not play.

[TLM]

525. You again dodge... not surprised. And try reading the posts you flame.

Because the info you are asking for was linked to in the post you flamed.


"I want to know WHAT STUDY considers two people equally drunk and equally consensual having sex as rape."

CD had laid this out quite well in the post you flamed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=38682#45478




"Nara Shoenberg and Sam Roe, revealed that Koss was quoting the Ohio statute in a very misleading way: she had stopped short of mentioning the qualifying clause of the statute, which specifically excludes "the situations where a person plies his intended partner with drink or drugs in hopes that lowered inhibition might lead to a liaison."<19> Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded.


In other words - Koss's survey called going to a frat party, having your date give you drinks, getting horny, screwing him, and then regretting it in the morning as "rape". No wonder she got a one in four response."



"How is it that it was counted as rape? Give me the study which will give me the info."

CD linked to it in the post you flamed.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html



When Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare, first read the "one in four" figure in the school newspaper, he was convinced it could not be accurate. The results did not tally with the findings of almost all previous research on rape. When he read the study he was able to see where the high figures came from and why Koss's approach was unsound.

He noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered "yes" to the question "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been "administered" an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired? Certainly, if you pass out and are molested, one would call it rape. But if you drink and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that you later come to regret, have you been raped? Koss does not address these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist and you as a rape statistic if you drank with your date and regret having had sex with him. As Gilbert points out, the question, as Koss posed it, is far too ambiguous:


What does having sex "because" a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify? A positive response does not indicate whether duress, intoxication, force, or the threat of force were present; whether the woman's judgment or control were substantially impaired; or whether the man purposefully got the woman drunk in order to prevent her resistance to sexual advances.... While the item could have been clearly worded to denote "intentional incapacitation of the victim," as the question stands it would require a mind reader to detect whether any affirmative response corresponds to this legal definition of rape.<17>

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

527. Thanks. Since your own post says it would determine a mind reader

to detect and I am not a mind reader, I too shall not respond. To do so would be outside the scope of my expertise.

BTW, Christina Hoff Somers was paid by the Scaife foundation to put out this book. That would be the saem Scaife foundation that paid to have Bill Clinton impeached. Why so much credibility for Somers and none for Ken Starr?

[TLM]

530. Thank you for proving my point by running away from this...

Were your positions based on objective standards and not flat out man-hating... you could easily answer this question. However you refuse to do so, and your refusal says more about the inconsistency of your standards, and your bias against men, than I ever could.

"Since your own post says it would determine a mind reader to detect and I am not a mind reader, I too shall not respond. To do so would be outside the scope of my expertise."

The mind reader comment was referring to one answering Koss' questions, not mine. The lengths to which you are going to avoid comments on this example really shows us all how unobjective your standards are.


"BTW, Christina Hoff Somers was paid by the Scaife foundation to put out this book. That would be the saem Scaife foundation that paid to have Bill Clinton impeached. Why so much credibility for Somers and none for Ken Starr?"

Did the Scaife foundation also pay, Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare to say the study was flawed? And did their paying Hoff change the nature of Koss' ambiguous questions?

Are you saying Hoff lied about the nature of the questions in Koss' study and that Koss did not admit the fact that the question was misleading?

"Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous."<20> That concession should have been followed by the admission that her survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape drops to one in nine."

Well did Scaife also pay Koss to admit this?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

536. I'm a man hater because I won't reason on your slippery slope?

Were your positions based on objective standards and not flat out man-hating... you could easily answer this question. However you refuse to do so, and your refusal says more about the inconsistency of your standards, and your bias against men, than I ever could.

My opinions are based on objective standards which is why I will not say NO THAT IS NOT RAPE without having a complete picture. If two people drink and fuck with complete consent, it is not rape. Thestudy was a survey not a study on actual legal statistics and charges.

The mind reader comment was referring to one answering Koss' questions, not mine. The lengths to which you are going to avoid comments on this example really shows us all how unobjective your standards are.


The lengths to which you are going to trap me into waging an opinion on a hypothetical are a sign that you cannot handle situations easily where you cannot dominate.


Did the Scaife foundation also pay, Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare to say the study was flawed? And did their paying Hoff change the nature of Koss' ambiguous questions?


No the Smith Richardson foundation is the RW foundation that bankrolls Gilbert.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=Neil+Gilbert

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/smith_richardson_foundation.htm

Think real hard for a moment about how women's issues relates to welfare.

Are you saying Hoff lied about the nature of the questions in Koss' study and that Koss did not admit the fact that the question was misleading?

"Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous."<20> That concession should have been followed by the admission that her survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape drops to one in nine."

Well did Scaife also pay Koss to admit this?

I've not once used the Koss study as a basis for any of my arguments that I can recall so what is your point?

[TLM]

542. I do not know why you have the bias, just that it is there.

Were your positions based on objective standards and not flat out man-hating... you could easily answer this question. However you refuse to do so, and your refusal says more about the inconsistency of your standards, and your bias against men, than I ever could.


"My opinions are based on objective standards which is why I will not say NO THAT IS NOT RAPE without having a complete picture."


Very telling... so you assume it is a rape until proven otherwise? So basically men are guilty until proven innocent. And that’s not biased against men how?


"If two people drink and fuck with complete consent, it is not rape."

Careful that's almost an answer to my question... since you now admit that consensual sex after drinking isn't rape, then you must also admit that your attacks on CD were unfounded. Since he pointed out this flaw in the Koss’ study and you attacked him for it.


" Thestudy was a survey not a study on actual legal statistics and charges."

Because a study of actual charges shows numbers that are far less conducive to attacks on men. You'll get no argument from me that Koss study was a pile of biased unscientific crap.


The mind reader comment was referring to one answering Koss' questions, not mine. The lengths to which you are going to avoid comments on this example really shows us all how unobjective your standards are.


"The lengths to which you are going to trap me into waging an opinion on a hypothetical are a sign that you cannot handle situations easily where you cannot dominate."

Yawn, yeah I'm trying to dominate and control you by presenting you with a situation and asking you to evaluate it so I can gage the degree of bias in your standard for judgment.



Did the Scaife foundation also pay, Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare to say the study was flawed? And did their paying Hoff change the nature of Koss' ambiguous questions?


No the Smith Richardson foundation is the RW foundation that bankrolls Gilbert.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/all_in_one_results.php?Message=Neil+Gilbert

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/smith_richardson_foundation.htm

Think real hard for a moment about how women's issues relates to welfare.


So basically you have a conspiracy of RW groups paying professionals to discredit a study on rape for some nefarious right wing purpose.

Yet even the woman who did the study admitted that her study was flawed. Did the evil right wingers pay her too?


Are you saying Hoff lied about the nature of the questions in Koss' study and that Koss did not admit the fact that the question was misleading?

"Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous."<20> That concession should have been followed by the admission that her survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape drops to one in nine."

Well did Scaife also pay Koss to admit this?


"I've not once used the Koss study as a basis for any of my arguments that I can recall so what is your point?"

Point one, you attacked another poster for saying Koss' study was garbage, implying he was defending roofies rape...

"Funny that's what roofies do only they are considered drugging a person. If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her "


Point two is this study stands as an example that some people have an agenda to expand the definition of rape, blur the line between regret and rape, and will lie about rape accusations to do it.

Point three is that these bogus stats end up being tossed around in threads like this as some validation for anti-male rhetoric.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

545. Are you intentionally obtuse?

Very telling... so you assume it is a rape until proven otherwise? So basically men are guilty until proven innocent. And that’s not biased against men how?

No. I think you just made that up. I wouldn't assume it wasn't a rape and I wouldn't asume it was. The filter you listen through has you hearing things I never said. That is known as hallucinating. Maybe it's time to step back from the computer until your ability to literally translate what was said returns.

Careful that's almost an answer to my question... since you now admit that consensual sex after drinking isn't rape, then you must also admit that your attacks on CD were unfounded. Since he pointed out this flaw in the Koss’ study and you attacked him for it.

I didn't attack CD and I didn't answer your question by saying two people who drink and have consensual sex are not engaging in a rape. If two people drink, have consensual sex and one withdraws consent even after having drinks or being drunk, I would still consider that a rape.


Yawn, yeah I'm trying to dominate and control you by presenting you with a situation and asking you to evaluate it so I can gage the degree of bias in your standard for judgment.

See the first paragraph where you twisted my words to suit your needs. There is no reasoning with you. YOu would be the last person I would ask to help me flesh out my biases, and you are going to believe what you wish anyway

this was a quote of mine that you claim is attacking another poster
"Funny that's what roofies do only they are considered drugging a person. If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her "

You have a problem with that statement? Really?

[Alexander]

171. If they don't say anything, they aren't saying "Stop."

But if they say "Stop", then you should stop. I don't get what's so difficult about this.

But "should we ask if we should stop every 10 seconds?" is a ridiculous argument, because if the girl doesn't say "Stop", or "No", or "Wait", then you can pretty safely assume that she doesn't want you to stop.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

194. I don't understand all the debate...

It's just a recognition of "no" means "no" and that a woman doesn't hand over all control of her body to a man just by engaging in sex with him. Physicial force at any point that isn't consensual violates the other person's body and freedom of movement.

[frustrated_lefty]

195. So much venom in this thread!

Obviously a woman (or a man) has the right to say “no” at any point during sex, and has the right to expect those wishes to be respected. What I find disturbing about this is that in the case involved the accuser didn’t say “stop.” She said “I need to go home,” or something to that effect.

The basic aspect of this new clarification of the law which, I suspect, is making some of the guys uneasy is that it seems to expect men to interpret subtle nuances of expression and underscores the fact that a woman can effectively accuse a man of a felony if he fails to read her mind. Hell, an emotionally conflicted woman can convince herself after the fact that she really hadn’t wanted to have sex, remember shaking her head “no” once, and have justification for pressing charges.

This clarification places 99% of the burden on men for interpreting a woman’s intent, and 1% of the burden on women for expressing their meaning clearly. Having been in relationships where convincing my partner to stop dancing around the bush and say what the hell was on her mind was like pulling teeth, I can see why this new clarification makes some men uncomfortable.

While I’m all in favor of a woman’s right to control what happens to her own body, I question whether this is the best way to achieve that end.

And, men are right to be wary of situations that might leave the door open for false accusations. Some stats from: SOME FACTS ABOUT RAPE AND FALSE ACCUSATION OF RAPE

“In a survey of 610 female college students who's average age was 19 years old, 39 percent said they had said no to sex when they meant yes, and 69 percent said they had said no when they meant maybe. Of sexually experienced women, 61 percent had engaged in token resistance.”

“Of 556 accusations of rape examined in an Air Force study, 27 percent of the accusers admitted, either just before taking a polygraph test or after failing one, that they had lied.”

“A survey of all the forcible rape complaints during a three-year period at two large Midwestern state universities found that 50 percent of the accusations were false. At each university, the complaints and investigations were the responsibility of a ranking female officer, and no complaint was declared false unless there was a recantation by the accuser. Fifty-three percent of the accusations were motivated by a need for an alibi; revenge was the motive for 44 percent.”

“A third of DNA scans now routinely done in new rape investigations are nonmatches, according to a newsmagazine.”


While I suspect true accusations of rape are far more prevalent than false accusations, false accusations aren’t exactly a rare event. And, at times, the accusation alone is sufficient to destroy one’s career or standing within the community.

[Rich Hunt]

284. Wow! The pre-digested anti-feminist memes are BACK!

Once again, as in one of the Kobe Bryant threads, we have reference to an URL that pre-digests all of the "false accusation" academic research FOR US, so that we don't have to consult the actual sources to see what they really said.

As I pointed out in the thread, these sites pissed me off so bad that I went the the library and read the actual studies.

I found that the researchers - Kanin in particular - did not want people generalizing from his survey.


Christina Hoff Sommers did this, too - one of her sources was the obscure Toledo Blade, which is of course carried in every public library in the country.

[RapidCreek]

196. This entire thread is asinine!

what a waste of finger power.

RC

[StandWatie]

203. damn, I raped my girlfriend today

:eyes:

Seriously, if this is something worth going to court over, it's not just your girlfriend or fling or whatever being coy or begging for some wooing, something is dead wrong if she is going to the cops with this story.

[usual_suspect]

205. Rape

This may also open the door to men charging women with rape. Consider a man who decides he wants to stop mid-way. He says no, he claims the woman held him with her legs. Rape. Not likely? I’ve gotten tired and wanted to stop but was encouraged not to. Was I raped?

[Wonder]

208. wow it really does get convoluted doesn't it.

were you raped? I don't know were you? Me thinks if raped you wouldn't have to ask? Have any clue about rape?

[joshcryer]

212. You know Wonder, let's just stop. I'm done with this thread.

My blood pressure is a bit high I reckon. I'm not going to read it anymore. I've been extremely civil up to this point, but others idiocy begins to get to me after awhile.

[Wonder]

216. Yes I know what you mean

I have so many other interests as far as topic is concerned --- I am not sure I understand myself why I persist. But that the comments here do seem to be prevalent for the most part and it is bothersome to me... you are right though for the most part it is like talking to walls. You just have to accept the reality for what it is and steer clear of it, I mean in real life. At least that is what I have to do. Saddly steering clear of it narrows the field considerably. Ah well.

[sam sarrha]

217. might as well, someone doesnt get it that .."No Means NO, NOW.

what is there to argure about ? dont have sex with people you dont know or trust, duh...be responsable.

[study_war_no_more]

230. no means no and stop means stop

Yep thats the deal not hard to understand at all. For those who disagree go ask your Mom about it or a woman you respect as a person. By the way thats the key-respect as a person.

[sam sarrha]

271. Mahayana Buddhism says to see all other beings as your mother.

even the Dubya as your mother suffering from the ignorance of desire and grasping. and we must practace to aquire the skillful means to help them out of their suffering.

[noiretextatique]

286. see all other beings as your mother

thank you for sharing that beautiful concep, sam sarrha. it gives me much to contemplate.

[noiretextatique]

287. see all other beings as your mother

thank you for sharing that beautiful concep, sam sarrha. it gives me much to contemplate.

[noiretextatique]

288. see all other beings as your mother

thank you for sharing that beautiful concept, sam sarrha. it gives me much to contemplate.

[ProfessorGAC]

231. I See 2 Major Problems With This Law

First, i think it's unenforceable. The physical evidence that is extant in rape cases is just about eliminated here, since the woman would have to admit having sex, consensually. So, no physical evidence that a sex act took place would be relevant, since that fact is not in dispute.

So, the only evidence would be a woman's statement that she said to stop. The obvious defense would be "No she never said that."

How in the world does one prove whether the word "stop" was ever said during an otherwise consensual act? This is "he said/she said" to the nth degree. In other rape cases, there are established physical/medical indicators that sex took place, and there are telltale signs that it was forcibly induced. No such indicators would exist for this crime.

Second, and i think more impotantly, is that this law appears to have removed the violence component of rape. It seems that for many, many years, the law enforcement, legal, medical and psychological communities have accepted that rape is a crime of violence with a sexual component. It is not a crime of sex, but one of a violent nature. It is an intrinsically violent act.

Even date rape laws would appear to meet that definition. Pumping a woman full of drugs, alcohol, or both to reduce inhibitions, impair judgment, and minimize the ability to resist, and then taking advantage of those impairments can certainly be inferred to be violent. Less aggressive perhaps, but still a violent act of taking advantage without clear and present consent, absent duress.

This law seems to me to eliminate the violent component. It is much more difficult to infer the intrinsic violence of engaging in a consensual sex act and then failing to stop immediately upon an instruction to do so. What is "immediately"? At what point does failure to do so become violence?

Now, understand that any guy who fails to stop when asked to do so is clearly showing a lack of control, and is exhibiting zero ethical or moral sense. Stop does mean stop. But, there ought to be some other legal violation should that occur, other than rape.

Rape is, and should be, considered a crime of intrinsic violence. Absent that inherently violent component, this law seems to be changing the definition of rape, back to one of sex, not violence.

That seems like a backward step in our understanding the dynamic of this crime, to me.
The Professor

[Wonder]

249. changing the definition of rape

I believe it this law just clarifies the definition. If a man does not stop it is intrinsic not just of moral depravity, and not just indicative of control, but is evidence of force.

Rape is not just a matter of violence, but of force. In my eyes this law just clarifies the boundaries for those man that do not get they are not allowed to force their kind of pleasure onto another and vica versa. A woman or a man can consent to participate , but some times at the front neither knows what they are actually consenting to.

I have a male friend told me a story, he engaged willfully in foreplay with a woman who at one point demanded that he beat her. In his mind it was a change in venue. He participated based on his sexual boundaries not hers. He told her to get dressed and get out, and he was perfectly within his rights. Now just change the scenario around a bit and have it be the woman who after consenting to sex based on her sexual boundaries is then confronted with a kind of scene she finds off putting. Because man many times can overpower the woman well guess what? In that scenario this woman might have not only consented to sex as defined by her boundaries but the two could have well already engaged in the whole act once and then the guy decides to change venue. And refuses to take no for an answer.

I guess you raise some interesting points. In the above scenario it might be considered sexual battery I am not sure.

For the most part I agree with much of what you say in regard to proving a more non-violent sexual battery. However rape is not a matter of crippling violence but a matter a force, whether it can be proven or not making the delineation is a good thing I think as well as stating outwardly that a partner be it a man or a women is allowed to change their mind after having consented.

My contention with some of the responses in this thread is that some guys have clearly expressed a problem with that. Bruises or no bruises regardless of the degree of voilence or even the provability of the crime. A guy has a problem with stop and proceeds forcifully anyway, is a guy suffering from much more than issues of control and or moral depravity, it demonstrates an utter disregard for his partner. My contention is that some of the guys here with there thoughtless remarks they feel are so cute clearly do not grasp this concept... they are part of the problem.

[ProfessorGAC]

255. I Believe the Law Would Disagree With You

Rape is considered by psychologists (who treat both victims and perpetratros) and lawyers as a crime of violence. The use of unwarrented force, in any way, sexual or otherwise, is considered violent. That's why simple battery can be something as little as a shove.

The very fact that the act starts out consensually, obviates the intrinsic violence that is rape. Even the continuation wouldn't require the use of force. Just obliviousness. If force is used in any way, then i agree with you 100%.

Last point: I am against ANY law that is unenforceable, no matter what crime it means to address. It is a waste of our limited legislative and enforcement resources. While the philosophical points both you and i have made were prompted by this law and its attendant publicity (not a bad thing), this is a solution in search of a problem.

A law which cannot be enforced becomes a mere point of debate. That's not what laws are supposed to be. If the definition of what constitutes rape needs to be clarified in the judicial record, then the legislature should draft such clarification, and not add a new, and unenforceable law to the books.

I think, in general, we agree on most of the points. At least conceptually, if not in the detail. However, i would disagree with your statement (in the penultimate paragraph) that it doesn't matter if the law is enforceable. On that issue, we will agree to disagree. I think it always matters whether a law can be enforced. That's what makes it a meaningful law and helps to assure that it brings justice to society.
The Professor

[sangha]

259. You believe wrong, Prof

Simply put, rape does not require any violence or any use of force. It merely requires an absence of consent.

But you are right about enforceability. Laws that cannot be enforced are, by definition, not laws. However, this law is extremely enforceable.

[ProfessorGAC]

263. Rape is Considered A Violent Crime. . .

. . .in all 50 states and by the FBI. In any compilation of violent crime statistics, rape is included. That's by state and by country! It is not, like burglary or auto theft, considered a non-violent felony.

In an armed robbery, nobody has to be hurt. It's still considered a violent crime.

And, psychologists treat perps in ways to reveal and come to terms with those tendencies that lead to these violent outbursts that manifest themselves as rape.

If what you said about consent were 100%, we wouldn't need the completely justifiable date rape laws. That clarification was made to assure that the less assertive form of violence that takes place when a person unable to decide or defend is victimized.

The reasons for considering rape a crime of violence are manifest. That's why our jurisprudence and law enforcement, as well as the counseling profession, have considered it a violent crime for close to 40 years.

My wife did some volunteer counseling at a rape crisis line many years ago. They were always told to treat the person in need as the victim of violence, not as a "victim of sex". (Their terminology, not mine.) So, i think the folks who deal with this problem would agree with me.
The Professor
The Professor

[sangha]

270. So what?

Saying that "rape does not require the use of violence or the use of force" is not the same as saying that "Rape is considered a violent crime"

Rape *IS* considered a violent crime but a charge of rape does NOT require any evidence of force or violence. Because violence is not needed to support a charge of rape, your argument that the consensual part of the sex act eliminates the evidence of violence is irrelevant because rape does not require ANY evidence of violence.

If what you said about consent were 100%, we wouldn't need the completely justifiable date rape laws.

Not true. The need for date rape laws is based on the fact that the idea of "consent" is not as black and white as you make it out to be. IMO, you're missing the link between the use of force and the issue of consent. The use of force is not necesary to sustain a charge of rape, but evidence showing that forced was used is often presented (when available) because it strongly suggests an absence of consent.

My wife did some volunteer counseling at a rape crisis line many years ago. They were always told to treat the person in need as the victim of violence, not as a "victim of sex". (Their terminology, not mine.) So, i think the folks who deal with this problem would agree with me.

And I agree with you too. However, regardless of what we consider it to be, one can be convicted of rape even if there is absolutely no violence.

[ProfessorGAC]

280. I Think It's A Terminology Gap

You say "So What?" You also say ". . .one can be convicted of rape even if there is absolutely no violence." I say, and the legal and psych communities say, that the act of rape itself, IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE.

You seem to be saying that the act isn't violent and that the violence is some extrinsic act on the part of the perpetrator, like a beating or other physical abuse. I say the act of forcibly having sex with a non-consenting victim IS the violence. And, intrinsically so. So, it's impossible to rape someone with ". . .absolutely no violence." The rape itself is an act of violence!

The issue i have with this law is that given the state of mutual consent at the beginning of the act, the failure to stop becomes an issue of timing, not of forcible contact. Given that, the violence that motivates the act of rape (per psychological consensus) is absent. That makes this crime not intrinsically violent and not about violence, but about sex. I think it diminishes the violent component of rape and what motivates rapists to act.

There's no "so what" about it. The crime of rape, in and of itself, is a violent act. No other actions need to be in evidence. Just the rape is considered a violent act. When the law is changed to include issues that are not intrinsically violent, it lessens the seriousness of the definition. (IMO, of course.) That's why i think this law is a bad idea.
The Professor

[Wonder]

294. IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE.

Yes they do say that... In this thread various issues have been raised from various angles... tends to blur the legalities, and terminologies become confused. I just thought in addition to my other comments I would concur emphatically in and of itself RAPE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE all the other stuff that goes into the incident are most relevant to the various counts that get pinned on to ascertain punishment.

I believe as NSMA after weighing all the various points in this particular side bar, that this law is a bandaid it is not anymore or less enforcable than those laws of rape and/or date rape, and perhaps as you say it could be less enforcable.

In mulling it through further, I also feel this law does run the risk of dissipating or minimizing the crime of rape itself, as it seems to raise the flag on concerns for false accusation (whether real or imagined), which I believe to be as heinous as rape itself. In raising the flag on that, I feel might crop up laws to combat false accusations. If this should happen than what might arise is an easy out loophole which would be death to getting convictions on a kind of crime that is already difficult to convict, but for the most extreme cases.

The more I think about it from your point of view the more I understand it and the more I am in agreement with your opinion that this Law risks taking us backward.

[sangha]

316. Thank you Prof

This explanation helped a lot. I now see that we agree to a greater extent than I first thought. Basically, I misunderstood and thought you were saying that the law does require some "extrinsic" act of violence - that is, some act of violence other than the rape itself. However, I do still disagree with your statements concerning "timing", but it's getting late so I won't go into detail.

To put it simply, I think that to continue after the consent has been withdrawn is as intrinsically violent as initiating sex without ever getting any consent. IMO, the "violence" that's intrinsic to rape is the violence done to our freedom to control our body, a freedom that is forcefully abused when someone does something with your body without your consent.

When the law is changed to include issues that are not intrinsically violent, it lessens the seriousness of the definition. (IMO, of course.)

IMO, (of course) the violence is directly related to consent (see above) so any law that deals with consent deals with the violence.

[Wonder]

266. Oh yes psychologists and statistics

and textbook definitions of rape and rape victims. I am a rape survivor and I do feel I am well enough versed in the system and the definition of the crime itself. Believe me I am with you. I do not feel this law is anymore enforceable than rape laws. Even in terms there not being much exhirtion of violence, rape conviction rates are low.

I am not necessarily fighting for this law... I have been through the system almost twice with a first trial jury hung... I was threatened with a supeona if I refused to participate in the second trial... The DA wanted the rapist in this case... just before the second trial... the rapist's defense attorney did not feel that the defendant would hold up under the scrutiny of a second jury... the DA pled him out on the lesser charge of sexual battery just to get him off the street...

Perhaps it is hard for me to be reasonable... but from my perspective in most of the more mundane cases, rape and date rape laws are virtually unenforceable. This does not mean they should be stricken from the docket. It is a minor point. and yes I guess we must agree to disagree.

As to violence and force... in terms of date rape... there is not much outward violence evident in some cases... I have a girlfriend who was a victim of a date rape... it just became obvious she was pinned down in such a way she couldn't overpower him... so rather than struggle she quit... and there was no outward bruises which would have been proof of a violent struggle. In this instance she had allowed someone she did not really know, but had seen on and off in the art gallery scene to drive her home because she did not want to risk a DUI. She had done this before against my advise more than once and insisted I was just paranoid and she was a better judge of character.

Somehow she allowed him in, but with no mind to have sex with him. So she had consented to have him in the house... it did not take a great deal of force or violence to overpower her... but it was still rape defined not so much by violence but by the exhirtion of enough force over her to force his will over hers.

She never told me till I happened to notice her behavoir and demeanor had changed significantly. When I queried her about this she told me of the incident. She did not report it. In this instance how enforceable would either the rape or the date rape laws have been? Zilcho enforceability in this particular case. Again that does not mean they should not remain in place.

The point is some guys just do not get it. If this law has done anything it just drives home the point that no means no and a woman can change her mind after consent and in essence withdraw consent.

But as always with law it is a matter of semantics and legal ease. And again, I do feel as you do: Besides some minor semantics we do for the most part agree.

[northzax]

389. that's not 'date rape' as I understand it

that's just plain rape. (in fact the term 'date rape' is stupid to begin with, if it's rape then it's rape, right? you can't be a little bit pregnant, it either is or is not, who cares if the person knows you)

so since we, as a society, have chosen to define rape as having sex with another person without their consent, the above situation is rape, why give it a different name? as far as I'm concerned Date Rape is defined as a situation where people are engaged in sexual activity and one is unable to give consent or does not give consent to actual penetration, but gave consent to other activities. blurry, I know, but it doesn't really make a difference, does it?

anyone can stop a sexual act at any time for any reason. You might not be popular for doing it, but legally and morally, you certainly can. (although, and let's be honest here, if either person makes a habit of orgasming first and then stopping, denying the other person the pleasure, they're likely to get less and less. but I digress, and these poor souls are not the people this law is aimed at anyway.)

[Wonder]

412. No the incident I described was not date rape, I agree

it was out and out rape... which even if she had reported it, I am not sure the rape law would have been enforceable. She had a hint of what I had gone through, not only did she not report it she was ashamed to tell me as well.

However, I will say that in a percent of cases that are categorized as date rape, the way it went down in the incident I described, is how it goes down. There are no weapons involved no real extreme violence, no beating, the girl from a logistical standpoint gets pinned in such a way that she quits struggling. Probably a very common scenario, particular for women who have no sense of their own strength.

[study_war_no_more]

250. In a black and white situation

certainly the rules of evidence apply such as slipping someone a mickey and then having them sign their car over to you but since we are talking rape plausability has to play a part its just not black and white and neatly discernable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

252. Frankly, passing another law is a band aid solution

that does nothing to address the problem and only further aggravates the situation and feeds the backlash evidenced in this thread.

There is not a law that is necessary to interpret NO even if NO is expressed in terms such as "I have to go"

I personally would rather save the money spent on challenging this law and spend it on education for both men and women starting at a very young age that would obviate the need for more laws and debates about what is or isn't rape.

[ProfessorGAC]

256. I'm With You NSMA

That nutshelled my first concern over this law. An unenforceable law is a waste of time and effort and will do nothing to enhance the justice we deserve as citizens.

The cost of educating prosecutors, police officers, judges and medical professionals of the aspects of this new law would be better spent on preventative measures like education.

Good points.
The Professor

[Wonder]

273. I agree completely now that I have considered it this way

like the date rape or rape laws have questionable impact on this issue, this law (while it raises the issue of withdrawing consent which I myself have never heard a law state outwardly), it is not even a bandaid, but more or less will be as, if not more, ineffectual as the laws already on the books.

Raising consciousness at a very young age would be money well spent... and I will leave it on that positive note rather than to go off on a tangent about why that would be the last thing considered not on the public school level (perhaps more on the grassroots level).

And now I gotta get out of this thread...because... the world turns round fast... and there are other pressing issues to concern myself with.

[noiretextatique]

278. absolutely...education is needed, not more laws

as evidenced by posts in this thread, some people don't believe a man can stop during sex or during a climax, for example. some men believe women are obligated to finish sex once the act has started.

no law will change beliefs and attitudes...education is what's needed. and the earlier it starts, the better.

[sam sarrha]

276. i can see your point, but the reality is that women have the right change

to change their minds at any time, I believe that we first have to agree that this is a fact. then deal with the details...period. i understand what you are saying, but i also hear the argurment in this forum that a hard-on gives them special privilages to violate a womans rights. sex turns to violence when a man refuses to stop when told to do so,whatever the reason,... 1/3 of women are sexually violated, i was molested as a child, maybe i have a differant perspective.

[SemperEadem]

272. it'll be struck down in appellate courts

it's too vague... and too open and prone to abuse by vindictive people to not be challenged in the appellate court.

this one's going to go all the way to the S.C.O.T.U.S.

[sam sarrha]

277. well that is how good laws evolve to protet the citizens,.. it isnt left

up to arbitraty opinion, women and minorities always seem to strike out in that arena. especially in a republican dominated arena

[Selwynn]

310. There are two separate issues here

ONE: is it wrong for a man to continue sex on a partner who has ceased being willing?

ANSWER: YES. Anyone who says otherwise is not worth breath.


TWO: is this a good law?

ANSWER: I don't know - I'm with people who say that it a) seems hard to enforce and b) seems very open to fraudulant claims

But a lot of people on this thread have been confusing these two issues and its really been sad to watch. If anyone here is of the opinion that when a woman (or a man!!) says I no longer want to participate in this act with you, regardless of the words they use to say it, that it is OK to continue to force yourselves on them anyway, you belong to the wrong party.

Sel

[Selwynn]

313. By the way...

My choice of words was not a typo - its not sex "with" a partner if that partner is no longer willing. It is now sex "to" or performed "on" an object. Sex is not a binary state - it is a continuine experience of consent from start to finish. If that consent is taken away at any point, it becomes something other than sex with. Call it rape or don't -- whatever it is, it isn't good.

Sel

[nocreativename]

326. I fully agree w/ that

I think that is the real point here

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

369. Wow. I just read this entire thread and learned something

Penises can type. It's amazing but they can.

I notice that there is HUGE concern that men may be falsely imprisoned based on this law. It seems quite difficult since only 16% of rapes are ever even reported to police.

It seems more difficult when 98% of rape victims will never even see theeir attacker apprehended.

Even LESS so when one considers less than half of all rape cases result in conviction.

Even LESS so when one considers less than 21% of convicted rapists go to prison.

But an interesting statistic is that 45% of offenders continue to proclaim their innocence regardless of the level of evidence against them.

Based on the responses one would think that false claims were an epidemic tantamount to the proportions of black men railroaded by our justice system.

It simply isn't the case. I don't care how many statistics Christina Hoff Somers and Eugene Kamin twist. It just simply isn't the case.

The real epidemic is that so many men born and raised in America still apparently regard English as a second language when they hear the word NO.

I hope no one EVER goes to jail or is punished for a crime they didn't commit. But the level of worry expressed by the men on this thread is simply an irrational fear. Based on what? A poor command of the english language when the word NO is involved?

Oh I know I know...you all think it's terrible when a man in a mask jumps out of the bushes and steals a woman's innocence providing she has some innocence to lose according to your interpretation of innocence. Beyond that you have no compassion.

I never was a "man hating" lesbian...I must say...several of the men of DU are giving me pause to reconsider that position.

[study_war_no_more]

374. A special thank you to Carolyne Hogarde

who was my woman and violence teacher in Junior college. It seems my view of this thread to be differnt from my male compatriots that perspective is in part due to her. Once again I will recommend reading transforming rape culture from the milkweed press I will leave this thread with only these words.
Fuck Patriarchy in a very big way.

[Wonder]

376. LOL You Do Have a Way with Words NSMA

right on!

[noiretextatique]

379. no shit...victims abound in this thread

there is ONE man here who claims he was falsely accused of rape. this same man has repeatedly stated that *most* women are liars. his credibility is zero with me.
there are several women on DU who have shared stories of rape here, yet the hysteria about false accusation is rampant. one man, several women. i'm with you nsma...these immature, penis-obessed boys disgust me :puke:
i will not let these boorish penis-obsessed boys change my view of REAL MEN...they are a pathetic, yet vocal minority who don't seem to understand how their own bodies work, let alone how to control themselves, nor do they feel the need to do so.
i feel sorry for the women stupid enough to deal with them.

it's no wonder straight women are the real man-haters.

[AlexanderBarca]

385. noire..

Keep in mind that there are also a few men on DU who were vocally disgusted with the penis-brained jock-boys that are posting here. (coughPost59cough) And there are also those of us who feel that the very fact that this law needed to be CLARIFIED is outright disturbing. It seems to me that the only people who are opposing this law are the ones who take no descretion with their partners in the first place, and are therefore opening themselves up to a lot worse things than false rape accusations.

I'm not being preachy by any means. I don't think casual sex is morally wrong. But, piling all of today's dangers that are involved with sex on top of the comments of said penis-brained jock-boys on this board, I feel even more certain that its downright stupid.

[noiretextatique]

402. LOL, i noticed AlexanderBarca

the real men who responded here :loveya: i even noticed that many men simply have reservations about this law...that's reasonable.

there were only a few of the penis-obsessed/i am a *potential* false accusation victim in the making variety.

perhaps it is about casual sex...i don't know. but as others have mentioned these fears seem *irrational*, and seem to have more to do with beliefs e.g., "all women are liars" and "women are out to ruin men's lives" and so on, than actual false accusation statistics...the credible ones, not the rw anti-woman ones.

and if you don't have a committed partner, i can see how you might obsess about false accusation, particularly if you don't think very highly of women, or yourself, in the first place.

anyway, thanks for your very strong statement...i did notice...as i did the posts by josh cryer and study_war_no_more. you guys are the best :loveya:

[Wonder]

408. AB

"But, piling all of today's dangers that are involved with sex on top of the comments of said penis-brained jock-boys on this board, I feel even more certain that its downright stupid."

While I agree with you and have noticed with great appreciation those guys who stand in disgust with the "penis-brained jock-boys" (PBJB) posting here, I must also add:

I feel it is not always just piling all of today's dangers on top of the comments of said PBJB's. There is a prevalence within our society which does favor the rapists in that for the most part the victim becomes more the pariah. Even when one views the judical measures and procedures, it becomes clear that prosecutors are still having to cut through age old myths that they know jury members will take into the jury box with them. This is why rape victims are still subjected to some of the most outrageous lines of interrogation, concerning their apparel, and their underwear, and so forth. This is not because the DA's themselves feel the victims dress has any bearing on the rape itself, but more specifically because they know these are the false premises that some of the jurors operate under.

Judging from these sex crime threads, while the PBJB's seem to be in the minority, their rationales also seem to be pervasive enough that their mentality poisons the judicial process itself. I have had very minor passing conversation with guys that I would not categorize as PBJB's. If the Kobe Case comes up the first thing that comes out of their mouth is this victim is lying or could be lying. Many seem to believe that the victim's word is the only thing detectives go on in terms of placing charges and they also seem to believe that an alleged rapists is picked up immediately and just based on this charge. Of course, when it is pointed out that this is not true most of the guys I have had passing conversations with on this subject are responsive to the facts.

My point is: Because of the prevalence of some of these myths it is important to counter these very bogus rationales, not because any of us are saying false accusation does not happen, but just to give it the needed perspective in terms of actual policing and judicial measures that are in place in matters of this nature. The PBJB's that continue to persist IMHO are lost causes, however, the myths that they put forth do tend to be pervasive in our society. So to some degree countering these PBJB's is not only warranted, but necessary.

[Rich Hunt]

397. It's really alarming

In every forum I go to, there are too many women who come forward about their rapes. Many of us never saw the rapist behind bars.

And yet they say we are lying or at least exaggerating.

And it kind of pisses me off that people do have to talk about their experiences in a public forum just to counter the bullshit spouted by people who think that no rape victim reads this forum. Where do people get off saying that a rape charge is too easy to make, that it's not at all psychologically difficult, that the whole process is not difficult? How can a man make such a claim and expect that no victim will challenge him?

I second the :puke:

[Wonder]

400. What Victims Dymaxia?

This has been stated before and MORE THAN ONCE, however according to this small crew of guys so so so plagued by their FANTASIES and FEARS...incidence of actual rape are so minimal that instead they feel MACHO enough to denigrate the FACTUAL AND REAL LIFE experiences of the RAPE SURVIVORS here as merely that of HYSTERIA. According to them MOST OFTEN RAPE IS TRIED on FALSE ACCUSATION only. They then suggest it is the RAPE SURVIVORS who must come back to reality. Is it a wonder how often the word NO is completely misunderstood?

I think these particular guys should ALL receive life size inflatable dolls for their birthday. Since they can not seem to distinquish their FANTASIES from FACT, a life size inflatable DOLL will be apt to sufficiently forfill their needs and they won't have to be so so so anxious about being falsely accused of anything. Not even IGNORANCE.

[TLM]

428. Could you please cite anybody in this thread who said what you claim?

"This has been stated before and MORE THAN ONCE, however according to this small crew of guys so so so plagued by their FANTASIES and FEARS...incidence of actual rape are so minimal that instead they feel MACHO enough to denigrate the FACTUAL AND REAL LIFE experiences of the RAPE SURVIVORS here as merely that of HYSTERIA."

Please cite any post wherein anybody in this thread said that any of the experiences described by the women who claim to have been raped were, "merely that of HYSTERIA."

If you can not do so, you owe every man that has posted to this thread and imediate apoligy.



"According to them MOST OFTEN RAPE IS TRIED on FALSE ACCUSATION only."

Once again who said MOST RAPE is tried on false accusation only?


"They then suggest it is the RAPE SURVIVORS who must come back to reality."

Please cite any post where anybody said this.

[TLM]

515. Still no link posted.....

why no links?

[TLM]

429. Could you please cite anybody in this thread who said what you claim?

"This has been stated before and MORE THAN ONCE, however according to this small crew of guys so so so plagued by their FANTASIES and FEARS...incidence of actual rape are so minimal that instead they feel MACHO enough to denigrate the FACTUAL AND REAL LIFE experiences of the RAPE SURVIVORS here as merely that of HYSTERIA."

Please cite any post wherein anybody in this thread said that any of the experiences described by the women who claim to have been raped were, "merely that of HYSTERIA."

If you can not do so, you owe every man that has posted to this thread an immediate apology.



"According to them MOST OFTEN RAPE IS TRIED on FALSE ACCUSATION only."

Once again who said MOST RAPE is tried on false accusation only?


"They then suggest it is the RAPE SURVIVORS who must come back to reality."

Please cite any post where anybody said this.

[TLM]

427. It happened to me.... I was accused fasely...

and the woman who accused me did so without any difficultly at all.

"Where do people get off saying that a rape charge is too easy to make, that it's not at all psychologically difficult, that the whole process is not difficult? How can a man make such a claim and expect that no victim will challenge him?"

The fact real victims have a hard time dealing with the stress and emotional damage of being the victim of a real rape and pressing charges for real rape, does not change the fact that some women who were not raped have no difficulty at all making false charges of rape.

The reason someone who is lying can make false rape accusations without any difficulty, is precisely because the claims are false, and there was no rape and thus no emotional trauma to start with.

[TLM]

411. Why is it so hard for you to understand the differences here...

I say that I feel all women lie, and I get accused of having said all women lie about rape claims or that all rape claims are false, which I never said.

I say I worry about false charges and false accusations, and you pipe up with this bullshit that since conviction rates are so low for rape, a conviction is not likely for false accusations. As if simply not being convicted negates the total destruction of a man's life, job, and reputation.

There is a guy in jail right now because during consensual sex the girl said "I have to go home" and he did not stop immediately... not that he did not stop, but that he did not stop that second.

I agree that no means no, but what the hell does "I have to go home" mean? I could easily see that meaning anything from we should stop, to hurry your ass up and finish because I gotta go. And if the guy takes a few seconds to think to himself what exactly did she mean by that... bam now he's a rapist?

And even daring to question this, gets men branded as "boorish penis-obsessed boys" or worse. So women here are saying that nothing more than being worried about a law that says I'm a rapist if I am having consensual sex with a girl, and she says something like "I have to go home" and I do not bolt off her before she can make the M sound at the end of the word home... that makes me a boorish penis-obsessed boy? WTF?

That's like a car salesman changing his mind about the sale just as I'm driving off the lot, and then accusing me of stealing the car.

And don't tell me that no means stop or that men have no right to keep going after being told to stop... because no shit. Nobody is saying that no doesn't mean no or that a man should not stop when told to stop. The issue here is, is it rape if a man does not stop instantly upon hearing a vague indication that consent has been retracted.

I mean if he stops, but doesn't withdraw, and asks for clarification as to what she meant or if she wants to stop... is he now considered a rapist? If he does stop but is still touching her... is that sexual assault?

The fact is this law seems only to apply to situations where the guy has already sought consent and gotten it, so trying to point to all these examples of rape with a knife or breaking into someone’s home and raping them do not even come close to being relevant to this law and this law's applications. They are simply being presented as an emotional attempt to act as if anybody questioning this law is defending rape.

[noiretextatique]

423. all women lie...

and you wonder why no one takes anything else you have to say seriously.

[TLM]

435. Can you point to one that doesn't?

Seriously, I continue to say I'm open to having my mind changed on this one. Please show me an honest woman?

Or is the reason you jumped right into insulting me over this opinion of mine, is because you can't?

[noiretextatique]

451. you are a bitter misogynist

that is the truth. i am a woman, i told the truth. case closed.

[TLM]

462. No, that's an insult... not an example.

And why, if my opinion is so far out and wrong, can;t you cite an example of a woman who has not lied?


"i am a woman, i told the truth. case closed."

I said all women lie... not that everything women say is a lie. An instance of telling the truth would not negate having lied.

Like if someone were to claim I had not been personaly attacked or insulted, then turn around and post "you are a bitter misogynist" while continuing to accuse me of being angry and hostile.

[MaraJade]

498. Since we are all liars, then

stay the hell away from us. Keep to yourself. Period.

You will be doing all of us a favor as well. . .because you will
not be reproducing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

426. You are SOO FUCKING UNINFORMED it's pathetic

number one: The guy is NOT in jail, he already served his time.

number two: He not only didn't listen to her when she said "I have to go" he GRABBED HER AND PINNED HER DOWN TO THE BED SO THAT SHE COULD NOT GET AWAY. The six members of the supreme court that ruled against him weighted THAT ACTION HEAVILY in considering whether the female had, in fact, withdrawn consent.

Since you are lying about the facts of this case, I can either assume that you either haven't read it, don't know what the fuck you are talking about or are a LIAR like the women you accuse. Which is it????

[TLM]

436. I just learned about the case from this thread.

"number one: The guy is NOT in jail, he already served his time."

Ok

"number two: He not only didn't listen to her when she said "I have to go" he GRABBED HER AND PINNED HER DOWN TO THE BED SO THAT SHE COULD NOT GET AWAY. The six members of the supreme court that ruled against him weighted THAT ACTION HEAVILY in considering whether the female had, in fact, withdrawn consent."

I was not aware of that detail, however is that kind of factor included in the new law we're talking about? I didn't see anything like that in the text of the law that was quoted here.

If something like that took place I would agree that it had crossed the line to rape.

"Since you are lying about the facts of this case, I can either assume that you either haven't read it, don't know what the fuck you are talking about or are a LIAR like the women you accuse. Which is it????"

I was going by what was posted in this thread and quoted in the article that was linked. There was nothing in there about him pining her down.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

481. Gee maybe a little investigation into the facts before you shoot

your mouth off would be a valentines then. Yes, those are the facts of the case.

Here is the actual Supreme Court Decision a 6 to 1 decision.

Imagine how much more impressive your opinion would be were it backed by actual facts.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S103427.PDF

[TLM]

491. I notice you did not answer my question...

Is there any aditional provision in the IL law about pinning down or similar additional factors?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

440. So the missionary position is now outlawed?

Seriously. This is what you are saying with all those CAPITAL LETTERS.

Again - NO means NO. I think we all agree. "I want to go home" does not mean no. "Maybe we should paint the ceiling, honey" does not mean no. If a girl can't manage to get a single word out of her mouth, it does not make the boy a rapist. No matter what a bunch of old geezer judges or a bunch of whacked out misandronysts might think.


- C.D.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

484. And being pinned down doesn't mean it was consensual

and anyone who thinks it does should dig their head out of their dark smelly frame of reference. I ccertainly don't hate men. Only ones that have your sick sense of interpretation.

[Wonder]

442. NSMA I Can Not Believe This Thread Remains Active

If you read carefully every word he has written he keeps going back and forth from: "many women lie" to "where did I say all women lie." From "I just said they lie better than men" to "show me a women that doesn't lie." Really you give him too much attention you get dizzy.

At one point he says he likes complete agreement and they he recants in another post suggesting the problem stems from the poster he is responding too just doesn't like the truth (which is funny because he seems to run from facts like they are the plague). Than he jokes about liking kinky sex while he makes blatant accusations accusing people that disagree with him of accusing him of things they haven't accused him of.

It started out with his testamonial about a false accusation which provides him with the ammo he needs to profess that many if not all women lie which he than lies about having implied, and then today all of a sudden he has a friend that he knows in jail who was falsely accused. You know 1 + 1 = 3

It's his thing. Perhaps he feeds off the antagonism or the adversity that is stirred. I do not know I just guess. Clearly the horror of his post "being falsely accused" trauma blurs his vision and inflames his fantasies and he seems to have this need to trash women specifically while he denies that is what he is doing. He can not even account for what he himself writes from one post to the next. If you read each and every one of them he keeps changing up.

[noiretextatique]

453. all women are liars...prove to me that isn't true

well...duh. if you really believe that, it's impossible to prove otherwise. this belief, however, has nothing at all to do with the issue of false accusation or rape :eyes: who in the fuck does he think he's fooling? only the moderators, it seems :eyes:

[TLM]

468. How dare i be open to input or counter examples.

"well...duh. if you really believe that, it's impossible to prove otherwise."

So are you saying it is impossible for you to point out an honest women, a woman who does not lie? Given the way you dismiss my opinion that all women lie, one would figure you could easily cite dozens of examples of women who never lie.


" this belief, however, has nothing at all to do with the issue of false accusation or rape"

Funny, I thought that a false accusation of rape was a pretty clear example of a lie. And even the DA in the linked article felt it was a lie that might cause trouble because of this law.

" who in the fuck does he think he's fooling? only the moderators, it seems "

You may not like my opinions, but my having opinions you do not like isn't against the rules.

[TLM]

465. More attacks and insults....

"If you read carefully every word he has written he keeps going back and forth from: "many women lie" to "where did I say all women lie."

Please cite the post where I said, "where did I say all women lie."

You just made it clear you "read carefully every word" so you can easily provide links to my saying those two quote.

I'll be waiting...


" From "I just said they lie better than men" to "show me a women that doesn't lie." Really you give him too much attention you get dizzy."

All women lie, and they do generally lie better than men. Those are not contradictory positions.


"Than he jokes about liking kinky sex while he makes blatant accusations accusing people that disagree with him of accusing him of things they haven't accused him of."

You say you did not make the accusation, yet you still can't answer the simple question I asked about what you said...

Please tell me what other interpretation there is for the statement "and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..." other than to accuse me of defending rapists by claiming I said ALL rape claims are false?

"It started out with his testamonial about a false accusation which provides him with the ammo he needs to profess that many if not all women lie which he than lies about having implied,"

Bullshit... cite where I claimed that I did not say I think all women lie. I have not denied making that claim.


" and then today all of a sudden he has a friend that he knows in jail who was falsely accused."

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said I have some friend in jail. That is a flat out fabrication. Again provide a link.

[noiretextatique]

477. i notice it, my dear

he's only fooling himself with this ever-changing tune...i certainly have noticed all the revisions. it's been an interesting exercise..."all" "most" "some"...then comes the denial. and, of couse HE is being persecuted :eyes: too bad *most* of the women here are not as stupid as he seems to think. i am a victim, though i victimize...but if you call me on my victimizing, i will scream i am a victim!!!!!!!!!!! :boring: like i said, full of :hurts:

[TLM]

479. Funny how you both notice this revision on my part...

yet neither of you can cite a link for this quote that you now seem to agree I said.

"If you read carefully every word he has written he keeps going back and forth from: "many women lie" to "where did I say all women lie."

Where are these quotes? I see more flames, more insults, and yet no links?

[Wonder]

489. LOOK NOW HE ADMITS HE SAYS ALL WOMEN LIE. BEFORE

HE WAS INFLAMED THAT I SUGGESTED THAT WAS HIS IMPLICATION ALL ALONG...I Bolded it below he states it outright. The truth is. I could care less what this guy thinks, but he doesn't remember from one post to other what he says. And I don't even care who lies more a less. It is not important to me. But that he keeps posting to me as if I owe him more of an explanation. I am just making it clear cause it seems like he wants something from my posts that I can't give him. Whatever that is I am not sure. He wants me to admit to something it seems.



TLM (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy


list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug-01-03 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #453
468. How dare i be open to input or counter examples.



"well...duh. if you really believe that, it's impossible to prove otherwise."

So are you saying it is impossible for you to point out an honest women, a woman who does not lie? Given the way you dismiss my opinion that all women lie, one would figure you could easily cite dozens of examples of women who never lie.


" this belief, however, has nothing at all to do with the issue of false accusation or rape"

Funny, I thought that a false accusation of rape was a pretty clear example of a lie. And even the DA in the linked article felt it was a lie that might cause trouble because of this law.

" who in the fuck does he think he's fooling? only the moderators, it seems "

You may not like my opinions, but my having opinions you do not like isn't against the rules.

--------------------

ALL IN ALL it seems your call is right on. He comes in as the victim than victimizes and then when called he cries victim. What he seems to really need conclusive evidence on is that all women lie. How many times has he asked you to point out a women that doesn't lie.

He seems to need my approval of his opinion. I don't get the obession not in the virtual. what does he care what I think? Especially since he seems to think my opinions are baseless. Which I really don't have any problem with his opinion. What does he need is what I wonder? And more importantly what does he need from me and all others whose opinion he has a problem with?


Let me tell you this thread has been quite the education... beyond that this guy is so lost inside his head... I am sorry if this is a personal attack than so be it, because in actually that is all he as done to me in his convoluted strangeness...and I made it clear posts ago he and I don't agree... yet he still persists.

between ChillEB's rape porn fantasy and this one... why so obsessed with this law is the question of the evening? I have made guesses as I have read others have, but they are just guess. I have an answer but I will keep that to myself. I know some guys have some concerns I feel the law might pose certain problems, I have stated those, but both these two take it to the obsessive max...

With obsession like this they both should seek the law out and read it for themselves along with all relevant penal code...they are just jerking us around...

Isn't that what you would do if something really concerned you to the point of fear... would you depend on the analysis of others? Especially analysis from those you think lie? I wouldn't. I would do my own homework...

Certainly wouldn't depend on the analysis of LIARS ... what the hell does this obsessive behavior have to do with the law? Hmmm.

[TLM]

490. I never denied having said all women lie...

"HE WAS INFLAMED THAT I SUGGESTED THAT WAS HIS IMPLICATION ALL ALONG..."

I'm still waiting for you to link to any post were I denied having said all women lie.

"...I Bolded it below he states it outright."

I never said otherwise.

"The truth is. I could care less what this guy thinks, but he doesn't remember from one post to other what he says."

Yet you make claims about what I've said, and when called on to back it up with a link, you can't.


"And I don't even care who lies more a less. It is not important to me. But that he keeps posting to me as if I owe him more of an explanation."

Oh I thought I was responding to steal away your victim points or to ignore your wounds... now I'm responding as if you owe me something? Damn and here I thought all I was doing was asking you to back up your claims about me.

You claim that I denied having said I feel all women lie and switch around my position… then when I ask for proof, you cite a post were I said all women lie, not a post where I denied having said it, as you claim.



"I am just making it clear cause it seems like he wants something from my posts that I can't give him."

Yeah you can't, because I did not say the shit you accuse me of saying. You can't post a link to my denying having said all women lie, because it didn't happen. Just like you can’t post a link to anybody claiming that all these women's rape claims are just hysteria.

________________________________________________________
"This has been stated before and MORE THAN ONCE, however according to this small crew of guys so so so plagued by their FANTASIES and FEARS...incidence of actual rape are so minimal that instead they feel MACHO enough to denigrate the FACTUAL AND REAL LIFE experiences of the RAPE SURVIVORS here as merely that of HYSTERIA."

Please cite any post wherein anybody in this thread said that any of the experiences described by the women who claim to have been raped were, "merely that of HYSTERIA."

If you can not do so, you owe every man that has posted to this thread and imediate apoligy.



"According to them MOST OFTEN RAPE IS TRIED on FALSE ACCUSATION only."

Once again who said MOST RAPE is tried on false accusation only?


"They then suggest it is the RAPE SURVIVORS who must come back to reality."

Please cite any post where anybody said this.
________________________________________________________


You come out and claim guys said things, but when called on for a link to ANYBODY saying it, all you can do is spew more flames and personal attacks... and now whine that the very idea of challenging your claims is somehow over the line.

[TLM]

424. How exactly do real stories of rape...

somehow disprove that false accusations of rape exist?

Men and women have questioned this law and pointed out the potential for abuse by women who would make false claims of rape.

The response from a few women here has been to attack those men, insult them and insinuate they are worried about this law because they are really just closest date rapists who can not control their brutal male drive to rape, and do not think they should have to.

And some women pointed out that they were raped, but describe much more serious situations that have NOTHING to do with this law. All these stories do is prove that rape exists, and that fact was never even in question. So how exactly do stories of real rape invalidate concerns about false accusations of rape?

"one man, several women."

So are you saying that because fewer men are falsely accused of rape than the number of women who are really raped, that the men who are falsely accused are irrelevant and should not have their rights considered?


"they are a pathetic, yet vocal minority who don't seem to understand how their own bodies work, let alone how to control themselves, nor do they feel the need to do so. "

So men who question this law, according to you, can’t control themselves and do not feel they need to control themselves? Yet another attempt to insinuate that questioning this law means you must be a defender of rape or a rapist.

[noiretextatique]

430. all men are rapists? nah...that's your kind of thinking

one man falsely accused....32 women actually raped...do the math.

what's so difficult to grasp? is false accusation as common as rape? NO. does it mean false accusation doesn't happen? NO. does the prevalence of rape negate the possibility of false accusation? NO. which is more of a concern to me...rape of false accusation? RAPE. why? because it is by far the more COMMON crime. does that mean i don't sympathize with victims of false accusation? NO. given the relative numbers, is the fear of the possibility of false accusation somewhat irrational? YES. does that mean false accusation doesn't occur? NO. is the hysteria about false accusation as expressed in this thread incomprehensible to me, given it's relative rarity? YES.
are all women liars? NO are all men rapists or potential rapists? NO
if all women aren't liars, and all men aren't rapists...is the hysteria about false accusation even more incomprehensible to me? YES
does this law increase the likelihood of false accusation? NO why? it does nothing to change how rapes are investigated or prosecuted. am i sick of this discussion? absolutely.

[TLM]

441. If the numbers were reversed....

"what's so difficult to grasp? is false accusation as common as rape? NO."

Never said it was.

" does it mean false accusation doesn't happen? NO. does the prevalence of rape negate the possibility of false accusation? NO. which is more of a concern to me...rape of false accusation? RAPE. why? because it is by far the more COMMON crime."

So if the numbers were reversed and false accusations of rape were more common than rape, would you then tell women their fear of rape was irrational and tell rape victims to stop crying and stop being such victims?



"does that mean i don't sympathize with victims of false accusation? NO. given the relative numbers, is the fear of the possibility of false accusation somewhat irrational? YES."

How do you figure? Even the linked article had a DA saying:

"That sounds a little dangerous," said Jack Rimland, immediate past president of the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The vagueness of that is really what disturbs me more than anything else."

Is the DA also being irrational?

I don't care if it is just one guy who gets his life dragged though shit because of a false accusation, it shouldn't happen.


" does that mean false accusation doesn't occur? NO."

Then it would be reasonable to be concerned about them, and any law which could make them easier.


"is the hysteria about false accusation as expressed in this thread incomprehensible to me, given it's relative rarity? YES."

From post so far there have been 4 examples of men being falsely accused... just in this thread. That’s not exactly rare. Less than the number of rapes, sure, but certainly not rare.

Assuming the examples on both sides are all true, that gives us 4 false claims to 36 rapes. That is a ratio of 1 false claim for every 9 real rapes. That's 1 out of 10 rape claims that is false... or 10% that are false... going just by the numbers resented here.



"does this law increase the likelihood of false accusation? NO why? it does nothing to change how rapes are investigated or prosecuted. am i sick of this discussion? absolutely. "

Investigation and prosecution would effect how the accusation would do in court... not the ability to make such a claim in the first place.

In my situation there was no prosecution or investigation... but that sure did not keep her from making the accusation nor did it prevent the damage that resulted in my life because of the false accusation.

[noiretextatique]

450. *sigh* i have conceded that you are the biggest victim on the planet

IF the numbers WERE reversed, which they aren't...you'd be even a bigger victim than you already are. satisfied? using your numbers, and the ratio is now 4 false accusations to 32 rapes...yes, that makes YOU even a bigger victim. of course, you can dismiss everything i say...since ALL WOMEN lie :eyes:

[TLM]

466. Once again, what is your problem...

Every time I point out that false accusation of rape are real and a problem... you launch into this crap about the bigger victim. I do not understand what the deal is on this, as I was never informed about the contest to get the most sympathy. I'm simply debating an issue from an often ignored perspective... that of the falsely accused.

I do not understand why you see that as my somehow trying to steal away your victimhood.

I ask a question about the rational behind how you react to concerns over false accusations, and you again do nothing but attack me personally and spew this pointless victim contest junk.

I really wonder if the numbers were reversed if you would be and vicious and insulting to rape victims simply due to the numbers. If not, then one must figure your reaction to falsely accused men is not due to the numbers, but rather to some other factor.

[Wonder]

446. "response from a few women here has been to attack those men"

Yes keep telling yourself lies and maybe you can start your own boo hoo hoo so many women lie trauma group.

What you suggest in your post is not true. I know that myself and another poster here commiserated with you upon hearing of this false accusation, we just also pointed out that false accusations in comparison to real rape occurances were not as high, and that measures are in place to prevent these from going to trial. Various statistics have been placed within the thread.

The rest is warped out twistory on your part. If you hadn't saught complete and total agreement which required we also trash women in the manner you seem to have the need to, there wouldn't be a problem.
Disagreement however, does not seem to be in your vocabularly and you persist on with you twaddle in the face of numerous attempts of more than just I to place some real facts in perspective along side false accusations and all those women that lie better than men.

Probably you and all of those that you are in full agreement with should open your special semi private slam thread in the lounge wherein you can get out all your aggressions and grievances at the disservice this law poses all men, and at not having been totally agreed with by so many of us lying women and rape survivors. That way we can let this thread sink finally into the memoryhole.

[TLM]

478. WHat is this crap about full agreement?

Yes keep telling yourself lies and maybe you can start your own boo hoo hoo so many women lie trauma group.

"What you suggest in your post is not true. I know that myself and another poster here commiserated with you upon hearing of this false accusation, we just also pointed out that false accusations in comparison to real rape occurances were not as high, and that measures are in place to prevent these from going to trial. Various statistics have been placed within the thread."


The rest is warped out twistory on your part. If you hadn't saught complete and total agreement which required we also trash women in the manner you seem to have the need to, there wouldn't be a problem."

LOL!!!! WHAT? At what point did I require you to agree with a single thing I've said?

Funny, since previously you claimed your attacks were because I had, "shown no responsiveness to the other side of this coin." and I had "never once addressed my wounds, we have spend most of this dialogue discussing yours... " Apparently you did not feel I was appropriately dismissive of my own position to suit you.



Then you started posting crap like "so keep crying TLM boo hoo hoo you have a lot of company too. So hang on to that anger and resentment I am sure it will make you a real popular guy in the sex department in the future. and just keep telling yourself all alleged rape victims falsely accuse...ALL OF US... if that is what suits your reality and makes you feel better..."

Which very clearly accuses my of holding a position that defends rapists by claiming all rape accusations are false, despite my never having said that.


"Disagreement however, does not seem to be in your vocabularly and you persist on with you twaddle"

Ahh I see, so because I persist with my position, which you consider twaddle, instead of backing down, that's why you started attacking me.


" in the face of numerous attempts of more than just I to place some real facts in perspective along side false accusations and all those women that lie better than men."

And most of the issues on which you try to provide perspective, were not issues in question. You and others popping up to say that real rape takes place more often that false claims of rape is fine, but NOBODY claimed otherwise. You say rape is wrong, yet nobody said rape was OK.


"Probably you and all of those that you are in full agreement with should open your special semi private slam thread in the lounge wherein you can get out all your aggressions and grievances at the disservice this law poses all men, and at not having been totally agreed with by so many of us lying women and rape survivors. That way we can let this thread sink finally into the memoryhole."

Again where to you get the idea that you're somehow not allowed to disagree with me? That's got to be the lamest cop out for flaming that I've seen on DU.

[Booberdawg]

388. Men and Irrational Fear

In all fairness, there have been some pretty decent and supportive men that have stepped up to the plate and made it pretty clear that a woman's right to say no, even after some sexual contact has occurred, is just a matter of fact, and they would, or already have, complied with such a request out of just plain respect and common decency.

I want to elaborate on one particular point you made:

"I hope no one EVER goes to jail or is punished for a crime they didn't commit. But the level of worry expressed by the men on this thread is simply an irrational fear. Based on what? A poor command of the english language when the word NO is involved?"

I agree the level of fear expressed by the majority of the men involved in this thread is irrational. I saw two completely different fears expressed though. The one you refer to is the one there is really no defense or excuse for, and that is NO means NO, under any and all circumstances. It's really rather pathetic that any of them would even suggest that there is some point where they are "entitled" to continue, or that the woman's consent is no longer required. And there is the equally insulting suggestion that once they start they just can't stop, as if they have no control over their own penis. Arguments like these just make men sound like predators, or like weasels looking for "loopholes" to beat the system. These excuses are disingenuous. My own impression of these guys is they have control issues, look down on women, and are low lifes as far as I'm concerned.

The other fear I see expressed here over and over by several men is that of false accusation of rape, specifically, that this law would make it easier to falsely accuse men of rape. For the most part, they have cited two reasons for this, (both of which are false, but nevertheless it is what they are basing their fear on) and they are:
(1)because sex can begin as consensual, and still become a rape if the woman doesn't want to continue.

(2)because it changes the rape standard to a she-said/he-said situation, where the legal burden of proof is on the man to proove his innocence.

Both of these arguments have been debunked, but some of these guys seem to have a neurotic need to be victims, and instead choose to hang on to these wildy irrational theories that vindictive women are lining up in droves to exact revenge on men, while men will have no choice by to stand by helplessly as women "have their way" with them, figuratively speaking, and inordinate numbers of innocent men will be charged and convicted of a crime they didn't commit. Basically, the majority of men charged with rape will be innocent.:eyes:

(1)This is not about the Neaderthals that don't understand NO. From what I gather, this is because there could be semen present, so they worry that this proof that sex occurred is enough by itself, just on the woman's word that rape took place, to get him charged. These guys fail to understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that rape charges are not filed just on a woman's word. There has to be EVIDENCE that a rape took place, not just semen present. The burden of proof is on the accuser, AND, the prosecuter does not file a charge unless he thinks he can prove rape to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

(2)This one is just wild. In this case, sex doesn't even have to take place. The woman can just arbitrarily accuse some guy of rape. No evidence is required - just her word that she was raped. So, they think this law changes the standard of proof of rape, and also changes the burden of proof on the man to proove he is innocent. Where the hell they they are getting this tripe is beyond my comprehension.

I wonder if most of the men even read the article that started this thread? For the life of me, I do not understand where they got the idea that this law LOWERED the standard of proof of rape, or changed the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused?? As was pointed out at several points in the thread, it isn't even a new law! It has ALWAYS been the case that a rape case could be filed in a situation that started out as consensual sex. It has ALWAYS been the case that a woman has the right to change her mind. This law did not change anything. Jeesus, Mary and Joseph!

ONE MORE TIME. This law does NOT make it easier for men to be falsely accused of rape. This law does NOT change the standard of proof that a rape occurred. This law does NOT change the burden of proof on the male to proove he is innocent. The law simply spells it out more clearly for the neanderthals who are looking for loopholes in the meaning on NO.

A rape charge is not based solely on the word of the accuser. There must be EVIDENCE that a rape occurred, such as physical evidence, witnesses that saw or overheard the incident, injuries on the victim, and proof that the accused is the one who committed the rape. And THEN, the prosecuter must be confident he has enough to proove his case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Rape is a VERY difficult crime to proove.

The burden of proof in a rape case is on the accuser/prosecuter. I don't understand why this even needs explanation. There was absolutely nothing in the article that started this thread to suggest otherwise, and it appears this fear expressed amoung the men was simply created out of whole cloth. Legally in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty.

It is FAR, FAR, FAR more likey that a rapist will get away with his crime than it is likely an innocent man would be CHARGED with rape. That is a fact. There is simply no rational basis for these wildly exaggerated fears that the legal system has suddenly been turned upside down and against innocent men. It just isn't true.

NOW, to add fuel to the irrational fears, we had a man join in considerable discussion about being the victim of a false rape accusation. This man suffered loss of reputation and job and physical assaults as a result of the slander, and was truly victimized by a reprehensible woman caring only to cover her ass with her boyfriend that she cheated on. The point I want to make without minimizing the egregious nature of the false accusation and the severe consequences he suffered is that he was not CHARGED or PROSECUTED for rape.

The contribution this man makes that I think does a disservice is his insistence that this law would have further victimized him and made it easier for him to be falsely charged and convicted of rape. This is NOT true, as I have pointed out above that this law has not change such standards. His past victimization notwithstanding, there is nothing in this law that would have made it easier for him to be charged with rape. NOTHING. But unfortunately, the fact that he was falsly accused, albeit NOT CHARGED, this is all the credibility, fuel, and gospel needed for the other men to seize on as "proof" that
they were destined to be falsely accused of rape. I mean nothing against him personally, I simply point out that his experience does not assign him the relevance to this issue that they assign him.

Honestly, if there are some men that just insist on holding on to some neurotic obsession that rape laws are written with the intention to victimize men then I guess there is no reasoning with them. It will either make them more careful or cause them to become more resentful of women in general. Sometimes I can't help but wonder, especially after seeing some of the comments in this thread, if there is just an underlying resentment with some men that women have the right to say no, or the audacity to change her mind. How dare they. Of course they can't come out and say it - but I suspect that and a general attitude about women is behind a lot of the hysteria.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and it's something that occurred to me as I see the Kobe threads here and accounts on the news of death threats and other outrageous behavior. It's just appalling how eager so many men are to trash this woman without knowing any facts.
Happens with rape cases over and over, but this case is particularly vicious. Without knowing any facts at all, most men have concluded she is a lying slut and/or just out to make a fortune off of him. I have come to a few conclusions about this, that are also based on past cases:

One might be tempted to conclude that these people have dismissed out of hand the possibility that Kobe did indeed rape this woman. An accusation has been made, regardless or who the people involved are, they either did it or they didn't. A prosecuter has gathered evidence and determined that a crime has occurred, and has filed charges. Is it then reasonable to conclude that any person would conclude that it was not possible that Kobe did indeed rape this woman? I don't think so. What these people have decided is that if he did rape her, he should get away with it, or she must have deserved it. His celebrity status probably fuels the indignance that his career should not be ruined over a "youthful indescretion" :eyes:

We saw something similar in the OJ case. Much of the Black community either knew he was guilty but didn't care and wanted him to get away with it, or would have refused to accept a video of him committing the murders as proof.

I think the Kobe case magnifies ten-fold what we have seen in this thread and how the crime of rape gets minimized over and over again. This thread started with an article that clarified that no still means no, and turned into all this wailing about false accusations being the norm and standing the Constitution on it's head to trick innocent men. Good grief! I just can't help but conclude that there is unspoken belief with some men that it just isn't fair that men should have to pay the consequences for getting their rocks off without the consent of the receptacle they happen to have handy at the time. It is just not rational to beleive that a significant number of innocent men have been CHARGED with rape by vindictive women. They don't want to acknowledge that it is FAR, FAR more likely that a rape will go unreported, or unpunished because it is so difficult to proove.

I have spent far too much time with this. As I write this, the Kobe case rages on with additional details, so these issues will live on and on,and we will no doubt see them in another thread. As the details are quite damaging to the celebrity icon, I fully expect all out hostility and warfare. How dare the bitch report a crime. He's a star.

Linda

[ChillEB]

390. Source for your Stats? Links?

"It simply isn't the case. I don't care how many statistics Christina Hoff Somers and Eugene Kamin twist. It just simply isn't the case."

Those people, you must admit, offer some fairly convincing statistics that seem to suggest that false accusations are, if not exactly commonplace, are certainly not like, 1 in a Million, either. They seem to be legit studies, using properly sized samples, confidence intervals, etc. Surely you don't expect somebody to simply ignore the studies, and rather simply accept YOUR stats as the TRUE facts, do you? Based on, what? Our faith in you to be truthful? Is that what YOU would do, NSMA, if I just threw a bunch of stats at you? I don't think so. So, please, just to clarify, can you post a link to this info?

Thanks!

[Rich Hunt]

395. "fairly convincing"

So, you think Kanin is "convincing", do you?

Have you read the article? I have. In fact, I keep it on hand for people who only know it through the pre-digested interpretation found on anti-feminist websites.

What you won't find online is this:

""Most problematic is the question of the generalizability of these findings from a single police agency handling a relatively small number of cases. Certainly, our intent is not to suggest that
the 41% incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations,
particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural
variables that might be influencing such behavior and which could
be responsible for wide variations among cities. But a far greater
obstacle to obtaining "true" incidence figures, especially for larger
cities, would be the extraordinary variations in police
agency policies (see Comment, 1968; Newsweek, 1983; Pepinsky and
Jesilow, 1984); variations so diverse, in fact, that some police agencies cannot find a single rape complaint with merit, while others
cannot find a single rape complaint without merit. Similarly, some
police agencies report all of their unfounded rape cases to be due
to false allegation, while other agencies report none of their unfounded declarations to be based on false allegation (Kanin, 1985)."

[undergroundpanther]

404. comment

One way that culture minimizes rape is top redefine what rape is ,in a way that suits the perpetrator.What I mean by this is,it protects the do-er of the crime by redefining the crime itself carefully sidestepping the victim,thier needs and redefines the issue of consent.
One way our culture does this is by rendering certain realities invisible.It requires EMPATHY to be able to risk yourself enough to see the culturally invisible and understand Unspeakable.


To me issues of power control and domination will be the undoing of humanity.

I too am saddened and bored with the games people play with each other in social situations .I am disgusted at how they hurt each other and lie to win.I am not too hopeful about humanity's evolving.I see it's cowardice in the face of empathy for the suffering,the vunerable and in pain and it's self serving grasping.

It is said sociopaths tend to dominate cultures.

And sociopaths are the first to cry victim when they lose power-over.
We as a culture IDENTIFY with the sociopathic element. What is "cool" but a trendy superficial icy veneer of charisma made to generate"popularity" without honesty or substance.

Why are all the nasty characters in movies so much more attractive,well dressed,and more interesting than the decent characters? Because it is the bad characters whom we are conditioned by our culture to identify with more than the decent ones.Our sovciety has conduct disorders in it and these disorders mess up how people relate interpersonally,It is reflected in the culture,the media,the dating games,the workplace,the way society functions.It's all sick because bullies and enablers set the agendas and have been for ages..

We grow up encouraged by movies and whatnot to be fascinated by serial killers,competition, super villians, the glamor of 'cool'ect..And so we learned it is in our best interests to excuse and protect the perpetrators and abusers who made the choice to harm someone pretending as if it "just happened" or he couldn't control himself.We develop a thick skin to survive in a world ruled by the ugly side of humanity.

Because it's still a social taboo to call a bully on his choices to bully..Say anything but the fact he CHOSE deliberately to disregard another person..This really gets at the heart of the game our entire self destructive civilization is playing and denying it plays.At what point do your cultural eyeglasses fall out? At what point does abuse and power over people,and the removal of thier choices to maintain control over them become wrong..Where do you draw the line,your own discomfort? Or the disconfort of another person?Or the agony of an entire planet? When does it all hit home?


In reality each of us could die,at any moment,We could lose everything dear to us,so we distract evade and deny how fragile life is and instead pit ourselves against one another in a big hurtful devasion game..Happiness is in shorter supply when everyone is seeking power-over someone else to the point no one feels loved..Yet we always fight amongst each other to be recognized and we show displays of meaningless power and we abuse one another,as entertainment,and we want to get ours at any cost ,even if it destroys us just to win.
What are we winning really but our own destruction?

While we go on abusing each other blithely we still blame the victims for getting hurt,because we are ireresponsible and hate to internalize limits on what we say or do to other people.it's easier to point fingers at someone else than to look at ourselves and change especially if it means giving up entitlement additudes that serve the self serving so well.Empathy can be messy and painful and humans are such cowards in the face of self-responsibility,empathy,honesty and suffering.Culturally we are encouraged to stunt our own sense of empathy to be able to compete for power.



The more I observe people interact,I am convinced humanity as a species has a weird form of stockholm syndrome concerning the way we relate to the other population that has conduct disorders..(the stockholm syndrome and conduct disorders manifest in different degrees of severity,and different stages of awareness/healing in individuals however)

Any kind of abuse,exploitation and domination of another human being in a way that is NOT self defense is ALWAYS is a CHOICE.When a choice is made by a perprterator to dominate another person,and take away thier choices,thier autonomy it is abuse. Some dominating type people fear other's autonomy because they might not get what they want if people could say no.

What makes a victim a victim is a victim can't choose some other choice different than what the perpretrator wants for himself.

I think no one has the right to abuse or dominate any person who is not abusing or dominating other people.
As for abusers and dominators do whatever you can to stop them.They have no morals,so why should your own morals handicap you when dealing with an abuser who would disregard you and use your empathy to get away with what they want? I say get the bullies in our culture to step in line because if we don't stand up to them and say no they will not stop abusing people and it won't occur to people there are other choices to be made..

Only a person with a disorder in thier own conduct could rationalize how forcing themself and thier desires onto another who is not dominating and is not harming a person being dominated.Only an enabler could blame themselves for being a victim of this kinda sick thing and excuse it to others to save the abuser's face for the choices they made to victimize someone..
This dynamic is played out among people all over the place in various forms.


Democracy and freedom is INCOMPATIBLE as long as Authoritarian,conduct disordered types of people who refuse to have empathy for others and restrain themselves from being bullies in persuit of whatever thrill or illusory sense of security or power they get from dominating people..stay in positions of power by the corresponding stiockholm syndromes,societal obliviousness ,selfishness and denial about what is really happening to us..

[Wonder]

406. Only a person with a disorder of thier own can rationalize how forcin

"Only a person with a disorder in thier own conduct could rationalize how forcing themself and thier desires onto another who is not dominating and is not harming a person being dominated.Only an enabler could blame themselves for being a victim of this kinda sick thing and excuse it to others to save the abuser's face for the choices they made to victimize someone.."

What I find intereting is those that do purvey these rationales, are not equally aware of what they are telegraphing about themselves. They are like neon signs. Then as soon as you call them on it they cry victim, exhibiting no courage whatsoever.

This is a very thoughtful post. You make very insightful observations. Kindness, empathy, generosity, virtue, honesty, have most definitely been almost killed off by the twisted sociopathic mentalities that make sex and violence, and voilent sex a matter of trend. Empathy and the like considered weakness while might is considered power or leadership. The erosion is most evident. Especially when one begins to dissect what has become the more standard faire in sexual behavior. It is almost a complete inversion.

I was chided as uncool recently because I did not seduce a friend of mines boyfriend when I had the chance. Of course doing that never crossed my mind. Somehow that it hadn't crossed my mind made me the freak.

While it might go over the head of some as moralizing, your post is right on...and it is a shame for those of us that observe this in the same way you have.

[DeathvadeR]

418. Myabe I should add the word SEX to my next post......

It sure seemed to work for this one.

[samsingh]

431. good to see people like sex in general

over 450 posts on this thread!

[Selwynn]

438. "All women lie"

A man claimed the following: "All women lie."

I'll accept that statment - if the following statement is also accepted:

All men are stupid fuckheads.

I personally feel that the too statements should be taken with the same seriousness and hold the same weight. I'll leave it to you to decide what that weight actually is. I've already made my decision.

And since I am a male, I will sign off appropriately...

Signed,
A stupid fuckhead

[TLM]

443. I think all people lie.

However I often specifically point out that I think all women lie, because it tends to be generally assumed and accepted that all men lie. Especially in a crowd like this. If I said all men lie, I bet nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

Hell even one of the women who was going off on me admitted she prefers male friends because she thinks women can be more devious then men.

[noiretextatique]

454. stupid , simplistic stereotypes, e.g., all men lie

are offensive to anyone with half a brain.
it's amazing that you STILL don't get that. :wtf: does it take to get thru to you? your personal prejudices are not written stone. nor are they any more valid because someone agrees with you. they are just indicative of some character flaws you need to address.
btw, i am lying, of course. after all, i am a woman.

[TLM]

469. All men lie, and all women lie....

if you feel so strongly this is wrong, please feel free to point to an example of someone who never lies.

You call it a simplistic stereotype, yet as I continue to point out, I am wide open to having someone prove me wrong and change my mind.

Please point out an example.

"are offensive to anyone with half a brain."

What about those with a whole brain?


"it's amazing that you STILL don't get that."

I get that you are offended, your personal attacks make that quite clear. However the fact you are offended, doesn't make the opinion wrong.

Is it so hard for you to admit everybody lies in one form or another? Is that really so unsettling for you?


"does it take to get thru to you? your personal prejudices are not written stone."

Now why is it you feel the need to say my opinions are not written in stone, after I've said at least half a dozen f-ing times that I am open to having my mind changed on this and welcome the presentation of counter examples?

Show me the woman who has not lied. Show me the man who has not lied.

I'm waiting, and all you seem to be interested in showing me is how well you flame.

[Wonder]

444. hahahahahahhahhah!

That was beautiful. Thanks for the laugh!

As to topic I already said all there is for me to say, but the laugh was greatly appreciated.

ON EDIT:

I also liked your sex is not a binary state comment HAH!

[Selwynn]

445. A deserved repost

I want to state this A G A I N:

There are TWO issues being confused.

ISSUE 1: Is it RAPE to force yourself on a women at any time when she does not wish it -- and Y E S that most certainly IS the issue. Don't make up a bunch of rationalizations to get around it. What we are talking about was already described with brutal honesty above:

Guy: *unf*unf*
Gal: Oh god!
Guy: Aaaaah, yeah! *pound*
Gal: *cries* Why am I doing this?
Guy: Doing what? *pound*
Gal: Fucking you! You're not my type! Just stop.
Guy: Huh? *pound* Why?
Gal: I said *stop!* Get off me!
Guy: *pound*
Gal: *shove*
Guy: *pound*
Gal: STOP!
Guy: *pound*
Guy: *pound*
Gal: *struggling*
Guy: *pound*
Guy: *pound*
Guy: Unngg!
Guy: *pound*
Guy: *pound*
Gal: *crying* ...stop...
Guy: *thrust and extract*
Guy: I stopped. *smiles*
Gal: *crying* Why didn't you stop?
Guy: You stupid slut. What do you expect me to do? I was already fucking you. You came over here at 4 in the morning, dressed like a slut and you don't expect to be fucked? Get the fuck out of my face you whore.
Gal: *cries and runs off*

(Or alternatively, she kicks him in the balls, or he realizes he's not near climax and stops because her struggling is making it more difficult.)

That is rape.


ISSUE #2: Is THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE ACT good or not good? This is entirely different than the question of forcing yourself on someone sexualy -- anyone who aruges that a man should be considered JUSTIFIED in doing to a woman what is described above should be shot in the fucking nut sack with a god damn shotgun. I don't give a fuck about your fucking bullshit rationalizations -- "oh what if I slip and fall down and after she says no and I get wrongly sent to jail for rape?" My answer to you is: YOU FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. Do you think for a second that I DO NOT want there to be laws against murder just because I know that there are FAR MORE PEOPLE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED OF MURDER EVERY YEAR? Of course not! Murder is wrong, and we're doing the best we can.

But as to the issue of whether this law HELPS prevent rape and bring justice to victimizers, that is a debateable issue. But somewhere along the road this turned into a few idiot morons trying to argue that continuing to force a girl to have sex when she is pleading for you to stop is either perfectly normal, within a mans right, or impossible to help. And for that you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I'd be even more upset if I didn't have the sneaking suspicion that the biggest supporters of that claim are pre-pubescent boys who have never come close to the actual intimacy and potential vulnerability of sex.

So can we PLEASE stop confusing the two issues. Forcing anyone to continue with sex they do not want is wrong -- let's just stop even wasting breath on anyone who is going ot argue that point.

HOWEVER, it's unclear whether this law is a) enforceable b) possessing of greater benefit than cost c) too great a risk for harassment claims (I don't personally agree with that last point, but I list it because I think its a fair debate).

Sel

[Wonder]

447. That said

and in terms of only debating this law all by itself it seems there exists much confusion in what are the FACTS or the MYTHS regarding this law, in addition to the bulleted points Sel raised.

Because in the face of the confusion outlined, comes than the confusing of the two issues that Sel outlines for us in his post.

Of course I could have done without his further graphic clarification, but that is just me, on the other hand perhaps a slide presentation might be required for the very slow learners.

[Umbram]

449. Umm, yea...

The screenplay was probably not needed, but the second half (putting this out of control thread back in context) was!

All the gender-based stereotyping running rampant in here is unfortunate.

;(

[Wonder]

452. Yes I agree

I thought that was what I said adding that if the thread remained alive to discuss the second part of Sel's post, if the FACTS contined to be disputed by what are only MYTHS, the confusion in issues will just resurface.

You see?

There has been already some salvagable discussion specific to the law itself. I can not speak for the whole thread, but certainly there was more high minded debate in and around THE PROFESSOR. I feel much of the concern centers around whether or not the law leaves room to be used solely for harrassment purposes. The thread is very long and I am not sure, but has anyone actually found the legislation itself?

The wording of the whole law in context might help keep the discussion more in line with facts (that is if anyone actually wants to continue the discussion based on the legalities of the law itself). I feel having the transcripts of the case cited in the original article, is also a needed element in order to discuss this law without moving back into irrational FEARS AND FANTASIES. For instance there are those suggesting this man was jailed based ONLY on the word of the accuser and based ONLY on her words "I want to go home". Clearly that is not enough information upon which to stake some of the claims being made about this law.

Another bone of contention seems to be that this law places the burden of proof on the accused. HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY READ THE FULL LAW IN CONTEXT OR THE CASE ITSELF? Without those the discussion is apt to go off into biased speculation. Again, I did not read through every single post if both of these items are within a post, I believe retrieving them would best serve a more level headed discussion.

[Umbram]

458. Oops, yes, i only meant to Agree with you...

On all accounts.

Well, having read through, i think one of the more telling passages someone wrote in the forums was the following:


number two: He not only didn't listen to her when she said "I have to go" he GRABBED HER AND PINNED HER DOWN TO THE BED SO THAT SHE COULD NOT GET AWAY. The six members of the supreme court that ruled against him weighted THAT ACTION HEAVILY in considering whether the female had, in fact, withdrawn consent.

-nothingshocksmeanymore

I didn't check the sources on that, but supposing it's all true, I can't see how it couldn't be considered rape.

I don't see that the above necessarily sets a precedent where a man is likely to be thrown in jail for not immediatly doing a backflip away from a woman who moans "stop" durring sex, as seems to be the fear of some.

If that had beent he case, she moaned 'stop' and he simply paused to ask what was the matter (to see if he was accidently hurting her, for example), well, i would probably be concerned too.

Anyone have a link to the opinion...if those sorts of things are even available online?

[TLM]

471. Could you cite those posts?

"But somewhere along the road this turned into a few idiot morons trying to argue that continuing to force a girl to have sex when she is pleading for you to stop is either perfectly normal, within a mans right, or impossible to help."


I've not seen anybody make that argument. Link please?

[Wonder]

480. YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LAW TLM

Find the Law and READ IT

get the penal code on rape AND READ IT

get the penal code on date rape and READ IT

get your hands on the transcript of the case cited in the original article and READ IT

do a search in law review and get as many analyses of the LAW AS YOU NEED to ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL EFFECT YOU ADVERSELY

stop wasting your time seeking clarification and approval and agreement from those that HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THEY ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOU.

IF YOUR TRAUMA PERSISTS SEEK OUT CRISIS INTERVENTION.

OR AS I ALREADY SUGGESTED OPEN UP A THREAD IN THE LOUNGE AND SEE IF YOU CAN PULL IN OTHERS THAT MIGHT LIKE TO COMMISERATE WITH YOU IN A WAY THAT WILL COMPLETELY INGRATIATE YOUR NEED.

[TLM]

482. I see insults, and flames... but stll no link.

Where is the link to the posts that make the arguments described here?

"But somewhere along the road this turned into a few idiot morons trying to argue that continuing to force a girl to have sex when she is pleading for you to stop is either perfectly normal, within a mans right, or impossible to help."

[MaraJade]

456. This law exists for the purpose of deterrence. . .regardless of what else

was said. The purpose of this law is not to allow for false
accusations. It is to make idiots think twice about the consequences
of their actions.

I think that it is very telling that so many men seem to be so very
worried about "defending against" a law like this. I am not
worried about "defending against" it. Why, because I would never
have a "one night stand with a stranger that I didn't know or who
didn't know me--I believe in old fashioned courtship; sex should
only occur between people who know each other extremely well,
people who are best friends FIRST preferably married). Could it be that the behavior of some of the most vehement complainers has been less than stellar in the past? Could it be that faceless sexual relationships and sexual coersion has become a habit with them?

If you are currently avoiding behaviors that might put you in the
danger zone, then what are you so worried about??? Who cares about
"defending against" this law if you are not the man to whom the
woman you know best would have any reason to say "NO?"

I believe that the primary reason for this law is to deter idiots
who believe that consent means anything goes. It is for the people
who are always trolling for fresh meat. It isn't designed
for the thoughtful and considerate person who is honest about relationships; rather, it is for the uncivilized among us who
drift through this life concerned primarily with their own gratification.

A person with true empathy for others, one who approaches others
with civility and respect, one who does not view others as existing
merely for the slaking of their own appetites, will never face the
"false accusations" that so many are worried about.

Guys, this means that if you NEVER, EVER look at women as 'one night
stands' or easy 'hookups' that can be simply discarded for another, the chances are extremely slim that
you will ever be falsely accused (or rightly accused for that
matter), of being the jerk that doesn't know that NO MEANS NO.
Men who think of women as conquests are far more likely to be
"caught" by this law than men who are looking for or maintaining
honest relationships. And men like that get what they deserve.

Flames will be used to light the "fire on ice" at the rink where
my daughter skates. . .

[TLM]

470. You seem to miss a big point here...

"The purpose of this law is not to allow for false
accusations. It is to make idiots think twice about the consequences
of their actions."

The purpose of the law is moot. What is at issue is the potential for the law to be abused. A law need not be intended for abuse in order to be badly written in such a way that allows for abuse.


"I think that it is very telling that so many men seem to be so very
worried about "defending against" a law like this. I am not
worried about "defending against" it. Why, because I would never
have a "one night stand with a stranger that I didn't know or who
didn't know me"

Again, a moot argument since false claims of rape also can come from long time girlfriends or wives. In fact when jealousy or revenge is the motive, a long time relationship would seem to me to be a prerequisite.



" Could it be that the behavior of some of the most vehement complainers has been less than stellar in the past? Could it be that faceless sexual relationships and sexual coersion has become a habit with them? "

Could it be that when arguments are weak and moralizing, the only way to try to discourage disagreement is to imply those who do disagree are into “sexual coersion?”

[MaraJade]

496. So morals are inherently evil and . .

worthless. There is no moral argument that ever supports or justifies a law like this. Indeed, morals justify absolutely
nothing in life. It is far more admirable and "modern" to live a life completely devoid of any moral principles.

While we are at it, lets okay lying, disloyalty, cheating and
stealing as well. And people
like me who believe in integrity are dunderheads, old-fashioned killjoys whose arguments in favor of love and loyalty are worthless,
supportive of nothing.

"Again, a moot argument since false claims of rape also can come from long time girlfriends or wives. In fact when jealousy or revenge is the motive, a long time relationship would seem to me to be a prerequisite."

I wonder why in the world a woman in a "long time relationship" would
suddenly, after years of relative peace, resort to revenge. Why in the world would she be jealous? What would CAUSE such a false
accusation? Could it be because she found out she made the mistake of giving the best years of her life to a lying, cheating fool? Once again, it
gets right back to the fact that an HONEST and FAITHFUL man would never give his woman reason to consider doing anything so stupid as abusing this law. Once again, morals or no, it gets right back to
the actions of the man involved.

But you advocate a world without moral underpinnings where people
do whatever they need to for self gratification. Under such conditions, I can understand your point that people who are immoral should have no impediments. Not even laws designed to deter
excesses. And under such circumstances, you are right. If there
are no morals, then this is a stupid law.

[TLM]

519. Go moralize to someone else...

"So morals are inherently evil and worthless.

LOL! By calling it evil, you use another moral argument to attack moral arguments. And yes moral arguments are often bias, subjective, and subsequently worthless in trying to obtain justice.

"Moral" arguments have been the backbone of the most atrocious acts of violence and oppression ever seen. Witch burning was supported by MORAL arguments. As were the actions of sept 11th. Anybody can use their "morality' as an excuse to warp and twist situations to suit their agenda.

Just look at the church's moral argument against gay marriage, as they defend child raping priests.

So yeah, morals as a foundation for social justice are WORTHLESS.




"I wonder why in the world a woman in a "long time relationship" would
suddenly, after years of relative peace, resort to revenge. Why in the world would she be jealous?"

Jealousy could be a motive, then again it could be motivated by something else like greed or just plain old cruelty. The point being that marriage does not mean that nobody will ever do anything wrong to the other person.


" What would CAUSE such a false accusation? Could it be because she found out she made the mistake of giving the best years of her life to a lying, cheating fool?"

Cheating could be a reason, and it could easily be her cheating.



"Once again, it
gets right back to the fact that an HONEST and FAITHFUL man would never give his woman reason to consider doing anything so stupid as abusing this law."

So you believe that no woman has ever done anything to abuse the law against an honest and faithful man?


"But you advocate a world without moral underpinnings where people
do whatever they need to for self gratification."

I advocate a world where one person's subjective moral standards are not legislated and forced on everybody else. Rather I support a system of social justice based on objective standards, facts, and agreed upon civil and constitutional rights, due process, and most of all justice. All of which are scarcely found is systems built on supposedly moral/religious standards.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

529. The purpose of the law was to clarify that NO is sufficient to constitute

the crime of rape. Got a problem with that?

[Name removed]

464. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

474. The only answer I have is fuck you and your fucked up mind

because your fucked up mind and a porn movie are the only places where a woman parades around with a sign that says please rape me.

But since you have so much fun in fucking fantasyland let's try this.

ChillEB is at a party walking around with his asshole hanging out and a sign that says "PLEASE RAPE ME" He's feeling a little high and four men pin him to the ground and stick their dicks up his ass. He gets off because his prostate gland is in the area where they happen to be shoving their penis up him and although he thinks he likes girls the act of having his prostate massaged gives him mulitple O's.

In the morning he wakes up and his ass is sore and he swears he would have never consented to it but for the fact that someone slipped him a mickey and turned him into a woman overnight to service their needs. He swears up and down he is a straight man and that women and men like him and realize he would never make up bullshit just to argue his point.

My question. Did rape happen? or is ChillEB discovering a side of himself he never knew existed.

FUCK YOU, you want to turn rape into a PORN STORY...I CAN DO THAT

Yeah let's have a rational conversation about your fucking fantasies. I don't give a fuck if one of us gets banned when this is over.

[Wonder]

476. NSMA

I really gotta hand it to you. That is a very apropro response as well as an excellent analogy I back you one hundred percent. I couldn't have said it better.

[noiretextatique]

486. i agree..this is some SICK and TWISTED shit

i don't give a FUCK if i'm banned either.

THIS IS THE MOST DISGUSTING PIECE OF SHIT I HAVE WITNESSED IN THIS THREAD FULL OF SOME VERY FUCKED UP POSTS. RAPE-FANTASY...A WOMAN WITH A "PLEASE RAPE ME" SIGN...WHAT IN THE FUCK!?!?!


THIS IS REPRENSIBLE...AND YOU ARE ONE TWISTED M.F., CHILIB.

[frustrated_lefty]

501. NSMA...

I'm throwing tupence in here, ignore or rage at me if either will make you feel better. My wife was raped by her first husband. Several female friends confided in me in younger years about what they had gone through. I have firsthand experience witnessing how rape can affect a life. I'm saying, and think most guys in this thread would say, rape is a horrendous thing. Period. It's horrendous,and there's no justification for it. When a woman says no, that's the end of the story.

Some guys, myself included, are concerned about the potential for abuse with this interpretation of the law. That doesn't mean we don't think rape happens. It doesn't mean we don't think rape is more common than false accusations of rape.

The legal system is changing, a woman's word is sufficient to get a guy jailed. Perhaps that's for the better. Perhaps not. You're deluding yourself though, if you say there is no cause for guys to be concerned. Rape and domestic violence are the two crimes where a person can be jailed in the absence of ANY physical evidence.

Punishment in the absence of evidence is never a good thing. I'm not trying to detract from the horror women experience undergoing rape. I have to ask what good this interpretation of the law will do, though.

Just thoughts.

[Wonder]

502. Frustrated_lefty. Just curious

what you voice seems to echo the concerns of others.

YOu say the legal system is changing, and a man can be jailed just on the word of the accuser with no physcial evidence, with rape and domestic violence the two crimes most susceptible to this.

Can you please offer some kind of law review on this change in the procedures and system. Perhaps if a more comprehensive rundown can be provided from the experts, it will help frame this concern within a more substantive and pragmatic context.

Just concern does not help me to understand. What is your concern based in? I mean what have you read on just the specific topic regarding this concern. It is clearly echoed within this thread.

Certainly punishment in the absence of evidence is never good.
Please if you would provide us a Judical Watch article or Law Review commentary... some form of critical analysis of the changing trend in arrest procedure and evidentiary requirements concerning accusations in regard to rape and/or domestic violence. Just the concern alone so far seems unsubstantiated.

Just a thought.

[frustrated_lefty]

504. Wonder, I'll try

to address your thoughts, and ask you to bear with me. I catch the sarcasm in your voice and think it may be justified. I don't know the answers and don't claim to.

I did something wrong last year. I pushed my wife. We were fighting over some stupid thing, and she started yelling at the top of her lungs while shaking her finger in my face.

I won't try to justify my actions, but when she shook her finger in my face, I pushed her away from me. If you want an excuse to disbelieve me, or color me wrong, here it is. I did something wrong.

My wife was frustrated with me the next day and called the police. The police literally begged her to NOT press charges, saying she was starting a process she would regret.

She insisted. Twenty-four hours later, a district attorney was telling me I had broken my wife's arms ( NOT true) and he refused to release me on the misdemeanor I was charged with, he wanted me for a felony. Twenty-four hours after that I was told I had been fired because my boss could not tolerate the possibility that I MIGHT be violent.

I can't quote a law review for you, I'm not a lawyer and don't keep up with these things. I was and still am floored by the DA insisting I had broken my wife's arms. He insisted this even when she showed up in his office, arms unbroken.

Again, I cannot quote a law review. I did physically see firsthand officers of the law plead with my wife to not start a process she would regret. And, after the fact, I had a half dozen police officers comment on my being the "sonofabitch who broke his wife's arms." The accusation alone carries a lot of weight.

I'm not proud of this. I did something wrong and I know it. But, I feel I have seen firsthand, once you're in the system, you're guilty. Period.

[Wonder]

506. well actually

I wasn't being sacastic. I placed some articles in my additional post to you. I was responding out of curiousity. I realize the thread got out of hand, but in all fairness, it was out of hand before I arrived in the thread. My first post was I believe #101.

You are correct the laws are shifting... it is a matter of understanding why. As to your story. Well. Apparently there are many details. I can not imagine in this instance why she be would allowed to lie blatantly... did you go through a trial, and she was not asked to provide evidence of this broken arm? Is that what you are saying? You were convicted on domestic violence charges and with no proof she fabricated a broken arm and with no documentation or hospital record you were convicted? Please I am not being sarcastic. I just feel perhaps I don't have the rest of those details.

Anyway I did provide you those other articles regarding shifts in rape law and sexual abuse laws.

[Wonder]

505. change to rape law shifts court focus from victim

There does seem to be a flux in rape law in the past year. the articles I found were from the UK and South Africa.

SOUTH AFRICA http://www.cab.kabissa.org/raplaw.htm

"The woman will no longer need to prove she did not give her consent," Artz said.

"The accused will have to prove there was sex, but no force was used and she had given her consent.

"There will be some burden on the woman to prove the rapist used force should the defence raise it in court."

The current definition under the common law reads that rape is "intentional, unlawful intercourse with a woman without her consent".


UNITED KINGDOM http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,920788,00.html

A crackdown on 'date rape' is under threat from a growing revolt by peers arguing it will lead to miscarriages of justice.

The flagship government reforms are designed to tackle a macho 'No does not always mean no' culture that sees only 7 per cent of rape cases end in conviction, with attackers evading justice by arguing that they believed their victim wanted sex, even if she was fighting them off.

The planned changes in the law would require such men to make genuine efforts to 'resolve doubts' over whether the woman was willing.

But Ministers are facing a long and bitter battle in the House of Lords later this month, with some peers warning that innocent men will be jailed as a result of relationships that sour or 'dates' that go wrong.


-------

It seems in these two cases the systems are trying to address some of issues which have impeded the judicial process in terms of enforcement. The fact is that enforcing date rape is near to impossible. That an attempt is being made to crack down on date rape in a way which would either discourage it as a practice, or better enable the trying of the crime is for the most part good news.

It is late, but when I said I was curious, I really meant I was curious. At one point it struck me in this thread that there had to be a reason this clarification in rape law has occurred. Regardless of what people may believe, proving sex crime is impossible, ergo many more guilty are acquitted than innocent convicted.

As you can ascertain from the Guardian article various societal prejudices have and do negatively impact chances to conviction. When one considers the various obstacles, it seems an effort is being made to address them. The clarification regarding consent withdrawal is one, and shifting the burden of proof onto the accused another.

Rather than denying what the realities are, in an effort to evaluate these shifts in the law, one must also recognize the issues the changes in the law attempts to address.

While neither of these articles are from the US, something tells me the concerns discussed would be similar here in the states. As the article in the Guardian suggests perhaps it is the laws desire to address what they called the "No does not always mean no' culture that sees only 7 per cent of rape cases end in conviction"

Again if this is the reason for the shift, it is good news. I will continue searching tomorrow.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

508. I absolutely agree. But in NO WAY is woman's word any more

sufficient to get a man jailed with this law or the Calif Supreme Court's ruling than it was before unless the word is "NO "( or a number of variable interpretations of "no" such as I HAVE TO GO and then being PINNED down to a bed.) All the law clarifies is that NO is sufficient for the condition to be considered rape. A no brainer for the males you describe whom I respect immensely and consider to be my brothers.

The IRRATIONAL FEAR I am underscoring is that a law that clarifies that NO is all that needs to be present to consider an act a rape and then TRIGGER the legal process of arrest, trial, fact finding and conviction or acquittal does NOT mean that due process has been thrown in the trash. The rapist still has the defense of saying it was sex and consensual, which is then only undermined when A) they have no credibility based on the fact finding and testimony (such as impeaching themself as the defendent did in the California case) B) Witnesses (such as nearby neighbors hear a woman yelling NO NO NO. C) any other evidence that there was not permission such as physical injury (bruises about the wrist, neck, vagina etc.)


The IRRATIONAL FEAR is that some on this thread presume that there will now be no trial.

BTW, my response to the post removed was fitting for an ass that attempted to portray a scenario in which a woman is hypothetically walking around at a sex party with a sandwich board sign that says PLEASE RAPE ME, claims to have been drugged, was penetrated by several people, reportedly appears to have multiple orgasms, and the reader is then invited to determine if rape occurs. The scene (besides being beyond far fetched and being nothing more than a feeble attempt by an inflammatory ass who thinks men are more at risk for false charges than women are for lack of remedy) was a disgusting verite performance of the kind of beast that thinks women enjoy being raped.

If one needs to summon the creative style of Anais Nin and Ron Jeremy to make a point regarding rape perhaps they have no valid point regarding rape.

[TLM]

522. Again where do you get the idea that...

"The IRRATIONAL FEAR is that some on this thread presume that there will now be no trial."

The damage of a false accusation is not dependant on the outcome, or even existence, of a trial.

A not guilty verdict won’t get you your job back, won't give you your life back, won’t repair your reputation... and again no trial is needed for an accusation to be made in the first place.


There was no trial when I was falsely accused.

[salin]

523. and there was no trial

when I was raped. You still contending these are equal events?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

524. And if you were falsely accused of murder or cartheft the same would hold

But you do realize that if you were falsely accused NOW in light of your hundred or so posts calling women liars, you might not be acting in your own best defense with your attitudes towards women on this thread. :freak:

[Booberdawg]

533. TLM

Your assertion "The damage of a false accusation is not dependant on the outcome, or even existence, of a trial." is true. Same can be said for falsely accusing people of any crime. It doesn't mean we should do away with the laws. That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is also a crime to falsely accuse someone of rape, and there are slander laws as well.

The frustration I have with your argument is your suggestion that this law makes it easier to falsely accuse men of rape. It doesn't. If one is going to falsely accuse someone of rape, this law is not going to help them do that.

Your case, while very unfortunate, does a disservice to rape victims for whom the law is designed to clarify legal questions for, and an equal disservice to men who fear the law can result in false rape charges being filed against them. Your insistence that the clarification in this law that a woman has a right to say NO after some sexual contact has taken place has no bearing on your case.

The "irrational fear" you are feeding to other men in this discussion is that because of a law like this women can more easily accuse men of rape who will thus be charged simply by her say so, and that standards of proof and evidence previously required in rape cases are now going to be thrown by the wayside in favor of the womans word alone. This is not the case at all. It is not even a new concept in rape law, and simply clarifies the point that a person never has had the "right" to force once some sexual contact has taken place.

This is the subtle manipulation in your arguments that I find quite troubling.

Linda

[Kucinich04]

503. Wow...

I've lurked forever around DU and finally decided to join. I've watched this thread for the past week or so and I saw the original post that youre responding to here I think yesterday, and it stuck in my mind because of experience I had, and planned to join to comment on it but thought I'd wait to see what other people said first. Looks like its gone now and the poster has a tombstone. I wondered if it was for this post? If thats true I can't believe it because of what I'm going to tell you later here. And also I'm wondering why NSMA isn't also kicked off, since her post talks all about a guy being raped in just the same way as that ChiliB guy did a girl and I'm just wondering why it's okay to post about a queer r*pe and not a straight one?

First off it's really been surprising to watch the way that on this topic the people on DU are so amazingly divided and at one others throats. Now it's youre response here really takes the cake, which is to say I guess it really illustrates more than any other how much people, even who are most of the time really backing each other up on everything (I really like the unity I see here most of the time - I'm a HUGE Kucinich fan and REALLY want to that crook GWB the F*** (guess I can say that, right?) out of office so bad!!!) can get super divided when it comes to this topic, even when it seems on everything else they all totally agree.

Anyways, I'm a gay man who considers himself a rape survivor from way back, I was molested repeatedly by a boy who was a little older and way more mature physicaly (i was 4th grade, he was 6th) and I was new at the school and hella people picked on me so I guess I kinda didnt fight him that much cause he was like the biggest kid in the school and I thought if he stayed my friend nobody would beat me up anymore. and actually, it worked, he totally stuck up for me so I guess it was worth it. But I consider myself to probably have become gay becasue of that experience with him, so obviously it's effected my life in a huge way, although I never considered it to have like 'screwed me up', I don't talk about it with the counselor I have now. But ANYWAYS... I can't believe I just told you all that but I've hardly ever told anyone and you guys all seem like you'd be cool and understanding.

Anyways one time a while back I went to whats called a circuit party for gay guys in Palm Springs(invited by a new lover, didn't really know what I was getting into) where its basically a lot of group sex and swapping. One time I walked into a room and what appeared to be 5 guys r*ping this one other guy, holdin him down, one guy had his hand over the guys mouth and I walked in and am like "whoa, what the hell is this" and one of the 'r*pists' told me it was just a game. Being a survivor this was totally off teh wall and so I said, 'let me ask this guy' and they took off their hand off his mouth and I said 'Is this cool, dude", and he laughed and said "hell yeah". Totally blew me away, but I found out some guys have that fantasy. I figured he must've been in jail at some time or something.

From what some friends have told me this Hedonism place is kinda like a circuit party with people just having sex all over the place, group sex even. So I guess what I wanted to say was that I mean unless it's only gay guys who ever have a fantasy to pretend to be r*ped, what was so horrible about what this chillib was saying, just as fictional 'what if' kind of deal? He even said that the girl didn't know where the 'r*pe me' sign came from, so it sounds like she wasn't 'parading around' with the sign like you said nsma? I think he was talking about a scene like the one I saw at the party which like I said to me is like totally bizarre but to each there own. I guess I'm wondering in the situation he described, would the guys who got with the girl deserve to go to jail if she later said she didn't conscent the night before? And I was thinking probably the way it'd be decided would be how MUCH did the woman really let it be known that she didn't want to be doing this? Because with like what I saw at the party, the guy who was getting 'r*ped' was kinda playing along and all in all some bit of pretending to fight it is part of the whole 'fantasy' (yuck!) I assume. And then I thought, having been thinking about this thread for like a week, probably when alls said and done even with straight sex like in the headline, whether or not the guy should be called 'r*pist' is probably determined by how clear she made it to the guy to 'stop'. I thought that was probably what the poster was going to be getting at, I don't know. Anyways, I guess I just wanted to say, that scenario you describe in your post? Believe it or not, some people apparently actually 'play' that, and I just thought it was strange to see someone bringing up the whole phenomena because I've never even heard of it before or since that time at the party.

See you all around!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

510. Wow, you use a similar writing style to the banned poster

If you think I deserve to be banned, hit the alert on me and make your case to the mods.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

511. Here is the original post so that my response is seen in context

I saved it so it's never going away.If you think it's defensible then defend it. BTW the now banned poster also thinks that men have a biological survival mechanism built in that makes rape OK because it is part of their innate chromosomal make-up to reproduce. Would that be so regarding your party in Palm Springs with gay males?

ChillEB says:
> ChillEB (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-31-03 11:49 PM
> Response to Original message
>
> 464. An interesting *HYPOTHETICAL* scenario: Rape, or No?
>
>
> Please note: This post contains a mild, ungraphic depiction of a sex act
> that may or may not be rape. Please do not read it if you feel it will
upset
> you. I don't want to upset anyone, nor is this intended to start a flame
> war. Rather, to engender a thought-provoking debate amongst intelligent
> adults. I am going to describe a ridiculous scenario that I am quite
certain
> would NEVER EVER happen. I am interested to see, however, what people's
> opinions would be *if it somehow did*. Please, DO NOT read anything into
> this scenario that I do not say, or assume that I have some nefarious
> objective here, because I do NOT. There's no cleverly hidden underlying
> disrespect or hatred towards women or any crap like that. If you *knew*
me,
> you'd know that I love women more than Life. I am what's best described as
a
> 'serial monogamist', having had 6 relationships that lasted over two
years.
> My friends tell me I treat my girlfriends 'like Queens'. There is NOT ONE
of
> those 6 with whom I'm not on friendly terms with, except the one that I
> lost. I'm still, however, holding out for my 'Dream Girl'. I point this
out
> because I *really* don't want anyone to go into this thread with the wrong
> idea about ChillEB and women.
>
> Lastly, please, do not twist or extrapolate any one else response(s) to
mean
> anything other than what they said, or to be applicable to any other
> scenario. Deal? Cool. This should be interesting...
>
> Okay. Imagine a beautiful woman is at Hedonism II in Jamaica. Its a warm
> summer night, people are partying, walking around nude, having sex in the
> corner ... if you've been there or heard stories, you know what I mean. If
> there's anyplace in the WORLD this could actually happen, it would be
there.
> Well, there or the "Bondage A Go-Go" in SF. The woman walks out onto the
> patio, stark naked other than a sandwich board which says "Somebody Please
> Rape Me ". She has one of those Red Ball thingies in her mouth, like in
the
> rape scene in Pulp Fiction, so she cannot really speak. Multiple guys
(lets
> just say they are: Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Robert Redford and Tom Jones
> (both at 30), Ashton Kutcher, and Colin Farrell) approach her, begin
> fondling her, then one picks her feet out from under her, and lays her on
> the ground. She seems to be saying "No, No", and puts up a small but
> ineffective struggle against the multitude of men that are around her.
There
> is brief confusion amongst the men whether her struggling is real, or part
> of her game. Nobody elects to remove the ball to get clarification,
arguably
> because they didn't really want to hear an actual 'no', but this is never
> discussed verbally amongst them.
>
> Now, rather than go into graphic detail here that might make anyone
> uncomfortable, lets just say that some sex acts occur, the woman does NOT
> engage in any overt attempts to kick anyone away, claw eyes out, dig her
> nails into anyone, etc, *BUT* that is arguably because they are
immobilized
> by the guys around her. The resistance is best described as 'token'. As
for
> a time frame, there is some struggle going on for the first few minutes,
but
> nothing she does is *SO* obvious as to be incontrovertible proof that
wants
> it to stop, and after awhile, she gives up resisting and seems to enjoy
> herself and the attention lavished upon her. Now, this goes on for a half
> hour or more, and nobody gathered round (M or F) tries to stop it, because
> nobody there senses that she is honestly resisting. She appears to have
had
> multiple big O's during the course. The next morning, she wakes up, calls
> the police, and accuses all the men of having violated her against her
will.
> She claims to have been high on something that somebody slipped her, she
did
> not know what, however, the effects sound exactly like Ecstasy. Forensics
> tests done on all bar glasses reveals nothing chemical, but they have all
> been washed, so this is inconclusive. She emphatically says she wants to
> press charges against this group of celebrities for what they did. She
does
> not know who 'slipped her the mickey', but it's 50/50 as to whether one of
> them did so. In her heart of hearts, she believes she was violated,
because
> she felt she was trying to say 'no', and she knows she did not take any
> drugs of her own volition. She did have enough booze to be feeling it, but
> she knew it wasn't enough to get her schnocker'd and feeling as high as
she
> was. She did not know where the sandwich board came from...
>
> So the question, obviously, is: Did rape occur? Why or Why Not?


note to the mods...If I should have to defend my participation on DU for my response to the actual post, then the actual post should be made available.

[bluestateguy]

472. good GOD! This is the largest reply thread I have ever seen

472 posts!

For the record, the law seems to introduce all kinds of potential problems in my opinion, althuogh I do think that when somebody charges their mind about sex, the other person should back off.

[slackmaster]

492. Any decent person would back off when requested

This law is, as the original post stated, a clarification of what constitutes rape. It might provide one more way for a disgruntled, vindictive partner to falsely accuse someone of a crime, but any woman (OR MAN) who would do such a horrible thing would be able to think of something else nasty to do even without this law.

500 replies, here we come!

[Name removed]

493. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

494. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chomskyite2]

495. big mistake

kick.......










****du XthugsX 4eVa****

[chomskyite2]

497. this thread is stupid

in fact, if i read every post i would become legally retarded. no joke.

[TrogL]

499. Some valid points have been raised

There's no need to be insulting.

[joshcryer]

500. Hahaha, broke the 500th post barrier.

This thread is insane!!

[study_war_no_more]

507. I just seen the ever-ready bunny

Boom thump bumpity bump

[salin]

516. So when did this atrocity of a thread get unlocked?

Wish at a minimum it were locked and restarted as a discussion thread in GD with a link to this. This is long. And no longer Late Breaking News. I won't even comment on the tenor - as that is taste and only relates to my tastebuds not others. Okay I can't totally refrain... ugh.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

528. POSSIBLE WARNING SIGNS: MEN TO WATCH OUT FOR . .

rapist can be anyone. He may be a family member, friend, neighbor, or a date. He may be someone you trust. Be aware and watch out for . . .

* men who make all of the decisions for you;

* men who seem angry or hostile toward women in general;

* someone who gives you the feeling that women are sex objects, or that women are to serve men;

* men with an unrealistic view of women. Does he idolize you - put you on a pedestal?;

* someone who pressures you for sex;

* someone who doesn't take "no" for an answer;

* men who show hostility toward women;

* men with domineering personalities. Does he act extremely jealous, possessive and treat you like his property?; and

* men who drink excessively. Alcohol can often cause a person to get angry, sexually aggressive, or violent.



http://www.smsu.edu/safetran/safety/rapeawareness.htm#ss13

just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill.

[TLM]

531. And what of women so angry or hostile towards men...

that they will attempt to label men as rapists or potential rapists, simply because those men disagree with them on a message board?


http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

"just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

532. name names

Again...why the RW funded study to prove your point? If this were global warming would you use a Scaife funded study to prove your point?

[TLM]

535. Read the thread...

"What this tells me, or should I say how I interpret is boo hoo hoo this law is going to get me in trouble I can't overpower these bitches anymore."

"It even seems to me those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once, because of all those lying manipulative bitch's."


As for the study... once again, even Koss admits the question was flawed and that it made for bogus numbers.

"Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded. Indeed, she told the Blade reporters, "At the time I viewed the question as legal; I now concede that it's ambiguous."<20> That concession should have been followed by the admission that her survey may be inaccurate by a factor of two: for, as Koss herself told the Blade, once you remove the positive responses to question eight, the finding that one in four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape drops to one in nine."

Now did the RW study pay Koss to admit her study was flawed?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

537. Have I used the Koss study on this thread?

BTW, calling all women liars is a sign of misogyny. Find me one place where I have called ALL MEN anything but men.

[TLM]

544. You attacked another poster for saying it was bogus....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=46339&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=46317&page=


You attack CD for pointing out the cooked books numbers and the bogus alcohol question in the Koss study, blame men, then equate the act of consensual sex after having been drinking with roofies rape. Which exactly the same kind of misrepresentation that Koss did in her study where she counted consensual sex after consumption of alcohol as rape, even when the respondent said she wasn't raped.


"If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

547. Wow! You find this statement objectionable! Why?

"Funny that's what roofies do only they are considered drugging. If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her"

Maybe next time include my entire statement.

[TLM]

551. I find it more illustrative than objectionable.

As it points out the anti-male bias in your standards nicely. Like I said...


You attack CD for pointing out the cooked books numbers and the bogus alcohol question in the Koss study, blame men, then equate the act of consensual sex after having been drinking with roofies rape. Which exactly the same kind of misrepresentation that Koss did in her study where she counted consensual sex after consumption of alcohol as rape, even when the respondent said she wasn't raped.


and I reiterated again I another post...


This was your response to CD pointing out the false numbers in the Koss study due to the misleading alcohol question. You immediately assumed that he, being a man, must be defending roofies style rape and intentional incapacitation... which both CD and the Hoff report made clear they were not defending.

But rather than go by objective evaluation of what was actually said, you just attacked with man hating crap.



"Maybe next time include my entire statement. "

I included a link to the posts, two, where you attacked CD in response to his questioning the Koss study.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

553. If you can make all that up out of one post

then how do I know your supposed accuser didn't tell you NO and you heard something else?

BTW the males Du'ers that know me are:

Doug Decker
JaysunB
Lazarus
Dr Bombay
PeterH
Matcom
Bemildred
HawkerHurricane

and there are a few others...feel free to ask them for any objective evidence of my being a man hater.

Fortunately, you are one male Du'er who will never know me because after reading your many posts on the subject, I would fear for my safety being around you.

[salin]

534. Right... if I disagree with you

I am now likely to falsely accuse someone of rape. What a frighteningly free of logic implication.

on edit changed a you to someone (which is what was intended to be typed)

[TLM]

538. That's my point.... reversal is the best was to expose a bias.

To say that because a woman does not like men or she disagrees with me, that means she is going to accuse someone of rape falsely... is as ridiculous as the claim that, " those most at odds with this law have broken it more than once".


Did you read the post to which I was responding? It was clearly saying a man that is hostile or angry towards women is a potential rapist... and the poster tied it to the posters in this thread.

I simply asked if the women who demonstrate so much anger and hostility towards men are held to the same standard.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

540. Then why did you call me a man hater for disagreeing with you?

No where on this thread have I indicated a hatred for men although I wouldn't break bread with you.

[TLM]

546. That's not why I said you hate men...

My exact quote was...

"Were your positions based on objective standards and not flat out man-hating... you could easily answer this question. However you refuse to do so, and your refusal says more about the inconsistency of your standards, and your bias against men, than I ever could."


And your post quoted below is exactly what gives me that impression about your standards. This was your response to CD pointing out the false numbers in the Koss study due to the misleading alcohol question. You immediately assumed that he, being a man, must be defending roofies style rape and intentional incapacitation... which both CD and the Hoff report made clear they were not defending.

But rather than go by objective evaluation of what was actually said, you just attacked with man hating crap.



"If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her "

Now in all objective fairness to you, maybe you're not a man hater. maybe you just got caught up in a misunderstanding and went off on CD in the heat of the moment.

Though if that is the case, I've yet to see you apologize to him.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

549. I never said he was defending that and owe him no apology

You make up so much that has not been said it begins to make me wonder if the accusations against you were false. You twist so much of what I have said to suit your agenda it leaves me clear that you are quite capable of doing so in any situation.

[TLM]

554. Well then lets look at the two posts....

CD says...

ConservativeDemocrat (87 posts) Thu Jul-31-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #283

425. That site twists the facts and ignores others:

For example:

Roiphe goes on to say:

"... 73% of the women categorized as rape victims did not initially define their experience as rape; it was Mary Koss, the psychologist who conducted the study, who did."

But Koss didn't define the women's experiences; the law does.


This issue was addressed by Sommers both rhetorically and factually. The rhetoric was persuasive:

Koss and Pollitt make a technical (and in fact dubious) legal point: women are ignorant about what counts as rape. Roiphe makes a straightforward human point: the women were there, and they know best how to judge what happened to them. Since when do feminists consider "law" to override women's experience?

The facts were devistating:

Nara Shoenberg and Sam Roe, revealed that Koss was quoting the Ohio statute in a very misleading way: she had stopped short of mentioning the qualifying clause of the statute, which specifically excludes "the situations where a person plies his intended partner with drink or drugs in hopes that lowered inhibition might lead to a liaison."<19> Koss now concedes that question eight was badly worded.


In other words - Koss's survey called going to a frat party, having your date give you drinks, getting horny, screwing him, and then regretting it in the morning as "rape". No wonder she got a one in four response.

- C.D.


Then you responded to this post by saying...



nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-01-03 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #425

483. Funny that's what roofies do only they are considered drugging

a person. If men don't want to be regarded as sick fucks perhaps they should stop acting like them. Perhaps I should say BOYS since most of the men I know aren't like this. WOW Imagine that... a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her



You said quite clearly, "Funny that's what roofies do only they are considered drugging a person."

I assume that by "that's" you were referring to what CD said in his post that" Koss's survey called going to a frat party, having your date give you drinks, getting horny, screwing him, and then regretting it in the morning as "rape"."

So you do equate consensual sex after consumption of alcohol, which CD was defending as not being rape, with roofies rape and intentional incapacitation. The whole point of your response seemed to be to accuse CD of being a "sick fuck" that was defending the idea of "a bunch of frat boys getting a girl so drunk she is out of control and fucking her."

[salin]

550. Actually

I know several good friends who work in domestic violence. The list is not unlike characteristics often (but not always) present with domestic abusers.

The list posted in that thread talks about traits that are often present in those who commit rape. It does not suggest that all who possess one or more of the traits is likely to commit rape (if a reader concludes this from the list, then the reader needs some work on basic logic/reasoning).

So your post may demonstrate the need to be careful with how one applies information, but it says nothing about the first post or the list/information itself.

[TLM]

552. just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill.

Those were the words the poster attached to the posting of a list of, "MEN TO WATCH OUT FOR."

Are you saying that wasn’t said to try and imply something?

[Booberdawg]

539. TLM

This is actually post #533 but I moved it to the bottom because this long thread is getting SO DARNED HARD TO FOLLOW!!!
*******************************************************

Your assertion "The damage of a false accusation is not dependant on the outcome, or even existence, of a trial." is true. Same can be said for falsely accusing people of any crime. It doesn't mean we should do away with the laws. That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is also a crime to falsely accuse someone of rape, and there are slander laws as well.

The frustration I have with your argument is your suggestion that this law makes it easier to falsely accuse men of rape. It doesn't. If one is going to falsely accuse someone of rape, this law is not going to help them do that.

Your case, while very unfortunate, does a disservice to rape victims for whom the law is designed to clarify legal questions for, and an equal disservice to men who fear the law can result in false rape charges being filed against them. Your insistence that the clarification in this law that a woman has a right to say NO after some sexual contact has taken place makes it easier to falsely accuse an innocent man of rape has no bearing on your case.

The "irrational fear" you are feeding to other men in this discussion is that because of a law like this women can more easily accuse men of rape who will thus be charged simply by her say so, and that standards of proof and evidence previously required in rape cases are now going to be thrown by the wayside in favor of the womans word alone. This is not the case at all. It is not even a new concept in rape law, and simply clarifies the point that a person never has had the "right" to force once some sexual contact has taken place.

This is the subtle manipulation in your arguments that I find quite troubling.

Linda

[TLM]

548. Yes?

"Your assertion "The damage of a false accusation is not dependant on the outcome, or even existence, of a trial." is true. Same can be said for falsely accusing people of any crime. It doesn't mean we should do away with the laws."

I never said we should do away with the laws. Rather we should simply write into the laws a standard of proof beyond "she said so."

And also we should make a law that treats a false accusation of rape as seriously as the crime of rape. If women were facing jail time for bogus accusations, I think it would do a lot for both sides of this problm.

"That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is also a crime to falsely accuse someone of rape, and there are slander laws as well."

I think it is only a crime if the accusation is filed with the police, then it is the crime of making a false report. Otherwise it is a civil matter of slander. However in both situations you have the same problem with the standard of evidence... he said vs she said.


"The frustration I have with your argument is your suggestion that this law makes it easier to falsely accuse men of rape. It doesn't. If one is going to falsely accuse someone of rape, this law is not going to help them do that."

Did you read the article linked in the first post?


The Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault praised the law Monday, but a criminal defense attorney said it might open the door to false rape accusations.

"That sounds a little dangerous," said Jack Rimland, immediate past president of the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The vagueness of that is really what disturbs me more than anything else."

<...>

Rimland suggested the law will require juries to make difficult judgments about exactly when consent is withdrawn and whether that was made clear to the other person.

False rape claims also might be easier to make, he said. Showing whether sex was consensual can be difficult, and showing that sex started out consensual but later became rape would be even more complex.





"The "irrational fear" you are feeding to other men in this discussion is that because of a law like this women can more easily accuse men of rape who will thus be charged simply by her say so, and that standards of proof and evidence previously required in rape cases are now going to be thrown by the wayside in favor of the womans word alone. This is not the case at all. It is not even a new concept in rape law, and simply clarifies the point that a person never has had the "right" to force once some sexual contact has taken place."


What this law does is make it more difficult to weed out a false claim in court, by providing rational for the lack of physical evidence.

[Booberdawg]

555. Yes I did read the article. Did you read the rest of it??

Yes I did read the article. Did you read the rest of it??

But Rutherford and Schollett disagreed, saying the law does not change the burden of proof needed to convict someone.

A spokeswoman said the governor is pleased that Illinois has legislation that achieves what has been forced on some other states by court order.

"We're in support of it," spokeswoman Angelynne Amores said. "This bill brings Illinois into line with other states that have (rules) that consent can be withdrawn at any point."

Here are 2 of your comments from this response alone that I have seen you make time and time again in this thread without any basis in the article"

"However in both situations you have the same problem with the standard of evidence... he said vs she said." TLM

"What this law does is make it more difficult to weed out a false claim in court, by providing rational for the lack of physical evidence." TLM

My questions to you:

Where in this article does it say the previous standards of evidence (proof that a rape has occurred) no longer apply??

Where in this article does it say that a rape charge will now be possible based solely on the word of the accuser, and without any corroborating evidence??

Where in this article does it say the burden of proof is changed to where the accused has to prove innocence rather than the accuser/prosecution having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Where are you getting all these assumptions?? You did not read such assertions in this article, for it said nothing of the kind.

Again, I suggest you do a disservice by using your previous situation as an argument against this law, as it has no bearing one way or the other on what happened to you. You were not charged, nor would this clarification in rape law have made it any easier for you to be charged without any evidence. It just isn't so.

I have to wonder why someone would go to such great lengths to argue otherwise. Is it deliberate manipulation of the facts, simply being imprudent, or biased due to past harm? Just a rhetorical question to ponder mind you.

I do know that there is NOTHING in this new law that will make it easier to falsely accuse an innocent man of rape. Period.

Linda