Yes to vaginal sex, no to anal sex. Is it rape?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

I DO NOT wish to discuss the Kobe Bryant case, but a number of people seem to think NO at any time during sex should NOT be sufficient. I personally think it should be for a variety of reasons, let alone the fact that if someone really wishes to terminate the act with you, why continue when there are alternatives?

But for those who think the issue is simply about women messing with men's heads (pun intended), I pose the question: If we are having a romantic evening and I am fully willing to engage in good old American-man-on-top-vaginal-sex.....and you all of a sudden head south in spite of my asking you not to...then what?

Do you still hold your position that it isn't rape?

[RandomKoolzip]

1. Yes, it's rape. Case closed.

If a woman says no at any time, cool your jets and get away from her. It's pretty simple.

[ShaneGR]

89. I think it's more stupid dating games than rape

So let me get this straight. The guy your with is, shall we say, giving you the high hard one, and you're enjoying it. Suddenly, he pulls the instrument of love out of the hole that God has given women for the purpose of child rearing (hehe) and puts it into the universal disposal hole, which you don't like.

Ok, if you tell your love stud, "I don't like it there, take it out of there. Me no like," and he takes it out, then that isn't rape. It's a stupid kinky move on his part, but not rape.

Now if he refuses to take it out I would then consider it to be a form of rape.

But, the endgame here is that some people are kinky, and I think the idea of these laws where the guy is supposed to ask about everything are just plain old stupid.

EXAMPLE:
"Can I kiss you?"

yes honey

"Can I take your shirt off?"

Go ahead

"Can I put my hand on your breast?"

Sure

"Can I suck on your nipple?"

Uh huh

"I would like to take off your pants and stick it in your butt, can I?"




Get the point?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. I doubt the law suggests the guy ask about everything.

It states a rape occurs at any time the other person says NO.

To be fair I haven't read the Illinois law.

I also don't think it is a question of kinky.

When my ex who is a physician was studying for her masters in public health, she advised me of a study that demonstrated that due to lack of education/ inavailability/ restriction of access to prophylactics in some states more and more teen females were being coaxed into having anal sex to avoid pregnancy, thus increasing instances of hepatitis,HIV infection etc in teens.

[bloom]

110. this is what I found on-line

http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0389


Public Act 93-0389

SB406 Enrolled LRB093 05718 RLC 05811 b

AN ACT in relation to criminal law.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by
changing Section 12-17 as follows:

(720 ILCS 5/12-17) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-17)
Sec. 12-17. Defenses.
(a) It shall be a defense to any offense under Section
12-13 through 12-16 of this Code where force or threat of
force is an element of the offense that the victim consented.
"Consent" means a freely given agreement to the act of sexual
penetration or sexual conduct in question. Lack of verbal or
physical resistance or submission by the victim resulting
from the use of force or threat of force by the accused shall
not constitute consent. The manner of dress of the victim at
the time of the offense shall not constitute consent.
(b) It shall be a defense under subsection (b) and
subsection (c) of Section 12-15 and subsection (d) of Section
12-16 of this Code that the accused reasonably believed the
person to be 17 years of age or over.
(c) A person who initially consents to sexual
penetration or sexual conduct is not 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.
(Source: P.A. 87-438; 87-457; 87-895.)

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
becoming law.


Effective Date: 7/25/2003

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

127. Seems pretty clear to me

(c) A person who initially consents to sexual
penetration or sexual conduct is not 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.


Thanks

[jiacinto]

2. No means no period

If the woman says no then the man must withdraw. And the same vice versa.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. It's Rape

No elaboration is needed.
The Professor

[theboss]

4. If she says no, it's rape

The grey area would be if you "head south" as you so adequately put it with no resistance and then she later is upset. But if at any point, she resisted in any way . . .it's rape.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. In your mind is No I don't want to sufficient resistance

or must she put up a physical fight and run the risk of injury or a beating?

[jiacinto]

11. No means no

If a woman says no then the sex must stop.

[outinforce]

72. Actually

The gender of the person makes no difference.

If a woman -- or a man -- says "No", then sex must stop.

[theboss]

18. No is enough

Of course, this is why something like "date rape" is so difficult to prove. Because you have to decide what the state of mind of the victim was.

[maggrwaggr]

5. Yeah, who would want to have sex with a woman who wasn't into it?

a rapist, that's who

[Clete]

6. For anyone to force you to do a sex act that you are

unwilling to do, even if you had been willing up to that time, is certainly sexual abuse and therefore can be called rape. A man once sneaked up behind me and felt up my bosom in a supply closet at work and even though it hardly qualified for a sex act, I felt as dirty as if I had been raped because it was abuse and I was not willing.

Of course, back then I had to quit my job, because my complaints to personnel were laughed at. They said my sweater was too tight and I invited the person to commit the act on me. There were no sexual harassment laws then.

[FireHeart]

116. That's called sexual assault and it definitely isn't

something to be laughed at. Things have improved in that area, but no where near enough. Your body is YOURS. No one has the right to touch it unless you grant permission. Period.

[ronnykmarshall]

8. Rape!

Which is something Kobe might be at the receiving end of in the future.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. Yes, it's rape

Consent to penetrate one orifice does not grant blanket permission to penetrate the others with impunity.

No means no.

[StandWatie]

10. well..

if you just said "no" and kept laying there, I don't know what I'd call it other than confusing. Get up and leave? :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. God

Your post is scary. That means if a woman gives a guy a blowjob and says no to anything else she is being confusing?

[StandWatie]

17. no, but you would think force has to come into it at some level

I'm not quibling about terms here I'm saying that if you are confused about whether you are raping someone either you are a complete retard or your partner in this act isn't making themselves clear.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. But if you are the confused one what responsibility do YOU have

to clarify it?

[StandWatie]

32. the normal ones

I'm just saying given that "no means no" means I'm a serial rapist because in the real world it doesn't always mean no, no matter what ideological constructs you make, it's just part of human mating and I didn't make up the rules.

I can attest that I'm not a serial rapist since no one ever got angry with me for persisting past one no and either gaining an honestly pre-ordained consent or understanding they were serious.

I don't think any of this matters one bit, I don't believe woman are seriously going to play a game of "gotcha" with this in a court but what I do worry about is parsing down the definition of rape until all sex becomes rape the way it's defined by dinosaur feminists.

[salin]

45. question

have you ever respected a woman who said no? Or are you just so incredible that they all - after a long struggle of saying no... are won over by your incredible and tenacious efforts?

Try this approach instead.

Stop.

When you stop, if she doesn't really mean "no" - I bet she asks you why you stopped. Mystery solved.

Notice - it is not feminist dinasours who are disagreeing with you on this.

If this really is your MO - I would suggest that if you ever are charged, it is more about your actions than about a lying female. You have already admitted to this.

[StandWatie]

46. I'm that incredible

I'm just kidding, yes, I've done just that before.

I've also done that and got asked the next time I saw the person why I stopped which is why I don't think you are committing some terrible crime if you take one more stab at it after one no.

[salin]

51. you frighten me

if you have never, never listened and stopped at "no". If you have always coerced sex. Yes, I would have to agree with your first assessment of yourself.

This is why the incident of rape is still so high.

On edit: the post this was responding to has been edited - reflecting that this is not the case (never hearing no) - thus this post is irrelevant (I think).

[StandWatie]

52. uh-huh

:eyes:

[salin]

54. see my response below

your reaction is identical.

[salin]

65. Thank you I didn't see your edits before

I was working from the wrong premise. I will correct my comments elsewhere. Please take my comments from reading your earlier sarcasm (blank with the yes) as meaning you had never said no. Thanks for understanding.

It isn't a crime if you really know that it is no longer no (she verbally acquiesces) and that there is a point when you stop trying (the continued trying at some point becomes harrassing). If you have those sort of internal guidelines - then the line shouldn't be crossed.

[foo_bar]

73. I'm neither a dinosaur nor a feminist

I don't think you are committing some terrible crime if you take one more stab at it after one no.

But "one more stab" is an interesting play on words.

[outinforce]

76. And your answer was?

"I've also done that and got asked the next time I saw the person why I stopped"

And your answer was........?

Try this the next time someone asks you "why you stopped":

"Because I respect you enough to stop when you say "Stop" (or "No")".

I am gay guy, and even I know that that much respect of women -- if sincere -- is a lot better approach to women than the "I'm such a sutd that no woman is able to resist my advances".

[Wonder]

95. "I'm such a stud that no woman is able to resist my advances".

another important delineation.

how can a male hear no --- when all he wants is yes.

[StandWatie]

98. because you can

because people do it every day, and if the amen choir was being honest they know it to.

I've known people who really were assholes and pushed coercion well into a definition of rape I'm comfortable with but the notion that a man should bolt out of a room without even pulling up his pants and flee if a woman shows any hesitation is just humiliating and insults the intelligence of men and is just foreign to what people really do.

[Wonder]

100. but I believe this notion is being purpetrated by the guys themselves

who are coming up with some of the most ridiculous arguments in their quest to resist this new clarification in the law. At least for the most part. So at the beginning the debate was extremely polarized. to counter some of the more insulting remarks from one extreme required they be countered with as an extreme argument from the opposing side.

does that make sense?

[StandWatie]

101. much sense

it's just that trying to make rules for sex gives me the creeps in the first place and in the second I think it's just a waste of time.

Everyone knows that no does not always mean no, men like to hear no sometimes so they can think they just shattered resistence with sheer sexual power and women say it sometimes because they want to think they are so irresistable it's impossible. I think there is a certain D/S component to it and maybe everyone in the world should just do what that crowd does and come up with a safe word besides "no", it doesn't seem any sillier to me than trying to come up with a number of times you have to hear no before you get the point. I know that's why the "no means no" people like zero, it's because you avoid having to make a decision that stupid but zero is a number also.

[noiretextatique]

106. the games people play

are much different than forcing someone to have sex against his/her will. i didn't really think this law was necessary until i read some of the posts of those vehmently against it :scared:

i hear what you're saying...people do play games with each other. however, i do think there's a difference between being coy or flirting, just as there is a difference between coaxing and forcing, as salin described. and i also know there is a difference between saying "no" and meaning something else, and saying "NO" and struggling to stop whatever is happening, and so do most people.

i do believe many rapists believe they are irresitible...and have a problem understanding the difference between flirting and consent. and while i think some situations maybe genuinely confusing, there is always an option...err on the side of caution.

that doesn't mean running from the room every time a partner hesitates or says "no," but it does mean that forcing a continuation of sex when someone does say "NO" is rape.

you can sense when a person is truly uncomfortable with something.

[Heddi]

173. Yep

"You can sense when a person is truly uncomfortable with something".

I was raped & molested for a very long time at a very young age.

My husband knows the difference between a "No" meaning "come here you little stallion" and "No" meaning "please get off of me, I'm about to freak out right now", and while it hasn't come up, he would definitely know a "NO" meaning "I don't want to do this anymore".


Just to be sure though, he always makes sure before proceeding if he hears a "no", and for the past 6 years that we've been together, I've only had to say "no" once, and that was just during a really bad time when I was having some issues with my past.

He's intuitive enough to know if I'm comfortable, and he knows that just because I decided to give him a BJ doesn't mean that I'm open and availble in any and every way he wants.

It's called boundaries and knowing your partner.

If you're unsure if she's saying NO meaning Yes, or NO meaning NO, why not just stop----if she wants you, she'll indicate so. If she wanted you to stop, she'll proceed to get up from the bed, or make other moves to indicate that sex is over.

I find it quite unbelievable that men are just SO FUCKING UNABLE to understand that NO means NO in 99% of cases, and a lady will make it quite clear if she didn't mean "NO" but "yes" instead.

In reading some of the comments from the MYRIAD of kobe, rape, etc. threads as of late, to my husband, he too was shocked at the sheer INSISTENCE of some male posters that if a man and a woman kiss, then that's an indication that she is consenting to do whatever he wants for as long as he wants, and if she says "no" she really means yes, and how's the guy supposed to stop once he's got started, and guys have hormones too right? And what about blue-balls?? And what about women who say "no" but really say "yes" but really really mean "no" and guys are so confused and trodden-upon by the sexually repressed women who just can't shut up long enough for him to get off in her and then get off of her...... :eyes:

Virginia Slims said "You've come a long way, baby".....I'm afraid in actuality we haven't moved more than a few paces....

[Wonder]

107. the topic is done a disservice when only the most superficial

aspects of this "no means yes" element is persued without delving beneath the surface of it. Clear the Law felt clarification was required. The women on this forum did not change the law. Do you believe the legislators of this law have made this clarification solely to mess with guys head.

Clearly date rape is a problem. While I agree can arise ambivalence in the female gender which can be age related or indicative of a deeper sexual psychology or malady, it seems to me the resistance to this clarification in the law from the male perspective also is indicative of a deeper issue. It is not only women who can be sexually confused. A males sexual confusion can be much more so lethal physically.

[noiretextatique]

109. excellent points, wonder

it seems the "sometimes no means yes" cannard is the real focus of this law, and it is a message to those who believe it.

[salin]

118. just realize its not 'sometimes no means yes' its and assumption that no=

go. How warped is that?

[noiretextatique]

157. pretty darned warped

a warped culture and cultural message? indeed.

[Wonder]

108. StandWatie please see

my post #88. there are deeper issues involved here than just how this clarification in the law inconveniences the male gender.

[salin]

115. I don't know you still seem overly inclined to believe that no means go

I think that as you describe (a guy who needs to hear it to think he has overcome some resistance) is the one who has the issue. And to make him feel good, women shouldn't be put at risk. In other words pretending that "no doesn't always mean no" is a phrase that helps assuage the egos and games of men who may blur that line too closely and too often. Why are we protecting them? Got me.

No means no until it becomes yes. You can coerce but not reengage until you have that acquiescence but if one assumes no means go - it is the person making the assumption that has the issue.

And with this law - there is more clarity on who has the legal responsibility of accepting no as meaning no rather than go.

[StandWatie]

117. because..

I go out with a girl who it doesn't mean no for and who I would make unhappy if I actually complied with her requests and I resent the implication that I "rape" her a few times a week :shrug:

[Wonder]

123. well than standwatie she is not an example

it seems you have read her correctly and therefore this pleases her so what is the problem... the cases we are talking about is when this clearly isn't the issue...

again, this example has little to do with rape... so why do you keep bringing it up... I only ask because if find it interesting you have not responded to post #88...

From what I can gather from this particular example you have raised this has nothing what so ever to do with this topic... and only serves to cloud and further confuse what is truly a very clear clarification in this law.

[StandWatie]

124. you are probably right..

:shrug:

[Wonder]

133. you are being goofy

I have a question... regarding your concern... or should I say:

do you feel concerned that if this girl were to read this new law that one day she might file charges of rape or are you just being goofy and/or a pain in the ass for your own amusement.

believe me I understand the self amusement aspect of participating on some of these threads. I do it all the time in i/p.

[StandWatie]

139. not in the slightest

as a matter of fact when I was typing earlier I got a call and she asked me what I was doing and I said "pissing off a bunch of people on DU who think that any contact after a woman says no is rape" and she laughed.

Yeah, there is some element of me just chowing down on sacred cows for amusement but I'm being somewhat serious to, this law won't do anything about date rape and making standards just seems ridiculous to me, a complete waste of time and it's a problem that doesn't lend itself to legal codes or education (maybe it could be solved by education but take a look at the stuff they tell college kids and watch their reactions, you just can't tell people in their early twenties that if a guy and girl get hooked up at a party drunk the girl got raped, they've probably already been there done that and find the notion hillarious, it's the same thing with these draconian guidelines, I don't know what guidelines to use to tell a man when he is being criminally coercive but I know it isn't just not bolting the minute the woman says no and so does everyone else that gets around any amount).

[Wonder]

147. well standWatie perhaps that is true for you

you seem well paired... however it is not true for all the males responding here. Again, the Lawmakers who made this clarification felt it was needed. Whether it is enforceable of not is a whole other conversation.

[Wonder]

152. and no one is saying a male has to bolt to the door after a no

what the law stresses is that after a no he is not to FORCE sex... there is a difference between perhaps continuing to persuade and pinning the female in such a way as she is unable to bolt herself...

<<<<you just can't tell people in their early twenties that if a guy and girl get hooked up at a party drunk the girl got raped>>>>

the law is not telling teens any such thing... the law is being confused and in some instance (not in yours necessarily) I find the confusion suspicious.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

131. If she says NO and MEANS yes and you BOTH know that to be true

then there is no implication that you rape her a few times a week. That is YOU stretching your sexual play book into claiming that no means yes.

It is interesting to me however that certain males like to take the context of their relationship and therefore extrapolate that NO MEANS YES.

I also have to wonder if the woman you are with is saying NO because it feeds into some fantasy of yours i.e. the fantasy of raping a woman.

IMHO, it is more likely men with your interpretation that necessitated clarification of the law. Not feminists.

on edit: I would also caution that if your GF says no and means yes, it certainly would not be rational to conclude that all women say no and mean yes.

[Wonder]

134. I tend to be curious myself

because in some instances the persistance here does perpetuate a myth that is imbedded into our societies ethos and is a myth that only serves to perpetuate rape rather than challenge it. I feel pushing the envelop is warranted... specifically because one woman can not be superimposed onto all women especially when it is clear LAWMAKERS seem to feel this clarification in the law was required or they would not have made.

Unless the lawmakers themselves are attempting to dissipate the issue even further as one of the posters has suggested (which I really don't agree that is the case). Rape and it's persistance is indicative of underlying complexities and in instances maladies if certain types do not pair up with those partners that feed their specific desires. It does not than serve them to force a specific desire on to a partner that might not be as responsive.

[StandWatie]

143. this is getting x-rated

I just think adults have a better grasp on what they are doing than you do, I think.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

151. I think you like the lines blurred for your own benefit

If adults had a better grasp, then there would be no issue, hundreds of thousands of women would not be raped annually, the FBI would not bother keeping statistics on the matter and nobody would have written a law clarifying when consent ends and rape begins.

[StandWatie]

158. ...

I never said rape didn't occur or that a woman needed to resist until she was a bloody pulp or resist at all if if there is some reason to think things will go violent if she does, I'll even give it rape if there is any sort of effort whatsoever to get between the woman and the door but I'm not convinced that you have raped someone if you don't bolt on out at first no, I think THAT'S blurring the lines.

[Wonder]

183. if you don't bolt on out at first no

no one is suggesting that is the case.

[Wonder]

188. StandWatie May I be Frank?

[StandWatie]

189. sure

[Wonder]

205. Let's take this slowly

would you agree that there does exist what I would call and in fact may be termed the "sex scene" which is a scene in which mature adults that are interested might even go to someones home or a places suited to this scene in which there exists what I would call a "sex menu"

are you with me so far?

[salin]

135. There is a difference

(as long as you are sure this is a reciprocal game) between the usual patterns between two people - and what you refered to earlier that sounded like a 'serial' progression of events with different women. In which case, to presume on short terms (eg someone you are not in a lterm relationship with) that this is what it means... is dangerous.

And if the "type" you refered to before (male) who needs to "feel resistance" and overcome it (presumably to get excited) were to take this approach on a multiple lover escapade (serially - meaning with each new lover), don't you see how this dude might not fully perceive a real no if he heard one? especially if he like a few have expressed here believe that no only means no if there is some kind of physical resistance. Some women are just too freaked out at the time to do the scratch the eyes out thing. So silence. IN this scenario... how easy does it become woo baby comeon.. "no" ohhh you say that but you really like this... "no"... ah here we go - and since no more NO and no fight - he heres lets go... BUT to her she is silent.. because she is stunned.. in her head she thinks: omfricking god! omyfrickingod! I can't believe it... I said no again and again... this is what rape is omyfrickingod.... and she is frozen in disbelief.

Maybe he wonders why she didn't really respond during the act. Probably thinks "cold fish"...

--------
This is the danger of illdefined lines - on pretending there are multiple meanings of no (there is ONE until SHE tells you there is a different meaning FOR HER for no .... Not the other way around). Yes of course this is different if you have a defined relationship game with your lover. But surely this example helps explain why the excuse of no isn't always no.. especially to a guy - who as you describe "needs to overcome resistance" as his thing... is a really dangerous game.

I would guess it is in this confusion that many of the rapes occur.

she is stunned I just said no omfuckinggod this guy is raping me...she is stunned)..

[salin]

227. oops missed an edit

went and did my laundry.. tried to rewrite a sentence for clarity - and the cut and paste piece didn't get deleted - but stuck at the bottom. oops sorry. Just read the post without the very last sentence and it covers what I am trying to say - in terms of staging how the confusion - based on the description of a certain "type of guy" that was given earlier in this thread - could become rape.

[Wonder]

88. StandWatie I believe what you are alluding to

I mean the specific example you give, within the context you give it,is kind of a non-issue. Why? because yes there are those more innocent instances when one partner might be ambivalent and coaxing from the male ensues:

1- as you said the female is persuaded -- however -- i believe checking in on her throughout might be advised

2- I would advise caution in the cases where much persuation is involved... there are just people in this world that have trouble saying no... it causes them discomfort.. in this instance I would say one is dealing with a female that may have some sexual issues... and or the babe wants to cuddle in such a big way she has chosen to compromise her convictions... in other words, if it takes much persuasion, I am not saying the girl will say a rape occurred... what I am saying it does not always mean she is actually present... my advise to males in this instance would be to question this kind of ambivalence. IT IS INDICATIVE OF SOMETHING which may require one partner at the very least open up a dialogue... rather than continuing to persue the sex itself.

3- you are correct for the most part FORCE is the operative word and I would hope that once FORCE is used the male does know (even the somewhat sociopathic ones) that they are using FORCE whether they will admit it or not.

StandWatie #2 is the short version of what I agree can be a very involved discussion, even aside from rape. My take is that sexual assault is much more prevalent in our society than anyone wants to admit. Incest comes to mind in particular. Sexual assault causes damage -- to cope many more victims of sexual assault bury the incident so deep within they themselves do not even know behavior has manifested as a symptom of sexual assault... I would also consider the possibilty of sexual assault when one encounters 1- a very ambivalent seemingly confused sexual partner as well as 2- a female exhibiting very passive aggressive issues of control and or powerlust.

You might know many strippers have been victims of incest. Sexual abuse undermines what can be almost a power of both men and women... on the runway strippers are in control... I just throw this out there... some woman who have been sexually abused have been extraordinarily damaged however hip, or beautiful or confident or in control they might appear...

Item #2 is not a small topic it is a very big topic and may be a catchall which can be indicative of much sexual disfunction. Sexual ambivalence is not gender specific nor is sexual guilt which can manifest itself in anger, or ambivalence, or even undue promiscuity.

Sex guilt is another category. for instance, I sometimes can pick up from some men that I have noticed while attracted that very attraction also angers them... that anger is then projected on to me... when I pick that vibe up... I distance myself immediately...

The time has come it seems to me for both men and women to be cognisant of the fact that sexual abuse is not a myth... but is highly prevalent within our society. consequence being the sexual and psychological damage to more girls and boys and men and women than we care to admit... sign of the times... perhaps it is time to take heed and take care... not just assume one's chosen partner is one way or another and be careful to read the language of the body more than the words... caution is advised... and compassion and sensitivity never hurts either.

[Skittles]

104. YOU

ARE A F***ING MORON.

[FireHeart]

120. If she (or he) says no...

Then take it at face value. If you have cooked up a sick, twisted mindset that "no doesn't always mean no" then I hope you end up in a nice comfy jail cell with Bubba. Then you can scream "NO" all you want and feel very comfortable with the end results.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Making it clear?

No means no. That's pretty damn clear.

[FireHeart]

415. It's about as clear as you can get.

She (or He): "No!"

He (or She): "Huh? I don't understand?"

Sheesh.

You don't need to worry if s/he "means" No or not. If it's spoken, take it for face value and END it.

Not all that difficult to do--or understand.

[salin]

22. Could help explain

why the incident of rape is so high. Such wishful thinking when no in absence of a violent fight is "confusing".

[StandWatie]

no, just some physical resistance

[salin]

38. but what does "no" mean

if not no?

I said no. I tried to struggle. Ended up dropping deadweight to the floor to attempt to prevent being dragged to the bedroom.

That wasn't enough clarity.

Better off to just accept no.

If she really doesn't mean no, once you stop, she will let you know.

[StandWatie]

40. obviously

so is this a huge problem I'm unaware of?

[salin]

47. Its what happened to me, when I ran into someone like you

he didn't think it was rape either.

[StandWatie]

49. did he know after?

I really, really don't understand how you can't figure out if you are raping someone, he knew exactly what he doing.

[salin]

53. no he didn't

we had a class together afterwards. It was awful. We only spoke of it once in allusion. I teared up and couldn't even use the word rape (because of the negative responses we see hear at a progressive website where women are presumed to lie)... but I did say.. why... my wrists were bruised... why... he didn't respond.

He did stay out of my way and try to be polite while we had a small seminar class the next semester (of 9 people). That was hell.

And no, his being polite didn't spare me from the very real reprecussions that follow being a victim of rape.

I am very concerned that you may have done the same thing. And that you, like he, can not see what is obvious to others.

[StandWatie]

57. I'm specifically said women wouldn't use this to play gotcha

and there is a fuckload of difference between holding someone down with enough force to bruise and making another move.

[salin]

59. I would believe you

if you had ever accepted no. It sounds like you haven't. I do not believe you understand how close to the line you go - and if/when you have crossed it. I seriously hope you will think about that and not just presume this is a feminist thing.

On edit: this was in response to a now edited post - which now indicates it is not the case that "no" had never been respected. Thus to this take the "you" out above and insert "any person who never accepts no" as the You. Sorry for the confusion.

[Wonder]

94. of course he knew what he was doing but there is a sociopathic

aspect to this, as well as an ingrained conditioning within both the male and the society at large. It is almost as if because to this type of male sex is a matter of dominance... some do not equate it with right or wrong... this kind of behavior is not always easy to prosecute either... therefore... either these kinds of incidences are under report or if reported, they never make to trial or if they do make it to trial the juror acquits based both on lack of substantive evidence or societal myths... one being this issue you raise of the "no means yes" conditioning or misnomer ingrained within our society.

big topic here... not a small topic...

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. well, with me it's not really rape

by the rate I'm going if I ever got a woman in bed the approprite term would be:

miracle

:evilgrin:

[LS_Webmaster]

19. indeed

i know what you mean :silly:

[charlie]

13. I cannot fathom

anyone who thinks that because their partner initially consented, they've got the full E ticket, redeemable for whatever they want for however long they want. Nor do I understand why anyone would want to impose themselves on someone unwilling. It's bizarre.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. You do (I'm sure) recall a 500 plus post thread

where the lines seemed to be mucky for some. They have abstained thus far from this thread...but I think this scenario adequately describes why the law may have been clarified as well.

[bloom]

23. I think the problem with that thread

was the original article was suggesting that law was unreasonable and some took the bait. I think when the subject is described in a straightforward way - the answer is more obvious.

[salin]

27. sadly, I am not so sure

have read to many really funky variations of those themes on DU over the past two years. While it is distinctly a tiny minority on here - there really are those who always side with the male and presume the male is always being falsely accused and are thus looking for the way the vixen "sent mixed messages", or in some other way lured the poor hapless fellow into the situation.

[Wonder]

97. I agree there is a certain pervasiveness

regarding this no means yes topic that is ingrained within the male as well as conditioned within society, which perpetuates the confusion of what constitutes rape... look there is no getting around the fact that even in the face of this clarification in the law, the confusion persists. This confusion needs to be hashed out... because in a percent of cases IT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM... a women too are percent of women too are also part of the problem... that aspect of the conversation is trickiest part of all.

[salin]

102. The interesting thing is

that for the first time - there is a discussion of sorts happening here and the level of thread devolution which happened in other recent threads has not occured. I do think these discussions are needed. They are just so hard to pull off (such that they don't get hostile or devolve.)

[Wonder]

121. yes I agree and it is encouraging

the topic is an important one and does require one keeps ones head. and even with the discussions themselves RESPECT and SENSITIVITY is required. I can not deny some of the male perspective on this. I know a very wide range of women which constitute the various types. And there exist those women who are not only sexually ambivalent, but in their ambivalence can be as psychologically lethal as males can be physically lethal.

I have one woman in mind who falls into this catagory. She in her own right is a sexual predator... in a vampiress kind of way... she plays with fire regularly... yet she is not doing this within what I will term the "sex scene" category... when I hear these guys talking about it seems some of these guys are alluding to a very specific type women. does this mean she deserved to be harmed or forced? No. The woman I am using as a protype here is one that has been damaged so badly that she has suppressed the damage to such a degree, she herself is in denial about it. That damage than manifest's itself in a kind of left handed anger of men...

interestingly it seems to me that this female protype who appears to be the most alluring and many times is leading with her hip only to play sexual games with either males or in instances women as well... actually hates men much more so than some of the women here who have been accused of male bashing. The difference is, is this particular type women is playing the sex game... this game is more alluring because it is as easy to spot... and I must tell you I completely understand a males anger to this... what I do not understand is this.

Because this type of women is really easy to spot... if the male has so much angst with her... why does he not reject her? But instead it seems his own powerlust... or desire for the easy all that glitters is not gold... comes into play here... it is almost as if the two are different sides of the same coin...

The kind of women I speak of is completely unconscious of her own damage and is incapable of being loyal either in friendship with another woman or in love. Or once she has lured her toy in in fact she than falls into her own fantasy and immediately falls in love.

my point being. this no means yes... or the behavior of these more sexually ambivalent types of women... or those women playing those powerlust games... is indicative of a very complex sexual psychology within which has occurred sexual abuse to some degree. I tend to also stand real clear of women like this. The are deceptive... they are liars... and they are not to be trusted... their game is power... and they are blood suckers ... not nurturers... and generally they themselves are completely unconscious of their own malady... in many instances guys will see them for what they are... and always just play the situations for their own convenience.

I am sorry to bring this aspect of the discussion up... but I can not negate the angst some of these guys are trying to articulate. To them I just advise caution... when it is not a clear NO but seems to be a sex game... they may be playing with fire... I do not mean these women will falsely accuse... I do not believe that is the case... but some kind of deep sexual psychological malady is present.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. Mucky for YOU...

You deliberately tried to interpret "beware - women lie more often than many people think" into "gosh golly - I'm all for rape". Its a cheap rhetorical trick worthy of the most psychotic freeper.

Perhaps the reason people have abstained from this thread is that you're on people's ignore lists now.

- C.D.

[salin]

36. Funny that is not how i read that other thread at all

see how our individual perceptions color things?

I read that as the "look how many men think that false accusations are as common as rape, and ignore the high incidence of nonreported rape" thread as well as the "men falsely accused of rape, even if noone ever goes to the police suffer as bad or even worse than rape victims" thread.

Funny how that works.

[TLM]

122. I simply do not see how you figure that was the jist of the thread..

"I read that as the "look how many men think that false accusations are as common as rape, and ignore the high incidence of nonreported rape"


How does expressing concern for false claims or abuse of a badly written law, translate in your mind to someone claiming flase accusations are mroe common than rape or someone ignoring non-reported rape?

How does someone having their own issues or opinions automaticaly means they must be denying or ignoring yours?


"thread as well as the "men falsely accused of rape, even if noone ever goes to the police suffer as bad or even worse than rape victims" thread.""

Again who said men falsly accused suffer worse?

I brought up the issue of false accusations because of my experience. Never once did I say false accusations were worse than rape... nobody did.

What the fuck?

Guy were being accused of being rapists for no other reason than they dared to disagree with the opinions of a few women posting to the thread. And the same shit is happening again in this thread.

[salin]

128. as I said

we each perceive things differently.

Actually I think that some of your posts - gave that color/sense/feel of the thread for me (in terms of shaped how I perceived the gist of the thread).

Sometimes the message we send through our posting content, style and repitition. I think I was not the only one who perceived that message to be coming through that thread.

The denial that rape is common and real. The denial that there are long term repercussions (denial = ignore the issue when raised) while repeating how one suffered from a "similar situation" (You drew the parallel) might have left readers with an impression that now it appears you did not mean to create.

[TLM]

140. OH MY F-ING GOD... NO YOU DIDN'T

"we each perceive things differently."

If you were a man making that argument... well you know.

[Wonder]

145. it is crucial to understand

that men and women DO perceive things differently. I tend to agree with salin... I know many of my posts got deleted in my dialogue with you specifically... but some of your linquistics... road a very fine line...

I tried to point that out to you by having you look at I think it was post 518 in the other long thread... there are guidelines.. which define certain criteria... some of your chosen words... tended to be edgy. Judging from Salin's response to you as well as noiretblu's and also NSMA... it appears we all had the same impression.

[salin]

149. but remember

we are all women. ergo. according to some logic on that thread, we must all be lying. It wasn't our impression at all... we are just liars :eyes:

[Wonder]

155. I am with you here salin

I responded in the very same way you described to TLM for the reasons you describe and I was not the only one... I just lost my cool so some of my posts were deleted... and I believe if the moderators themselves understood this CRITERIA to which we are referring... perhaps TLM's confusion would not still persist.

[TLM]

193. Why is this so hard to understand...

I said all women lie.

Not that everything all women say is always a lie.

Not that all rape claims are lies.

Not that all women lie maliciously.

Not that only women lie.


Are the words really that hard to understand?
They seem simple enough to me.

[Wonder]

197. okay then perhaps in regard to those statements on lying woman

there was misunderstanding.

[TLM]

276. Thank you... wow, more than I expected.

OK I'll talk to you again.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

204. Context is everything. You stated ALL WOMEN LIE in the context of a thread

about RAPE, the meaning of the word no and your experience with A WOMAN who lied.

TO say all women lie in a rape thread, is tantamount to saying all African Americans lie in the context of a lynching thread.

All human beings lie. It is the human condition for the most part. What is left unsaid is the degree to which people lie, which varies..and what they lie about.

Saying all women lie in a thread about rape when you have ONE instance in which you were unfairly accused of something leaves people with the impression that you were saying ALL WOMEN lie about rape (or date rape to be specific).

[TLM]

210. Oh, so now context means something...

"You stated ALL WOMEN LIE in the context of a thread about RAPE, the meaning of the word no and your experience with A WOMAN who lied."


And you said, "just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill." After posting a warning of men to look out for as potential rapists.


Funny how context applies to my statements, but not to yours.

[TLM]

192. Sorry but you made it very clear that differences in perception...

Are no excuse for inappropriate behavior.


“that men and women DO perceive things differently. I tend to agree with salin... I know many of my posts got deleted in my dialogue with you specifically...”

Yeah because you were personally attacking me.

I'm done talking to you.

[Wonder]

259. Sure you are done talking to me BECAUSE

you really do not have a leg to stand on... you came back in here with a quote of MINE... ONCE AGAIN I explain it... Other posters here have actually attempted to explain... and still you resist. Fine. Your done talking to me. Good.

[Wonder]

264. It seems at this point other posters also felt YOU were attacking

women in general in the 500+ thread AND were ALSO left with the impression that your implication/accusation/attack was that ALL WOMEN LIE WITH IMPLICATION THAT THEY LIE ABOUT RAPE seems to be EXACTLY the same as my impression in that 500+ thread that day... your implications were NOT ONLY insulting to me, but were based in your FALSE NOTIONS...rather than FACT.

ESPECIALLY considering that you showed NO RESPONSIVENESS TO THE FACTS that I presented to you more than once, but instead made it a big show about how you were once again being falsely accused. which you weren't.

At least not based on the fact that now we come to understand I was not the only one that you had made this negative impression on. Therefore it seems that MY impression was not a misinterpretion of your posts at all. Could this be perhaps be WHY after posting MY QUOTE as proof of your baseless claims that you are NOW done talking to me?

[salin]

148. ah.. there you go again

and you wonder where folks got the "equating my non-police reported false accusal" to "rape". The flippant responses like these. You are really good at doing that.

[Wonder]

160. Salin

He did it repeatedly as I can see you are well aware... however, I am not sure he is aware of it because he seems to be also good at twisting it back around... I am sorry to be so outright about it... but that thread really messed with my head. I was distinctly reading something loud and clear and when my posts were cut and he was instead continue to make some of the irrelevant points he was making ... that blew my mind.

Actually I am very glad NSMA openned this thread again just to observe that I was not the only one with this impression.

[TLM]

195. More BS distortion... WTF is so hard about this language?

"and you wonder where folks got the "equating my non-police reported false accusal" to "rape"."


NO. I wonder where the hell anybody got the idea that I said my experience was WORSE than rape.

Please address the words I actually use... not the shit you imagine I might mean.

[salin]

217. from direct interaction

where you made a statement - I asked if you were equating it to my rape, you continued to debate elsewhere and ignored the question. All you needed to do - was to make the clarification that you were not, as it seemed, equating the events as equal events. You chose not to, I read the implication as being you did perceive them as equal.

It could be that in your defensiveness you became more and more strident in asserting your case that it only appeared that you were being dismissive of actual rapes. And that it that appearance perhaps is a "false appearance" be that as it may.

[TLM]

235. No I just missed that post i guess...

"where you made a statement - I asked if you were equating it to my rape, you continued to debate elsewhere and ignored the question. All you needed to do - was to make the clarification that you were not, as it seemed, equating the events as equal events. You chose not to, I read the implication as being you did perceive them as equal."


I did however point out several times that I was not saying my experience was as bad as real rape.

Such as the following:

"To be clear, while I do consider the two situations (being raped, and being falsely accused of rape) to be very similar in terms of the type of violation and the type of resulting helplessness etc., I do not consider them to be of the same magnitude. The two are both a very similar kinds of trauma, but on a scale of 1 to 10 my situation was maybe a 2 and rape is all the way at 10.

The point I was making was that trying to blame the victim in either situation is a pretty fucked up thing to do."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. If I am on anyone's ignore list that's their loss

what they think of me is none of my business. I by NO means stated that those who said women lie are PRO RAPE. I DID imply that they used a mucky assessment of a study by Kamin and a right wing Scaife funded book by Somers that are repeatedly quoted on men's site's ( the Kmin one out of context as well) to deliberately blur the A) occurrence of rape, B) the incidence of false claims of rape C) the ISSUE itself.

As far as being a cheap rhetorical trick worthy of the most psychotic freeper.....I regard your post as projecting.

[TLM]

125. Yeah you did...

"I by NO means stated that those who said women lie are PRO RAPE."

YOu posted a list of "men to watch out for" and taged it with "just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill."

And now you are flame baiting to do it again.


________________________________________________________
nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-03-03 11:09 PM
Response to Original message

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.
_____________________________________________________________

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

164. I singled nobody out. I understand you resent me for posting that and

my other thoughts on the matter.

You can't win 'em all, I wouldn't even try.

You really should put me on ignore unless you can actually read what I say and respond to what I say. You seem to have difficulty doing that.
Especially since I can't recall ever using the term PRO RAPE.

Feel free to find me a link for that.

Is there a PRORAPE group somewhere? An advocacy group perhaps?

[Wonder]

184. why would I not be surprised if there was

nor would it surprise me that various fraternities might not have a prorape agenda as part of their hazing process.

[TLM]

198. Of course you did not single anybody out...

because you were attacking ALL the men in the thread.

"just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

201. OK, when's your birthday.? I'm going to buy you a dictionary

"If any" certainly doesn't equate to ALL.

By the way...this thread is about an entirely different topic on which you haven't offered an opinion.

[TLM]

211. You said it yourself... context is everything.

Oh but I guess that only applies to the men you are trying to imply might be rapists.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

218. No I don't have a different standard. There were many posts on that thread

that may have applied. I will say this. You have gone overboard on this thread just like you did on the other thread and to be frank, I would not want to ever be around you personally. Your posts regarding women are quite hateful. That in and of itself is a concern. tha fact that you can twist one communication to mean another is also of concern. Some people have a very poor relationship with reality. I do GUARD myself from being around people who do.

I understand that you CLAIM to have had a negative experience that left you this way. I urge you for your own good to go get counselling for it. Your anger is blinding you from being able to separate your personal experience from having anything ti say about this issue from a POLICY perspective which was the point of the thread and pretty much stayed true to it's intent until you arrived and made it about your agenda.

I won't respond to you further, I am putting you on ignore...( I might add you will be the ONLY person on my ignore list but I really can't deal anymore with your circular logic.)

Best luck in resolving your debilitating hostility.

[TLM]

244. Why do you continue to try to make this personal?

"I will say this. You have gone overboard on this thread just like you did on the other thread"

Yeah, I'm way overboard in thinking that posting a "men to watch out for" as potential rapists list, then saying you wonder if it applies to men posting here, was an out of line attack.

(personal attacks deleted)

I'm not taking your bait.

[noiretextatique]

406. turnaround...why is it so personal to you?

why did you even bother with this thread?
fair question...it's the same one you asked nsma.
and why so many posts?

[Booberdawg]

417. Good question!

I have been wondering that myself for several hours now! Why the apparent need to convince others of ... whatever, or change their minds about ... whatever, after exhaustive attempts to do so changes nothing or makes things worse?

The initial topic posed was an important one that deserves serious discussion. It's too bad that topics like this always seem to get hijacked into some form of power struggle.

[TLM]

425. Accuse me of being a rapist and I take it personally.

Imply that men in a thread are rapists simply because they disagree with someone's opinion on a law... I take it personally.

Call me clueless and lie about my having said things which I never said... I take it personally.

Call me an abuser, and I take it personally.


And claiming I'm playing the victim is not going to keep me from defending myself from these lies and personal attacks.

[JVS]

426. have you used the alert button?

that is what it's there for

[Wonder]

181. THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA

They are real. They are crucial to memorize. It was responsible for NSMA to have posted them. Female posters here can read that criteria when they encounter it. Those telegraphic it on that long thread were in the minority. But you see that quote you pulled the one that I wrote. That was what I was responding to. Having the list like this puts it in general terms... but it would be silly of you to believe there did not exist in those threads a very very small percent of male posters EXHIBITING some of that criteria especially those who reverted to using verbtim some of the memes.

[Maddy McCall]

77. Aren't you the poster who linked to a Christina Hoff Summers article

And you are calling another DUer a psychotic freeper????

Are you not aware that Summers is the female equivalent of Limbaugh?

Conservative Democrat? Yah, right.

Hoff Summers is a bullshit right wing airbag...I am amazed that you even attempted to substantiate your assertation about false rape accusations with her biased bullshit.

Maybe in YOUR circles, she is admired and seen as credible.

And, speaking of that ingore function...

[TLM]

141. What he quoted was correct....

it was on why a rape study done by Koss was flawed... and even she later admited that the study was in fact flawed.

[salin]

153. why does it keep getting floated on threads, then, as proof - not as

flawed. :shrug:

[TLM]

163. Because the numbers support the positions some hold...

and truth is not a big issue in the face of an agenda.

[Wonder]

179. what numbers are you refering to?

those bogus false accusation studies that have already been sufficiently refuted in the other long thread. Oh TLM, I infer, however it does not appear to me that you have been paying attention. it seems you have entered this thread to continue to purport what has already been proven as an issue that in comparison to the rape statistics themselves has very little to do with the reality.

The way it becomes clear that a percent of the female posters in this thread can spot what I will call a bad news guy (in real life), and or point out linguists or the use of memes as they pertain to this subject, it is just as easy to spot a female running some kind of deceptive sexual trick THAT IS if you are hip to all those signs and are listening to your mind rather than little willy.

[TLM]

202. The 24% number in the Koss study.

"those bogus false accusation studies that have already been sufficiently refuted in the other long thread."

Says you... Koss herself admitted that her study was flawed and she counted women as rape victims who WERE NOT RAPED.

[Wonder]

207. this is one study

there are others. what is your reason for going back to the koss study? And don't be surprised if NSMA might jump in here because from what I have read NSMA has more fluency with these studies than I do.

Another question would be have you read more than one study? and all those points that NSMA has already made on the various studies, have you read NSMA's comments and all the statistics NSMA already provided?

Because it seems to me this was covered already in the 500 plus thread.

[TLM]

212. I think the Koss study has the highest percentage...

of women who have been raped... that being 24%. I do not know of any other study that says 1 in 4 women has been raped.

[salin]

222. While it is in no way scientific

try asking a sampling of friends of how many incidents they are directly aware of (as in having been a victim, or having been a first hand recipient of an account).

I didn't talk about my rape for years. The really odd thing, is that when I did, among women, how many other women had gone through a very similar situation.

What has been even more striking than that, has been the number of stories of molestation as children by adult family friends or relatives.

In all cases these have been first hand references - not people talking about something that happened to a friend. But something that they had lived through.

Meanwhile, I knew of one case in college of a he-said/she-said rape accusation (no idea if it was real or false). Before yours it is the only situation which I can count as even a possible 'false' accusation of which I have been aware.

I honestly think that outside of hostile custody cases, or situations were false accusations of crimes are common (I worked with gang-related youth in a drop out prevention program in Detroit - lots of real and false accusations flew around in that setting), I do not believe it is a terribly common occurence.

But I have not done what I suggest you do - not as a scientific experiment - but as a possibly insight growing experience. I will start to make it a point of inquiry - see how many stories turn up.

As much as I suggest your posts sound as if you are diminishing the real incididence of rape, I am ready to learn if I, too am diminishing the real incidence of false accusations.

However, I do not equate the events as similar. They are different with bad - but not equivalent - fall out.

As I think I said somewhere on that thread, and as I know I have said multiple times on related threads at DU - I think there is a special disdain (and place in hell) for false accusers - both for the devastating damage that they do to the accused - and for the damage that they do to real rape victims by creating more people prone to deny real rape.

[TLM]

230. Listen I want to be very clear about this...

"As much as I suggest your posts sound as if you are diminishing the real incididence of rape, I am ready to learn if I, too am diminishing the real incidence of false accusations."


I do not see it that way in either case. I never once got the impression... save for NSMA who openly said she doubted my claim... that anybody was diminishing my experience.

I do not understand how you would see one person having their experience as diminishing someone else's experience that was different. The two expereinces don't cancel each other out. They both exist, and continue to exist regardless of the other.

I do not understand where this mentality that this is some kind of competition for who is the bigger victim, comes from.

My intent was simply to point out that false accusation is a problem and it shouldn't be ignored or written off as the cost of doing business in the fight against rape.

[salin]

238. No one was suggesting it should be ignored

I just wrote a post that might give you an indication of how a combination of topics you covered with great passion (as we all have - all of our "danders" have been up) could be construed to mean this.

perhaps... just perhaps... this very painful discussion (as in we are going in circles and driving each other crazy) is useful - if we get to a better clarity - including misconceptions cleared up, as well as an understanding of how those misconceptions were (unintentionally) created.

[TLM]

249. On the contrary... they said repeatedly it was not rational...

My concern was characterized as boo hoo hooing... and even cited as evidence I was a rapist.

See for yourself...


""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.""

My concern about this law and my objection to the way this law is written... according to this person means I'm a rapist.

I take issue with that kind of accusation... and I get attacked for somehow deminishing other's experiences.

"perhaps... just perhaps... this very painful discussion (as in we are going in circles and driving each other crazy) is useful - if we get to a better clarity - including misconceptions cleared up, as well as an understanding of how those misconceptions were (unintentionally) created."

It is nice that you try to find the good in this...

[salin]

252. forget it

if you want to pick and pull - not look at the whole and ONLY want to look at OTHER people - this is a pointless exercise.

Good luck.

[TLM]

263. You say nobody said it... and I point out quotes where they did.

I cite quotes to support my claims about how my positions were treated, rather than making generalized implications with no proof.

[Wonder]

265. what is it you hoped to accomplish?

you never answered this question. It seems you entered this thread with a bone to pick. In picking it, what is it you hoped to accomplish? Because prior to your arrive there was some very productive discussion going on. I know you are now done talking to me but perhaps you can tell Salin WHAT is it you hoped to accomplish by entering this thread with this bone it seems you have to pick and taking this thread so off topic like this?

[TLM]

278. I'm not sure...

At first in the other thread my goal was to point out my thoughts and concern about false accusations.

Then some started in with crap about how that was my fault for being in "that kind" of relationship with "that kind" of girl etc. That pissed me off as it struck me as the exact same blame the victim mentality that rape victims often get when they report rape. I took issue with it, got insulted more insulted back, and things just kind of snowballed from there.

WHen I saw this thread, it seemed the same crap was being started up again and when I saw some claims about what was or wasn't said in the last thread, I felt the need to point out what was said.

[Wonder]

279. you see what you describe here (is it understanding)

this is the exact pain of the rape survivor... we think it is crap too... the problem is... is that to commiserate with you where you are right now with it... requires that these survivors agree with your assessments. All of your assessments are not based in fact... they are based in your rightful anger at having being falsely accused...

A woman violated your trust, perhaps more than one. It sucks. People do this too each other all the time... you have a need... your need conflicts with the needs that rape survivors have... within that the discussion became heated... trashing each other is not the way to go...

it does not breed understanding ... what it seems to me you need is understanding... perhaps these sex crime threads are not the place to expect understanding is what you will get... rape survivors require understanding as well... I am not sure any hear feel all that satisfied that they are understood either...

the goal is to impact a crime that is endemic in a way that all have the facts so that this crime decreases in number... when your need is to point out that women lie about it... this threatens the cause of women that have been raped... there are many of us... many more than people care to admit...

this probably is the heart of the matter...here not that I am bad or you are bad... but that both of us require compassionate understanding...

[TLM]

288. You know I got the impression that...

my simply existing with my experience was seen as a threat. Maybe not in a conscious way, but it seemed that those who are worried about rape from the perspective of rape victims... a guy who stands up and credibly says that sometimes rape claims are bogus, is a threat.

While in fact my experience does nothing to undermine those who have really been raped, on a basic emotional level it may feel that way. I can understand how someone who has been raped and has been faced with the difficulty of prosecuting a rape case, would feel uneasy with someone who stands as an example that not all rape claims are true.

All I represent is more difficulty for them in the overall equation, by raising the issue of the falsely accused.

[salin]

296. No.

The threat was in combining it with the message that a) rape is not that common (citing flawed and biased reports - or at least repeating it when someone else cites it).. AND that b) women lie a whole lot and are very devious... in the context of a rape thread where you are also asserting your situation.

In that context, although you are trying very, very hard not to hear what other participants in that thread are telling you - taken together you seemed to get more and more shrill and be asserting that women claiming rape often were lying and that you were an example.

So it is how you made your case - after stating it - and the other arguments that you made/used or got involved with that gave the impression that you were trying to dismiss the actuality of rape. That happens a great deal in this society and THAT is threatening.

It sounds as if now, that this was not your intention. But you would probably appear to be much more sincere in this if you would at least try (pretend even) to demonstrate that you can understand how those themes together constructed that impression. Especially to those who have been victim of rape.

None of that says anything about invalidating your experience.

[TLM]

314. But see since i did not say those things like that...

I find that perception unfair and wrong.

"The threat was in combining it with the message that a) rape is not that common"


There is a big difference between saying that rape is not as common as the Koss study claimed, and saying rape is just not that common period.



"(citing flawed and biased reports - or at least repeating it when someone else cites it)"

The report I cited was correct regarding the flaws in the Koss study.


".. AND that b) women lie a whole lot and are very devious..."

Again as I pointed out in another thread, I was very clear about my statements regarding my opinion that all women lie... not that women lie a whole lot or women are very devious.


I think a large part of the hostile reaction to my statements has to do with how my statements are being slightly twisted and tweaked and misrepresented. Then people act on those misrepresentations as if that is what I actually said.

Now I know how Al Gore must have felt over that internet thing.

I would react the same way if someone actually said "rape is not that common and besides women all lie about rape." I can understand a hostile reaction to that mentality... but because that's not what I said, I get pissed off being accused of it.

I think some misrepresented my words to flame me, and others genuinely misunderstood my position.

[salin]

317. The fact that a number came away with this perception

suggests it was misunderstood. That is where you need to reflect - why numerous people misunderstood. Stop playing victim (I was flamed!)

Where we who misunderstood need to reflect is upon rereading what you wrote (and going back the original for a more full context) to understand where and why we misunderstood.

To ask us to now understand you, with out asking yourself to figure out how you played into that misconception... doesn't solve anything in terms of the present and future discussions.

[TLM]

388. I asked you to point to posts or quotes....

that caused you to reach these misconceptions, and so far you've not been able to come up with anything other than to tell me to stop playing victim... when I point out I never said what you claim I said.

Maybe YOU need to re-read my posts and see where YOU misunderstood what I said. Because I've had no problem citing quotes and posts to support the claims I have made or the many posts where I repeatedly addressed these misconceptions, and corrected them... which it seems you continue to ignore.

So I'm done with this. I tried, and asked nicly for your input on how you misunderstood me, so I could look at it and really evaluate how i might have been unclear. I asked for you to point to the posts that gave you the impressions that I was saying things like false rape claims outnumber real rape claims... and yet you can't give me so much as a single quote.

So what's the point? Your conclusions and what I actualy said obviously have nothing to do with each other.

So you're going into ignore.

[salin]

390. clearly we are talking past one another

and are at an impasse. So be it. It is either ignore (which I don't do - personal choice) or at least avoiding each other on rape related topics.

[Wonder]

297. it never was a threat to me...

if it had been I never would have responded to your post to begin with...

yes you as an example that not all rape claims are true can be construed as a threat especially if the impression is that false accusations far out number rapes...

that is more what was threatening about you... because it isn't true... if you feel the need to continue to imply that it is true... you will continue to obtain resistance ... rather than compassion...

I'm tired now...

[TLM]

315. Ok please tell me when oh when

did I ever imply that false rape claims outnumber rapes?

[salin]

318. Here is an exercise for you

how is it - that numerous people came away with that impression - when you did not directly say that? Somewhere you have to look at your own role in this misunderstanding.

[TLM]

344. That's why i am asking those people....

what was it...what post...what statement made you think I was saying false claims outnumber real rapes?

[salin]

348. yet you are unable to hear the response

:shrug: How many times do people have to repeat it? This isn't an exercise about defending oneself (as in ... but here is exactly what I said in this single post) - but a reflection exercise. So one can couch ones arguments in the future in ways that do not allow for such misunderstandings.

[TLM]

391. Oh i see, so I just accept that I, being male, I'm wrong and at fault...

and without any specific examples of how I caused these misunderstandings, I'm supposed to alter my behavior to avoid them in the future?

How very fair.

Here's how I'll avoid the problem in the future... I'm going to ignore you now.

[Wonder]

335. okay I tried Salin tried NSMA tried Noiretbu tried.

you will have to figure it out for yourself... I read through all those out of context quotes you posted here in this thread... and in taking your quotes out of contexts you self censored out those aspects of your posts that clearly others in addition to myself felt insulted by. That that insulted us was evident in your quote. At the time it would not be a stretch to conclude you were projecting quite a bit of your anger onto all the women in there thread...

you also suggested things that were untrue about NSMA which was that she had stated that list that she posted applied to all the men in that thread. that was a false accusation you made. At no time did NSMA ever make a statement of that kind.

That list however does apply and it applies to a very small number of the men in these threads.

[TLM]

363. You reached this conclusion....

yet you can not point to a single post or statement I made that caused you to reach this conclusion?

How exactly am I supposed to address this... if you can't even point to one statment or post?


"you also suggested things that were untrue about NSMA which was that she had stated that list that she posted applied to all the men in that thread. that was a false accusation you made. At no time did NSMA ever make a statement of that kind."

She posted a list of men to watch out for as potential rapists and tagged it with, "just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill."

Do you not see a double standard in saying I am responsable for somehow creating the perception I think that false rape claims outnumber real rapes... although I never said that and in fact specificaly contradicted that misconception a couple of times, and nobody can seem to point to any specific post or statement as the cause of the misconception... yet someone who posts a list of potential rapist characteristics and says "just wondering if any of the posters on this thread seem to fit the bill" that's perfectly acceptable and doesn't imply anything?

I tried to meet you half way on this and really ask you for some answers... so I could understand... and what do I get, "you will have to figure it out for yourself"

Well you know what I've figured out... that I'm going to be the evil male no matter what I say or how I say it... so there is no point whatsoever in even bothering. What you arrive at as your conclusions about my positions seems to have almost nothing at all to do with the actual words I use or statements I make.

And my defending myself is now being presented by NSMA as the "abuser" trying to blame the abused. So you know what, you're all going on ignore. I'm not wasting anymore of my time on any of you.

bu bye

[Wonder]

291. okay well I thought after reading those posts 279 and 281

you would have returned to tell me what you need. I have to go now. I will check the thread tomorrow... in the mean time perhaps you should calm down THAT IS if you are worked up over this (I am not say you are but if you are) and take the time to read through the thread... the whole thread... not to respond but just to read it... there were a number of interesting side discussions in this thread. all in all this thread was a HELLAVA improvement over the last thread.

this issue is not about pointing fingers it is about men understanding women (at least to a degree)...and women understanding men... it is not even solely heterosexual...(as you can see some of the women here are not hetero - they too have been sexually abused by men - for the record I am hetero) misunderstanding is as endemic as this topic itself... lack of compassion is a hideous disease many of us contend with regularly...

perhaps when I have come back tomorrow you will have read the WHOLE thread and you can tell me better what you need or not...

or this discussion can continue in a more mutually affirming way for all involved... no one wishes to negate the male experience... but there are many facets and some of those that are specific to rape survivors and women in general do get brushed aside (or should I say they have been brushed aside) to make way for the concern of those males that seem to have great angst with a certain type of female...and or women in general (then there is the basest level of all those men that expect I will respond compassionately who regularly express "doing" women)... it's insulting... plain and simple (and no I am not suggesting you used the expression if you have I missed it.)

she exists... the gripe is real... but making me responsible for what she has done to you... is not right either.

[TLM]

316. I'm not sure what you mean by what i need.

I don't need anything. I'm not here looking for sympathy or consolation or anything like that.

I'm simply a voice from a position that is not often heard.

[Wonder]

338. and I am simple a voice of a position

that is rarely understood.

[bloom]

345. You seem to be trying to force the women posters to PROVE

something (for them to show you evidence) or for you to prove them wrong.

That is my impression.

[TLM]

365. The only thing I want them to prove...

are their claims that I said things, which I never said... like that false rape claims outnumber real rape claims.

I never said that... yet they say I did and when I ask for a quote or a link... I get only insults or excuses.

[Wonder]

258. THE BOO HOO CAME AFTER IT WAS CLEAR

you remained unresponsive to the FACTS... I myself commiserated with you more than once. However, I never failed to point out as damaging as this false accusation was to you as it was it accounted for a very small percentage. What is it you hoped to accomplish by bring this up again?

Because the FACT is that I am not the only one that commiserated with your misfortune. I am aware that two other posters also commiserated to you. However, it seemed what you were also interested in doing was projecting your anger about this misfortune onto women in general with your numerous posts in regards to lying women. And what I believe to be a NOTION that this law shifts the burden of proof onto the accused. Which so far that I can ascertain it DOES NOT. However, since the 500+ thread it seems if they follow the lead of South Africa and perhaps the UK legislators may very well be considering a shift of burden of proof onto the accused AND there is a very good reason for that.

That Legislators may be considering this shift in burden happens to substantiate the FACT that the BURDEN OF PROOF has ALWAYS been on the STATE (AND THE WITNESS FOR THE STATE SO NOW REFERRED TO AS THE ACCUSER). It is a warranted considerations based on LOW RAPE CONVICTION RAPE. Another FACT that it seems was impossible to impress on some.

AGAIN, I REALLY do not understand what you hoped to accomplish by bringing all of this up again. Can you please explain?

[TLM]

266. I do not understand... am I just supposed to never mention my situation

because you "commiserated" with me?

"you remained unresponsive to the FACTS..."

Tell me something... what response would you have considered acceptable?


Was I supossed to do?

[Wonder]

277. this is what you do you turn it around

TLM its okay... I am not sure understanding is possible here. I am reading you differently (as are others) than you are reading yourself. Again I believe it is best to drop it. I asked you a number of questions within THIS threads you never answered them, but instead seemed discontent with the responses you were getting not just from me here but others. I suggested the slate be wiped clean so I could understand where it is you were coming from in this thread in particular (not the other one).

Some of your responses were acceptable... read through the posts here 3 other posts here have attempted to explain what it was about your posts that bothered them. They were not bothered by the fact that you were falsely accused. No one disputed that. What was found to be unacceptable is that you wanted affirmation that false accusation was endemic. Many of the posters on the 500+ thread while they did commiserate with your bad experience could not provide you with that affirmation that it seemed you required. It seemed your intention was to make women the bad guys... some are... that was never disputed... you also remained unresponsive to facts by continuing to put forth that all, many, women lie... you gave examples of how they are much more deceptive liars than men. some are... I know women that are... not all...

Even in this thread in more than one post I address the no yes issue as well as that type woman that does exist whom I probably sometimes despise even more than you... I guess the point is (and it seems I am not the only one that got this from your posts) is that you were projecting your rightful anger at having been falsely accused on to women in general and doing so in a way that was read as an attack (again by more than just me).

When called on it you then accused the poster that called you on it of making personal attacks on to you, which in essence is what you yourself was doing. I really do not know how to rectify this more than just me had the very same impression, and interpreted your posts in the very same way I did. I do not know what to tell you at this point.

[TLM]

280. Now how did you reach that conclusion?

"Some of your responses were acceptable... read through the posts here 3 other posts here have attempted to explain what it was about your posts that bothered them. They were not bothered by the fact that you were falsely accused. No one disputed that."

NSMA did, but no matter...

" What was found to be unacceptable is that you wanted affirmation that false accusation was endemic. Many of the posters on the 500+ thread while they did commiserate with your bad experience could not provide you with that affirmation that it seemed you required."

Now I do not get that. I did not want or require anybody to false accusations were endemic. What gave you that idea?





" It seemed your intention was to make women the bad guys... some are... that was never disputed... "

It seemed your intention was to make guys the bad guys... some are... that was never disputed...


"you also remained unresponsive to facts by continuing to put forth that all, many, women lie... you gave examples of how they are much more deceptive liars than men. some are... I know women that are... not all..."

Again i took great pains to point out exactly what my position was regarding my opinion on women lying. And I do not see how my opinion that women lie makes me unresponsive to facts?


"Even in this thread in more than one post I address the no yes issue as well as that type woman that does exist whom I probably sometimes despise even more than you... I guess the point is (and it seems I am not the only one that got this from your posts) is that you were projecting your rightful anger at having been falsely accused on to women in general and doing so in a way that was read as an attack (again by more than just me)."

OK I can see that one... saying all women lie can easily be seen as an attack because people assume I mean all women lie maliciously or all women always lie etc.. I tried to point out that I did not mean all women lie maliciously, but it didn't seem to do any good.




"When called on it you then accused the poster that called you on it of making personal attacks on to you, which in essence is what you yourself was doing."

I disagree... my opinions about women lying, were general. I'll grant you they coudl be taken as attacks, but there were not personal attacks. I did not fire off any personal attacks until well after I'd been hit with a "laundy list" of direct personal insults.

As I pointed out there is a difference between attacking my opinions, and attacking me for having them.


" I really do not know how to rectify this more than just me had the very same impression, and interpreted your posts in the very same way I did. I do not know what to tell you at this point."

Well at least you're trying, and that's something.

[Wonder]

284. do me a favor TLM read my post 281

<<<As I pointed out there is a difference between attacking my opinions, and attacking me for having them.>>>

I am not sure what happened exactly but going round and round is not going to get us anywhere...after you read post 281...tell me what you need?

[Wonder]

285. be sure and read post 279 as well. 281 and 279

probably go together and then tell me what you need?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

325. Yes you are correct I did dispute it ..not in the beginning but at the end

One of the hallmarks of an abuser is to not take responsibility for their actions, pin it back on the abused and claim they were misunderstood or that others wouldn't lsten. Like it or not, your posts in that thread and this thread were textbook.

[TLM]

343. And you are still personaly attacking... now I'm an abuser?

Still not taking your bait.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

353. Be clear that I am not attacking you

I am simply saying your rhetorical musings DO FIT the criterion for what an abuser would do.

[TLM]

367. Oh yeah...calling me an abuser isn;t an attack...

what was I thinking... clearly it is all my fault, I must have misunderstood you, and not been listening.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

383. Great, no more circular reasoning. I called you nothing.

I pointed out that an abuser will take what is said, twist it and then claim everyone else didn't listen. They will perceive that they are the one being vicimized no matter the situation.

There are probably no less than 10,000 hits on the internet to become clear of this model for communication/ control. GOOGLE IT.

[Wonder]

281. no it is not that you are not suppose to mention your situation...

it was how you went about it... truth is... I probably share some of the same angers you have about lying women...

affirmation of people's realities is generally needed... your angst with lying women and your need for affirmation and the way you came across while it might have affirmed your reality it in a very harsh way negated the reality of others. Rape survivors. society negates their reality regularly. sometimes even their families negate their reality...

I guess it is just not a good combination... a victim of false accusation looking for affirmation from a victim of rape... when you think about it... especially when in attempting to cull affirmation you also were attacking women in general... and the very attack just happens to be what is termed as a FALSE NOTION in terms of the rape statistics...'

gaining compasssion for your hurt and anger at being falsely accuse does not necessarily require that it must be proven that women lie... gaining compassion for my hurt and anger as a rape survivor does not require that I prove all males are rapists all that all males want to rape... that would be a false notion...

[Wonder]

226. I am confused as to why you are raising the koss study

I mean what is your point? I do not want to infer or imagine or speculate on what your point might be, because I am not really sure what it is? I mean what are you arguing in this thread?

[salin]

234. I think the point

seems to be the belief that rape isn't really that common.

Indeed if the poster wants to understand how others could have so incorrectly misread his intent - I think it is a combination of this line of posting that to readers appears to be rather dismissive of rape a) -- sure its bad when it happens... but it really doesn't happen that often ... b) a series of posts about how much women lie that later on question evolves out to all people lying - but there seemed to be alot about women lying - and in this context the implication was - alot of the claims about rape are probably just women lying about it... and c) seeming to equate rape (frequency of incidence and seriousness of crime) with false accusation - by a repeating point b - stressing his own experience in point c and never acknowledging actual rapes. Granted point c - which I admit was the impression I was given - is the biggest jump - given the frequency of the logic followed - it was a very easy conclusion to jump to. I will stand corrected when the person at least tries to understand how this impression was given/received.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

239. Well yeah especially since the poster had over 85 posts jockeying for it

goodness, it's not as though we misinterpreted ONE post or even 10.

[Wonder]

250. Thankyou NSMA and SALIN

I am going through the 500+ thread BEFORE all the posts were deleted. The way that thread was deleted may not substantiate what is being said here. But salin is correct the interpretations are accurate and were based on direct interaction. These FALSE NOTIONS that were being put forth were not only evident in the 500+ thread but were also evident in all other kobe threads prior to the 500+ thread.

What TLM is suggesting is that this impression is not based in reality when not only is it based in reality, it directly is meant to counter THOSE FALSE NOTIONS that "this small crew of guys" that I referred to seem to be stubbornly purporting in direct oppositions to the multitudinous FACTS that many of us offered to refute their FALSE NOTIONS. Some of this "small crew of guys" also expressed more than once these MEMES which are clearly stated on the CRITERIA list.

I AM ACTUALLY GLAD THIS HAS COME UP AGAIN, and even gladder that I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT NOTICED IT AND CALLED IT.

I stand by that quote of mine that TLM seems to have posted more than once on this thread now. IT IS NOT A MISINTERPRETATION.

[TLM]

262. OMFG... this is insane.

"seems to be the belief that rape isn't really that common."

I say there are false accusations... and somehow you hear that rape really isn't that common?



"Indeed if the poster wants to understand how others could have so incorrectly misread his intent - I think it is a combination of this line of posting that to readers appears to be rather dismissive of rape"

No it is dismissive of studies that try to characterize consensual sex as rape for the sake of inflating the numbers. That is not to say rape doesn’t happen or doesn't matter or any of the rest of the bullshit you assign to me, without my having said anything even close.


"a) -- sure its bad when it happens... but it really doesn't happen that often ... "

Never said anything even remotely close to that.


"b) a series of posts about how much women lie"

No, rather my comments were that all women lie, not how much, as how much a given woman lies would be an individual variable.


" that later on question evolves out to all people lying -"

The fact men lie is usually assumed... as such there's no need to point it out other than to correct the misconception that I was saying only women lie.


" but there seemed to be alot about women lying"

Yeah because almost nobody cares if you say men lie... doesn’t even show up on the radar.

" - and in this context the implication was - alot of the claims about rape are probably just women lying about it... and"


Bullshit. I was very clear and pointed out at least 4 or 5 times that I wasn't saying that rape claims are probably lies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=38682#45150

"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."

again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=38682#45736

"Now while I agree that I was the victim of a lying and dishonest woman, I do not think most women are like her. I think all women lie, but not all women are malicious and hurtful with their lies. In fact I’d say that for the majority of women, their lies are not hurtful towards others. Like a lie about your weight or age... that doesn’t hurt anybody. So when I say I think all women are dishonest, that is not to say all women are the same as the woman who falsely accused me of rape."




" c) seeming to equate rape (frequency of incidence and seriousness of crime) with false accusation "


Again I specifically pointed out this was not the case...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=38682&mesg_id=38682#45736

"To be clear, while I do consider the two situations (being raped, and being falsely accused of rape) to be very similar in terms of the type of violation and the type of resulting helplessness etc., I do not consider them to be of the same magnitude. The two are both a very similar kinds of trauma, but on a scale of 1 to 10 my situation was maybe a 2 and rape is all the way at 10.

The point I was making was that trying to blame the victim in either situation is a pretty fucked up thing to do."



"- by a repeating point b - stressing his own experience in point c and never acknowledging actual rapes."

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?


Here are just a few of the posts where I did just that... and acknowledged the rapes that some reported.

"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."


and


"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?"


and


"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."




" Granted point c - which I admit was the impression I was given - is the biggest jump - given the frequency of the logic followed - it was a very easy conclusion to jump to. I will stand corrected when the person at least tries to understand how this impression was given/received."


I went to great lengths to point out exactly what I meant and clear up the misconceptions you talk about. In fact each issue you listed I had specifically addressed already... some multiple times.

So how you continue to maintain this misconception, despite my repeated and pointed and specific refutations and clarifications, is beyond me.

What more can I do that to specifically point out exactly how the conception is in error and then specifically clarify my position?

It is not my fault if you continue to choose to ignore my statements clarifying the exact meaning of my words in favor of maintaining your misconceptions.

[salin]

269. I already gave up

and ask why so many misread you. Tried to point out how the totality of the themes of your posts came across. When you leave out all of the venom that was posted along with those posts - it certainly does leave a different, cleaned up, tone.

As I said before: good luck. I am done.

[TLM]

253. In this thread... someone asked about it above...

Someone asked if CD was the one who posted it and challenged it's accuracy.

I simply pointed out that to the extent that it pointed out the flaw in Koss' study, it was correct.


In the 500 post thread CD pointed out that Koss' study was flawed because it counted 100% consentual sex where alcohol had been consumed before hand as rape... even when the women flat out said it wasn't rape. WHen CD pointed this out, he got attacked for it...

[noiretextatique]

79. and your simplistics pronoucements

e.g., "most rapes can be prevented by simply saying "no," and "yelling "rape" is an effective way to stop an attack" means YOU should abstain from any thread on the subject.

[TLM]

150. Again with the dishonesty....

The context of that statment was regarding date rape, not stanger rape, and yet no matter how many times he pointed that out... you just kept up acting like he was talking about stanger rape.



"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. )"

[noiretextatique]

168. *sigh* WHAT BOTH OF YOU FAIL TO REALIZE...STILL

and as i pointed out to your friend, it that there is no *friendly* rape. an "acquaintance" may use a gun or a knife, ya know? SINCE RAPE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE, it shouldn't take a woman or a rocket scientist or both, to get that a rapist may be prepared to harm, or kill, even if he is "acquainted" with the victim...should it? and my second point in the first thread was that by assuming some rapes are more *friendly* because the rapist is an acquaintance, our conservative friend's "advice" could get a woman killed. my final point in that thread...yelling "rape" and "no" is not likely to stop someone who has broken in your house with a gun and says "i will kill you if you scream." and just to drive this point home further: it wouldn't make much difference if the rapist was acquainted with the victim and used a gun or a knife...are you still failing to grasp this?
which was the example i used to elicit his "advice" was
it was in fact an example from a post posted by a DU member about his neighbor being raped...by someone who broke into her house...with a weapon. does this clarify anything for you yet?

THERE ARE NO *FRIENDLY* RAPES, as the poster implied. MY MESSAGE TO YOUR FRIEND: YOU ARE AS CLUELESS AS YOUR RW SOURCES AND CLUELESS *ADVICE*. i offer this message to anyone who still doesn't get it.

[TLM]

208. NOBODY... NOBODY said anything about "friendly" rapes.

you are agiain MAKING SHIT UP!

Why can you not address the terms being used instead of making shit up?


His point was very simple and very clear... that in a date rape situation the woman clearly saying no or yelling rape while fighting back is a lot more likely to stop the rape than if she says or does nothing to indicate her lack of consent, then afterwards says it was rape.

This has nothing to do with a rapist using a knife or someone breaking into your house or any of the crap you brought up to muddy the waters.

We're talking about a situation were sex was consentual, then consent was withdrawn... that was the topic of the thread. Not someone using a knife or a gun or breaking into someone's house.

Do you understand the difference?

I think he was right... most date rapes would stop cold if the woman screamed RAPE instead of "I have to go home" or "Maybe we should stop?" At the very least there would be no confusion.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

221. Even when it's stranger rape, it's better to resist...

So says the justice department:

"For both completed rape and sexual coercion, victims of completed acts were less likely to take protective action than those who experienced attempted victimization. This finding suggests that the intended victim's willingness or ability to use protection might be one reason attempts to rape and coerce sex failed. Note that the most common protective action was using physical force against the assailant. Nearly 70 percent of victims of attempted rape used this response -- again, a plausible reason many of these acts were not completed."

And from another article:

The available scientific literature on this question is divided, with some studies concluding physical resistance -- with all types considered together -- increases a woman's chance of the rape being completed and/or that she will be seriously injured. (This wording is unavoidable but is not meant to imply that the rape itself is not a grave injury.) Others find the opposite, again with all forms of physical resistance analyzed as one.

However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

So in conclusion, remember that it is better to resist. Use a knife or gun if you have it. Gouge their eyes if you don't. No mercy until you are safe.

- C.D.

( yes, there are places in this world for guns. )

[noiretextatique]

229. SURE...TELL THAT TO A 110LB WOMAN

BEING ATTACKED BY A 200LB MAN WITH A GUN.

THE POINT IS:

NOT IN ALL CASES...

TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE IS IRRESPONSIBLE. THAT IS MY POINT.

[salin]

243. and by doing so one starts to unintentionally shift the blame

back to the victim. She must not have done x,y,z so it must be her fault.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

232. I'd like the actual links to your quotes please

[Wonder]

256. MY QUOTE IS #400 responding to # 397 responding to post #369

noiretblu Donating member (1000+ posts)
Thu Jul-31-03 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #369

379. no shit...victims abound in this thread
Edited on Thu Jul-31-03 12:54 AM by noiretblu

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
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. #379


dymaxia Donating member (374 posts)
Thu Jul-31-03 09:59 AM

Response to Reply #379
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:

___________________________________

I respond to post 327 in sarcasm. My reference relates my impression of the numerous posts that I read through since I arrived as the Kobe case had just hit DU. I can also pull for you just how many times I related personal knowledge of the judicial procedures in regards to these FALSE NOTIONS in just the 500+ thread alone.

NOT COUNTING how many times I had already countered with FACTUAL first hand experience with the police procedures to pre-trial procedures to trial procedures. AND the small crew of guys refused to exact this first hand knowledge of fact DUE TO THOSE FALSE NOTIONS OR FANTASIES I REFER TO that it seemed were IN THEIR HEAD (PUN INTENDED).

Yet it was suggested more than once that my experience was baseless and where was my proof. I AM THE PROOF. Problem is because this small crew of guys fell so many women LIE ABOUT RAPE. I guess they did not understand that my accounts were FACTUAL based on FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. ergo: Sarcastic response to post #327


Wonder (674 posts) C Jul-31-03 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #397

400. What Victims Dymaxia?
Edited on Thu Jul-31-03 10:23 AM by Wonder

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.

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

Now as to the rest of the quotes TLM reference he is on his own with the links... however OUT OF CONTEXT reference to other posters quotes is unacceptable IMHO. I can speak for myself. I the response quote was in response to A REALITY (this small crew of guys) that I observed with my own eyes over the course of participating in 2-3 thread prior to the 500+ thread. which actually IMHO turned out to be the worst thread of all of them.

[buddhamama]

251. i consider myself a pretty tough person not without fear

but strong nonetheless

i wonder if the men in the Justice Department or even here at DU have ever had a gun,not just in their face but, in their mouth-safety off hammer down? and the person holding the gun is telling you they are going to kill you?

would you have been afraid or struggled?

what you are promoting here is a out for women that doesn't exist except in the world of paper.

most women can fight back and do, but with most rape cases they don't stand much of a chance of fighting their attacker off unless they are armed ahead of time-pepper spray,gun,etc.

[noiretextatique]

225. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD "IMPLY" MEANS?

DO YOU *REALLY* UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD "IMPLY" MEANS?
read this slowly:

EVEN "DATE" RAPISTS MY USE FISTS OR A WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!!

GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!!!!!!!!! by refusing to accept THAT POSSIBILITY, YOU AND YOUR CONSERVATIVE FRIEND ARE BOTH IMPLYING THAT THIS "TYPE" OF RAPE IS MORE FRIENDLY THAN ANOTHER "TYPE."

RAPE, IS ALWAYS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE...IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU KNOW THAT RAPIST! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A "DATE," AN "ACQUAINTANCE" OR A "STRANGER."

TO IMPLY VIOLENCE IS ONLY ASSOCIATED WITH "STRANGERS" IS FALSE, AND IT IS IN FACT CLAIMING "DATE" AND "ACQUAINTANCE" RAPES ARE MORE FRIENDLY. AND OF COURSE, WEAPONS MAY BE USED IN ANY RAPE...EVEN THOSE WHERE CONSENT IS WITHDRAWN.

YOUR SILLY FRIEND'S SILLY ADVICE WAS POSTED IN THAT THREAD ABOUT WITHDRAWING CONSENT. I RESPONDED THERE, AND YOU REPOSTED IT HERE.

:wtf: SO IF YOU WANTED TO STAY ON TOPIC, YOU SHOULD DO SO.

[TLM]

273. Oh here we go again...

"EVEN "DATE" RAPISTS MY USE FISTS OR A WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!!

GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!!!!!!!!! by refusing to accept THAT POSSIBILITY,"


Who said it was not possible? I see only the statement that is is much less likely and it is.


" WEAPONS MAY BE USED IN ANY RAPE...EVEN THOSE WHERE CONSENT IS WITHDRAWN."

True, but as was said it is highly unlikely that a withdrawn consent situation is going to turn into a gun to your head or knife to your throat rape. Yes it is possible, but not likely.

In most date rape situations, what you describe is not the case.

[noiretextatique]

308. highly unlikely...

how do you know what is and is not "likely?" how do you know what most "date rape" situations are like? the answer, of course, is that you HAVE NO IDEA what is and is not likely or unlikely. um...again, that is the point of this entire exchange.

[TLM]

320. Simple logic...

What I know about date rape comes from the various cases and reports I’ve read about, heard, seen on court TV etc.

Also basic logic would indicate that there has to be a spectrum in the severity of rapes... ranging from an act that just crosses the line to an act that goes all the way to murder. And that the less severe end would be the largest group.

[noiretextatique]

328. less severe...still as clueless as ever

to suggest that what is trivalized as "date rape" is automatically "less severe"...some logic you got working there. and of course....here comes the denial. either a few women here are *really* smart, or...

and IF someone used a weapon, e.g., fists during a "date rape" would that qualify as "less severe?" how about if someone commits murder during a "date rape"...would it then be classified as some other, "more severe" type of rape?

surely, you aren't still IMPLYING that weapons aren't used in "less severe date rape situations" are you? (insert denial......here)

please...your impeccable logic is needed to explain again why "date rape" is logically "less severe?" thank you in advance.

[TLM]

376. More personal attacks...

"to suggest that what is trivalized as "date rape" is automatically "less severe"..."

Do you believe all rapes are equally severe in terms of threat of physical harm or death?


"and IF someone used a weapon, e.g., fists during a "date rape" would that qualify as "less severe?""

Certainly less severe than using a knife or a gun, yeah.


" how about if someone commits murder during a "date rape"...would it then be classified as some other, "more severe" type of rape? "


I do not think you comprehend what I'm talking about. You sound like you think I'm trying to say some rape is not so bad and other rape is worse... or something like that. I'm not talking about the severity from a standpoint of one being more or less wrong than another.

What I am talking about is the level of risk to the woman's life/health. There is more risk to life and limb in some rapes than in others.


"please...your impeccable logic is needed to explain again why "date rape" is logically "less severe?" thank you in advance."

Replace the term severe with dangerous... what I am talking about is the level of danger posed by the rapist. A man with a knife to your throat is a lot more dangerous than the asshole boyfriend who won't take no for an answer. Fighting back against one could get you killed, and fighting back against the other could stop the rape.

[noiretextatique]

386. still playing the victim, i see

let's play...you write: Do you believe all rapes are equally severe in terms of threat of physical harm or death?

NO, nor do i believe that "date rapes" are automatically less harmful.
what is common to all rapes is the harm victims experience...and of course that varies also. still, i think it's safe to say that most victims would argue that they perceived a threat, and experienced actual physical harm. after all, rape is a crime of violence.

I wrote:
"and IF someone used a weapon, e.g., fists during a "date rape" would that qualify as "less severe?""

this is your response:
Certainly less severe than using a knife or a gun, yeah.

and you take offense to being called clueless? again...if during a
"less severe date rape," if the rapist threatened the victim with a knife or a gun...would you still consider that a "less severe" rape?
geez............

i wrote:
" how about if someone commits murder during a "date rape"...would it then be classified as some other, "more severe" type of rape? "

You wrote:
I do not think you comprehend what I'm talking about. You sound like you think I'm trying to say some rape is not so bad and other rape is worse... or something like that. I'm not talking about the severity from a standpoint of one being more or less wrong than another.

seems somewhat reasonable, though you still don't seem to address my issue....a common tactic of yours.

then you wrote:

What I am talking about is the level of risk to the woman's life/health. There is more risk to life and limb in some rapes than in others.

***NEWFLASH: in the example, i gave you would you say that there was risk to life and limb? that is, a gun or a knife being used during a "less severe date rape." you don't seem to grasp the connection to my example, and your own words.

then you write:
Replace the term severe with dangerous... what I am talking about is the level of danger posed by the rapist. A man with a knife to your throat is a lot more dangerous than the asshole boyfriend who won't take no for an answer. Fighting back against one could get you killed, and fighting back against the other could stop the rape.

finally...somewhat of a breakthtough. now...what about an asshole boyfriend who has a knife? could THAT get a woman killed? and what makes YOU think THAT isn't a possibility? would saying "NO" magically stop a boyfriend with a knife, anymore than a stranger with a knife. this is what you are implying. this is what CD was implying. i am not twisting your words...you are doing fine all by yourself.

[TLM]

397. when you can respond without personal attacks let me know.

"and you take offense to being called clueless?"

[noiretextatique]

399. poor TLM...this tactic...again

:nopity: clueless is hardly an "insult"...in your case, it's an adjective. i know the truth hurts, but take heart...i am prone to lying (it's genetic) :hi:

[TLM]

404. Obviously you're more interested in flames than debate.

welcome to my ignore list.

[noiretextatique]

408. it is MY pleasure and honor

:nopity: it's hard to debate with someone who isn't willing to do so. you seem more interested in repeating the same tired nonsense that's easily refuted...with a miminal use of logic. between that and constantly painting yourself as a victim...methinks you aren't up to the task.

[Wonder]

411. I don't believe it Noiretblu this is right back to square one.

why is this still going round and round? what is the need? It escapes me... okay whatever...

[salin]

242. actually that isn't true.

I've described my situation. DIdn't work. Hearing several friends situation (one had been taken to an isolated park)... didn't work. All were so-called acquaintance rapes.

What would be more accurate is: to one who has never lived it... it would seem that it could be prevented by doing x,y,z...

[TLM]

300. I think the confusion is in the idea of prevention...

While some of those date rapes where the issue of consent is in question... or rather where sex is only continuing because her lack of consent has not been made clear... in those cases shouting rape or no would likely stop it.

However, in cases where the rapist is going to rape regardless... what resistance does is create evidence. While it probably won’t prevent the rape, it will make it a hell of a lot more likely that you'll be able to put the rapist behind bars.

It isn't exactly like the captain of the football team can claim it was consensual sex, when the victim has a black eye and a cracked rib. But that's a call the individual woman has to make... as to whether or not she feels her life is in danger if she resists.

[salin]

304. sadly

many cases don't get reported. So the idea of prevention is very important. And in the cases that you and I agree that are not preventable through "NO!" or struggle, but that are not going to be reported anyway, prevention moves to greater societal understanding (especially among men, who are more likely but not exclusively the ones doing the raping) to make it less likely that it happens in the first place.

[noiretextatique]

310. yeah...i'd love to hear some opinions about how to prevent

men from committing rape. it would seem an appropriate prevention topic for men to address. funny, it hasn't been mentioned much in this or any other thread.

[salin]

319. I have tried to raise it before

and you are the first person to ever respond.

[noiretextatique]

321. well let's open it up: MEN...any ideas about how to stop MEN from raping?

there have been plenty of suggestions about women should try to stop men from raping them. any ideas on how to prevent some men from becoming rapists? TLM? ConservativeDemocrat? AgainstMe? ANYONE??

[salin]

326. Deserves its own thread

not sure how to pull it off with the new post rules... but it is a good question.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

329. Actually there are a number of male organizations committed to

preventing rape and a nationwide advocacy group>

http://www.mencanstoprape.org/info-url2699/info-url_list.htm?section=U.S.%20Men's%20Antiviolence%20Organizations


Men Can Stop Rape (formerly Men's Rape Prevention Project) empowers male youth and the institutions that serve them to work as allies with women in preventing rape and other forms of men's violence. Through awareness-to-action education and community organizing, we promote gender equity and build men's capacity to be strong without being violent.

MCSR is an outgrowth of D.C. Men Against Rape, a volunteer profeminist collective founded in 1987by a handful of men seeking to raise their own and the community's consciousness about men's violence against women. In 1997, MCSR incorporated as a nonprofit organization with the goal of carrying forward and expanding on its original mission to increase men's involvement in efforts to end men's violence.

Now, we are a concerned community of men and women of all ages, from many walks of life, working locally and nationally for peace, equity and gender justice. We are men and women who find strength in compassion and nonviolence and who strive to support young men who are courageous enough to challenge the "rape culture" in which we live.

We do not believe men's violence is inevitable. We believe that rape, battering, and other forms of men's violence are learned behaviors, choices that men make to exert power and control over others that are reinforced by a society that defines manhood through domination.

We believe that men can unlearn these damaging lessons and live peacefully with women and other men. To do so, however, we must redefine what it means to be a man.

[noiretextatique]

333. perhaps this is a good resource for education

for those concerned about false accusation. something tells me they might not know about this organization...since none have mentioned it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

341. I did post it on the other thread

you might wish to peruse some of their data as well. None of the cite an instance as high as 41% of false claims of rape...interesting eh? Are these men abdicating their rights?

[noiretextatique]

352. i don't think so...

thanks for posting this again. it is a great resource, and i am impressed with their mission and their work. these men are doing great work.

[salin]

334. I am very glad to learn about this group.

thanks for linking it. :thumbsup:

[Wonder]

339. is this thread open or only under consideration (should be in GD)

has it been openned. it is a good idea.

[TLM]

327. That's like asking how to prevent women from commiting infanticide.

The mind of someone willing to commit the act is already so fucked up, that I do not know how much prevention before the fact can work.


Beyond situations where the consent issue simply is not clear... and when you move on to a rapist who is going around with the intention of raping, it is not like they do not know what they are doing is wrong.

So it is not like education is going to help.

We could get rid of religion... that'd probably cut out a goodly number of sex crimes right there.


I think really the only practical thing we can do is focus on preventing child sexual abuse. As I understand it most rapists were sexualy abused themselves at some point. So that might be the only real way to end the cycle... something like Dean's success by six program that has cut child sexual abuse in VT by like 70%.

But that still won't stop the odd wacko who just isn't right upstairs.

[noiretextatique]

331. other than the title, this is one of your more reasonable posts

however, i agree with salin...the topic deserves it's own thread.

[Wonder]

342. the consent issue is clear

why do you feel it is unclear. Please explain.

[Wonder]

347. Noiretblu there is a Mens Group headed by an X Sports Figure

An ex ball player... but I don't follow the sports so I don't remember his name... he has a group whose aim is to address rape and violence against women by ascertaining what the boys false perceptions are. I saw him on Oprah a couple of years ago. I feel Man speaking out about rape and addressing these myths is also necessary.

[noiretextatique]

360. yes...i've seen this guy on a talk show

i can't think of his name, but i saw him on oprah. i agree with you about men speaking out...it's important and necessary. funny though...it seems women are most familiar with these groups.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

313. But it can also get a woman killed

And does.

Once upon a time, what a woman wore was evidence that it wasn't rape even if forcible.

Once upon a time, where a woman frequented was evidence that it wasn't rape even if forcible.

Once upon a time, if a woman was previously sexually active outside of marriage, it wasn't rape even if forcible.

Once upon a time, if it was her husband that raped her, it wasn't rape even if forcible.

Once upon a time if a woman expected to keep her job, she put out even if she was married.

Laws expanding to fit current times, progress and current definitions are nothing new. It happens in business. It happens in property rights. It happens in all sections of the law.

Clarifying what is or isn't consent is simply progress.

[TLM]

132. Or we're worried about being labeled as rapists... again.

A small sample of things posted in that other thread...

"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."

Requests for a link to anybody in the thread saying this were met with insults.

The same with this statement...


"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."


Requests for links to ANYBODY in the thread having said these things, were met with more insults and flames.


Simply disagreeing with this law was characterized as evidence of one BEING a rapist.


"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."


And those are just the things that the mods didn't delete for being too over the top.

[Wonder]

137. I said 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."

I wrote that.. what is your point now... perhaps I can clarify it now.

[TLM]

156. My point is that NOBODY said any of that...

"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."

I asked for a link to anybody in the thread having said anything even close to that, and you couldn't provide one because nobody said that.

You just flat out made that shit up.

Nobody denied the experiences of those who said they'd been raped, let alone called it hysteria.

[Wonder]

167. what exactly is made up about that statement?

it was an impression. I am not the only poster on that thread that had it... in essence, you were more than once presented with actual facts regarding due process and burden of proof. You refused to believe the facts... and in your refusals instead you were purveying your experience as if it was indicative of the majority rather than the minority.

your experience is indicative of a very small percent. The experiences of some of the posters in that thread is not only indicative of the majority that we are in majority (instances of rape occurs in far greater number than instances of false accusation)... is backed up by fact as well as statistics.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think a clarification was made to a rape law? Specfically this particular clarification that a women is within the law to change her mind? I am not sure you ever answered that question the first go round on this same topic.

[TLM]

216. EVERYTHING... the whole damn thing was made up...

"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."


"it was an impression."

Then why did you say, "according to this small crew of guys" instead of according to you?

"I am not the only poster on that thread that had it... in essence, you were more than once presented with actual facts regarding due process and burden of proof. You refused to believe the facts... and in your refusals instead you were purveying your experience as if it was indicative of the majority rather than the minority."

What are you smoking? I kept being told that this law did nothing to change the burdon of proof... I pointed out that it provided a rational for the lack of physical evidence... so how in the fuck does that translate to my claiming my experience was more common than rape?

How does that translate to saying all rape caims are just hysteria?

How is that denigrating real life experiences of rape victims?


"your experience is indicative of a very small percent. The experiences of some of the posters in that thread is not only indicative of the majority that we are in majority (instances of rape occurs in far greater number than instances of false accusation)... is backed up by fact as well as statistics."

OK listen very carefully... I NEVER ONCE CLAIMED OTHERWISE! I never said that false accusations happen MORE than real rape. SO WTF?

[Wonder]

236. you are losing me TLM it seems you are off topic

How does that translate to saying all rape caims are just hysteria?

statements like this have been made repeatedly. They were implied more than once on the 500+ thread. and others like them.

Can we be here now TLM:

you say:
<<<What are you smoking? I kept being told that this law did nothing to change the burdon of proof... I pointed out that it provided a rational for the lack of physical evidence... so how in the fuck does that translate to my claiming my experience was more common than rape?>>>

Where did you get that this law shifts burder of proof? Because I must have missed something. I never got this law shifted burden of proof.

And you know what else, I think a shift of burden of proof is a good thing. It is about. And did you know that in other countries they have actually shifted the burdern of proof onto the accused?

I am not sure you have followed my posts here. It doesn't seem like it but here is the article again. In south africa a year ago they proposed shifting the burden of proof in Rape Law. I tried finding articles which substantiated that in fact this is the case in the states. I am not convinced it is. I believe burden of proof remains in the lap of the state. The accuser is a witness for the state. She is in essence an exhibit. The accused is evidence. as is her testamony and any physical evidence the DA has. BURDEN OF PROOF IT APPEARS REMAINS THE BURDEN OF THE STATE.

As I said in S.Africa last their they proposed shifting the burden to the defense. Here is the article.

snip
But the nightmare of rape victims having to prove in court that they did not say "yes" to the rapist will soon be over if the proposed definition of rape, which excludes the element of consent, is adopted in the Sexual Offences Bill. The bill is expected to be debated in parliament before the end of the year.

snip

Lillian Artz, a criminologist at the University of Cape Town, said the amendment represented a "radical departure" from the old definition of rape.

"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".

http://www.cab.kabissa.org/raplaw.htm

I found this article in my attempt to find substantive proof that at this time burden of proof has shifted to the accused or the defendant. I found nothing to substantiate. However, at this time, I would vote that a proposal to balance burden of proof in rape prosecution would be another move in the right direction.

[Wonder]

240. Then why did you say, "according to this small crew of guys"

because a small crew of guys WERE purporting FEARS based on no knowledge of the FACTS. That is why I said it?

I tried in another thread to substantiate his fear. He couldn't he himself admitted that he had never been falsely accused but yet he also stated more than once he had this fear about it. In his case his fear was baseless. Their were a small percentage of guys in these threads that had no understanding of the legalities as they are carried out in terms of making charges and then prosecuting them. Their fears were based on NOTIONS or FANTASIES in there head.

[salin]

246. then why did so many people

leave that thread with that impression? Perhaps now that you see - how you were read... perhaps you need to ask .... why? Are you a victim? Then why did various people read the same thing into what you were saying? Perhaps it is mirror time.

[Wonder]

260. Salin it seems he is now done talking to me

yes more than one person left that thread with that impression the exact impression that NOW YOU HAVE TOO.

[salin]

270. Sigh

funny how several people - who didn't talk about it at the time - but who were all reading the same thread - came up with the same impression. Personally, I am done with this. Complete and utter waste of time. Cherry picking statements and leaving out all the stuff that left a number of readers with an altogether different impression just does not a whole conversation make.

Ah well. I bid you good night.

[TLM]

401. Yet oddly enough not one of you can point to a single post...

where I said that false rape claims outnumber real rape claims...

funny how all 4 of the women who have been attacking me all seemed to get the exact same impressions about what I said... yet not one of them can come up with a single quote or link to show what I said that promted their misunderstanding.


One would think you'd all be able to point to the same post or statement, if indeed what I said caused you misunderstanding. Yet you can not.

[Wonder]

413. it doesn't even matter any more TLM

this is not what this thread was about. Your issue and the impressions your posts made do not have to be proven. You left the same impression on several posters here. each in their own way explained why. It is not about whether you said false rape claims outnumber real rape claims. this is about your insistance. In fact I commented on this insistance o presistance in the 500+ thread as well. The posters upon whom you have left a negative impression have more than sufficiently explained why.

that is it. end of that portion of discussion. Perhaps now it might be time to address the actual topic and just let it go. Just a suggestion.

[noiretextatique]

186. there are several examples

and in your cluelessness, you actually posted one of them. see your report of conservativedem's advice...and my response to it.

[Wonder]

190. Yes I do believe he did and

he is not aware of it himself even though it seems he DOES HAVE the list of criteria posted by NSMA. TLM himself has posted the list on this thread. So perhaps now the misunderstanding has been cleared up because IT DOES SEEM contrary to what was implied by another FEMALE poster in the other long thread. I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE picking up on the criteria as listed on that list. Now was I?

[TLM]

214. Please quote where CD said any of 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."


You continue to make accusations without any quotes or links or anything.

[Wonder]

228. I said that. You pulled that from one of my posts in the 500+ thread

<<"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.">>

what are you trying to ascertain? those are my words I already explained them. Why are you asking someone else about words I myself wrote?

[charlie]

31. I saw it, but didn't crack open that thread

But good grief, it's so plain as to be silly. If I offer you my hand to shake and you decide to squeeze, pump, and jerk my arm for 10 minutes, I don't think anyone would argue that I'd be wrong to expect you to knock it off when I tell you to. So where does this notion of entitlement to uninterruptable sex come from? :shrug:

[Booberdawg]

66. LOL!

You made me laugh out loud with that visual.;) It's a good analagy, and precisely the connection that some men and women alike can't, or won't make.

[Wonder]

196. I guess that is what THIS thread is attempting to define

and or ascertain: just where this notion of entitlement to uninterruptable sex comes from?

Finally the new law which has made this particular clarification does seem to be PROOF in and of itself that this NOTION is IN FACT more pervasive than is HEALTH for our society.

It could have stemmed also from elements within the legal process itself that have actually supported the NOTION itself.

Based on this new clarification, as well as what also might be a coming shift of burden of proof onto the accused himself, wherein he will be asked to PROOF the claims he is making (OR HIS SIDE OF THE STORY : THAT THERE WAS CONSENT WHEN THERE WASN'T -- OR THAT FORCE DID NOT TAKE PLACE).

I only anticipate this might be so as it seems Rape Laws have changed or proposals have been made for changes such as I describe (and other) in other countries (South Africa and the UK).


Interestingly, in the UK it seems the NOTION you wonder about is directly responsible for actually threatening reforms in date rape laws. that notion as stated in the article being the, "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."


I place the articles again:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,920788,00.html

And for a third and LAST TIME an article from South Africa:

snip

But the nightmare of rape victims having to prove in court that they did not say "yes" to the rapist will soon be over if the proposed definition of rape, which excludes the element of consent, is adopted in the Sexual Offences Bill.

snip

Lillian Artz, a criminologist at the University of Cape Town, said the amendment represented a "radical departure" from the old definition of rape.

"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".

more...
http://www.cab.kabissa.org/raplaw.htm

Whether the latest clarification of the a womans' legal right to withdraw consent will be enforceable or may date rape laws anymore enforceable, whether the law will dissipate, as some suggest; is debateable:

1- the two articles posted to clearly defend a need for clarification of rape laws and perhaps shifts in burdens of proof, and

2- that these clarifications are being proposed, discussed, and instances made, is good news, it

3- proves clearly rape convictions rates are low, and that HOUSTON -- THERE IS A PROBLEM.

I appears legislatures have mind to address it, however pervasive these NOTIONS that seem to be resistant to the needed clarifications are.

[Character Assassin]

15. It's rape.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. No to "no" is rape

If you can't take no for an answer, then you have got problems.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. BTW, for those who question my intentions on starting this thread

it is beginning to get clear for me that by having these conversations (after reading through many responses on this subject), we may actually end up STOPPING some rapes from being perpetrated.

To the (specifically) men who are clear that no means no...my heartfelt thanks.

[noonwitch]

25. Yes

As someone who would never consent to it

[GOPisEvil]

28. Rape's not a sex crime, it's a force crime, ergo...

...if you force another person into a sexual act they tell you they do not want to participate in, you have committed a sexual assault.

As an aside, issues like this are precisely why it is important to discuss boundaries with someone before having sex with them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Without putting too fine a point on it

I don't know how in the world someone can engage in the aforementioned act without a willing partner. It would not seem pleasant for the grantor or the recipient.

For those reason I find that scenario hard to fathom.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. It happens in jails quite frequently.

There was a well publicized case here in California.

[outinforce]

37. Also important

It is also important that all the people particpating in a sexual act (and I phrase it that way because there may be more than two people engaged in any given sex act) express themselves whenever they wish to stop whatever is going on.

If, after having had sex, one of the persons tells the other "You did things to me that I did not want to have done", and that is the first time he or she has made that known, then I would suggest that no rape has taken place. If, however, during the time people are having sex, one of the persons says "Stop", or otherwise makes it known that s/he does not wish to continue, and the sex continues, then rape has taken place.

[nini]

30. yes.. it is rape

guys need to be on the safe side and back off when a woman says no - even if they think she's not really serious. Some women say no when they're not really sure about doing a certain thing, but go ahead anyway when the guy continues (I can say I have done this myself in my younger, inexperienced days) .. some guys may think that is all part of the game - which is tragic when they aren't believing the real message coming from a woman who wants to draw the line.

Believe what a woman says, if she decides she wants to continue later, then she'll let you know.. Otherwise, respect what she says for her well being and yours.


In no way should a woman or man for that matter, be forced to do anything they don't want to.

[joeybee12]

34. There's no way to answer this

Was there violence incvolved--did the guy do it, the woman resisted? Then it's obviously rape. Did she say, no, did he say, aw come on, pretty please, she relented, but didn't really want to? Then what?

[outinforce]

42. Once s/he says NO

Then further acts are rape.

"No" means "No".

It does not mean "ask me 'pretty please', and I might relent".

"No" means "Stop".

And after you stop, THEN you can talk about it -- you can aks "pretty please -- or whatever else.

But "No" always --always -- means "No".

And "No" always means "Stop. Now."

[nini]

67. I believe I said I agree with this..

and I do. No means no until the person saying no initiated further contact.. such as starting the process or whatever.

my little description did not mean it was ok to continue.. it was telling men to believe it means no when it is said and not 'assume' it was part of a game. I wasn't condoning the continued activity once no was said.

sorry I wasn't clear. (I still might not be but I hope I am)

[outinforce]

69. Indeed, you did.

My response, however, was to joeybee12 (no. 34 in this thread), who seemed to suggest that a rapist ought to have an out if s/he said "pretty please", and the victim relented.

Your position has been clear to me.

It is a position with which I happen to agree.

[nini]

70. phew..

I thought I was not clear.. (it happens the older I get :-)

thanks

[salin]

61. clarification

how is it signaled that "she relented". Did she say "okay?" or just stop struggling. One is rape the other is just an obnoxious lover. Also, why does she have to struggle/resist to indicate it "really means no"?

[buddhamama]

111. third choice

psychologically fucking with someone's mind.
in the this case i would want to know why she said okay.

still i wonder, if someone has to be pressured into having sex, why would you want to?

[salin]

130. I think I tried to capture that with point two

obnoxious lover.

[outinforce]

33. This is SO Easy

Sex must be consentual.

Whenver -- whenever -- consent is withdrawn, sex becomes rape.

See?

Easy.

[joeybee12]

41. This is NOTso easy

When two people are having sex, there is hopefully a lot of discussion involved, and one partner may want to do something the other is not willing to do--at first. You have to know if these people are in a relationship, if there was actual violence, or just an attitutde of "Hell, he won't shut, up, so I'll just get it over with." Is it rape then?

[bloom]

48. I think a man knows

if he is having sex with an unwilling partner.

[outinforce]

55. Excuse Me

"I think a man knows if he is having sex with an unwilling partne"

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I am somehow not a man.

But I respect my partners enough to stop when they say "No" or "Stop".

And are you seriously suggesting that a male is able to discern the mind of a woman who says "No" or "Stop" to know if and when she does not really mean "Nop" or "Stop".

I had thought that such paternalism died. A long time ago.

But I confess that I am gay.

[bloom]

63. my response was actully to #41

People who are defensive about having sex with someone who said "no" and continued - make me uncomfortable. I think some may not want to admit (to themselves) there was a time they should have stopped.

[Wonder]

81. I must admit

at this point -- I am not sure -- unless one knows the man -- I can with confidence make anymore broad (yes pun intended) -- statements regarding what I think a man knows. I might wish a man knew when his partner becomes unwilling -- but I can not say wishing -- has much to do with reality -- and -- since participating in these sex crime threads as far as men go -- while I thought I had a good sense of things before these threads -- I have to admit -- I now wonder -- what the percentages really are regarding the number of men that ARE IN REALITY -- my hope is that those men IN REALITY are in the majority -- BUT -- at this point -- I am thinking this is only WISHFUL thinking on my part.

[outinforce]

50. It ABSOLUTELY does not matter

When a person says "No", that means "No".

If two people are having sex, and one partner wants to do something that the other is not willing to do, and the unwilling partner says "No", then the partner who wants to do somethings that the other is not willing to do MUST -- MUST -- stop.

Otherwise, it is rape.

Once the "action" is stopped, BOTH parties can discuss the thing that one wants to do and the other does not. But continuing to do something that your partner has clearly said "No" to, to my way of thinking, shows an extreme lack of respect for your partner. It says, "Let me make the decision for you", or "I won't even honr you enough to respect your wishes and talk about this". No, it merely says, "I gotta do this thing, and I don't really care whether you want to or not -- we're gonna do it!"

[noiretextatique]

60. oif, for once, i agree with you completely

there seems to be some confusion on this really simple issue. i agree with gopisevil: rape is a force crime, an act of violence. i think some are intentionally trivilizing this crime as "forced sex," and using some tired cannards about confused women who really mean yes when they say no.
so, to clear up any confusion, if someone tells you "no" and you continue, you are guilty of an act of violence, and your member (and perhaps your size and strength) is the weapon. if there is any doubt as to whether your partner *really* means "no," one sure way to find out is to stop. if she *really* doesn't mean "no"...you shouldn't have a problem continuing.
someone posted a thread yesterday and used the phrase "doing her," to describe his view of consensual sex. as i mentioned to this poster, if you think of sex as an act that you "do" to someone, i can see why the concept of withdrawing consent to be "done" would be a non-sequitur. however, if one can grasp that sex is a mutual experience vs. something you "do" to someone, one should be able to comprehend that consent can be withdrawn at any time, by either (or any) of the participants.
it is really quite simple.

[Blue_Chill]

39. If she say no it's rape

Yes to sex does not mean yes to anything you may want to do.

[NNN0LHI]

43. First thread where I have seen 100% agreement on

It is rape.

Don

[salin]

56. look above

there is not 100% agreement. Nearly - but not all.

[salin]

62. BUT it is the most civil

discussion i have seen.

[Wonder]

99. now it is a matter of those fine points

[Devil Dog Dem]

44. What if, she said no to "going south" (as you put it) last week . . .

but tonight the man (without saying anything) makes an attempt again. This time, the woman says nothing and lies there passivly while the man "goes south."

Is that rape?

[salin]

58. while I would not think so... I would have to wonder about the

relationship, when the guy tries again something she was adverse to with no discussion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. If she is passive due to willingly accepting it then no

If she is passive due to the threat of force or other retribution, it may very well still be rape. An abusive relationship or the involvement of drugs is where I am looking when answering this question.

Heck, in any relationship there is a period of time where one partner may want to go no further than 1st base...then second and so forth...so it may be that eventually he/she relents and agrees to home plate AND the dug-out.

[buddhamama]

103. passive due to threat of violence is common

i was in an abusive relationship for six yrs, beleive me, the violence began before the rape did. for me, passive was the one way to get through it. you try to be anywhere but there.

[dsc]

64. It is interesting at times

to click on treads without knowing the author of them. I was ready for this to have been from the Neandrathol club. But to answer your question of course it is.

[GOPBasher]

75. Of course that's rape.

If a girl says yes to vaginal sex, it mean yes to vaginal sex. If the girl does not consent to anal sex, and a guy does it anyway, of course that's rape. I don't think it's debatable.

Talking about the Kobe case, I have no idea if he's guilty or not, just like everyone else. I've always admired Kobe, not only as a basketball player but as a person. If it turns out that he's guilty, I'm going to be so disillusioned.

[Fleshdancer]

78. yes.

A woman has every right to set limitations on where a penis can penatrate her body. In fact, every human has the right to set limitations on where anything or anyone can penatrate his/her body.

[Wonder]

80. Yes it is rape --- perhaps

based on undesired change in sexual venue - but - I am still not clear of all the evidence - so I am not sure IF PROVEN - when she is claiming consent was withdrawn.

change in sexual venue constitutes an unexpected surprise. If one sex partner springs an undiscussed change in the sexual menu and the other partner does not have a taste for the suggestion if the change is FORCED

YES A RAPE/SEXUAL BATTERY OCCURRED.

Does this issue really need so much clarification? Based on some of the opinions shared within these sex crime threads - guys are welcome to bring along their mini cassettes - in the meantime I am considering something like brass knuckles or a new purse so that I can include a nice pair of Knuck Chucks (or whatever they are called) THAT IS if I were to trust I am placing myself in the right hands. Based on what I have observed in these sex crime threads --- much more caution is advised!!

sheesh!

[noiretextatique]

83. perhaps

a stun gun under the pillow is advisable :shrug: seriously though...sometimes i am enlightened by views here in ways that i wish i wasn't. it seems only a hard-core few truly don't "get it."

[Wonder]

86. yes too few

it is true...at least judging from these sex threads here in DU

a decade ago... this was not that big of a dilemna. Before the rape I guess I was lucking. I tended to always choose very compatible lovers... most always turned into committed relationships 2 years plus... I didn't have to deal with all this fucked up dilemna -- all partners natural responsive...

What I am picking up here... is quite disconcerting to say the least -- some of it so out of my realm... it is not even worth my time to counter it... sign of the times I guess.

[slackmaster]

82. Of course it's rape

Silly question IMO. Any unwanted bodily contact is WRONG. Unwanted sexual contact involving penetration is definitely rape.

[Uzybone]

84. No is no

if you french kiss, dry hump and then want to fondle and she/he says no, then you cannot fondle
if you have vaginal sex and want to go down south and he/she says no then you cannot go down south
if you are getting oral sex and want to reciprocrate and he/she says no you cannot give oral sex
No is no. Get up put on your clothes and dont mess with people who want to fuck with your mind*



*unless there is some other valid reason.

[Wonder]

85. really I do not know what to make of this

except that in casual land more partners than one considers are clearly way out of sink with one another. From some of the responses it is almost as if just the consent to casual sex -- is equated with you are down for whatever comes up -- which would indicate that in the casual game one should not assume that the sex one will have will always stay within one's prefered sexual boundary.

I would have thought that even in a casual sexual situation that reading ones partner is a given and is really not that hard a thing to do. Then again I am not one for casual sex - I actually enjoy the getting to know you part -- between two people that share an attraction -- before touch -- I mean. It's the anticipation I guess -- sensuality I find sometimes as alluring as sexuality -- if not more so. But I constitute it seems a minority view.

[noiretextatique]

87. this is the preferred method of mature people

even those who engage in casual sex, i.e., respecting a partner as a participant vs. an object one has his way with...a thing that is "done." i too find the getting to know you part as interesting and as fulfilling (sometimes moreso)as the act itself. then again, i'm not into casual sex...anymore :D

[Wonder]

112. yes Noiretblu this "doing her" thing is also problematic

quite frankly it seems to me those males that are "doing her" are easy to spot, therefore what also frightens me is the women who is laying down with this type male. Again, there are sexual maladies that pervade this topic of force as well as the confusions we see here.

I feel that some of the confusion is sincere and when addressed does seem to get cleared up. What disturbs me is when the confusion persists regardless of how many ways one goes about addressing the male confusion.

And this no means yes business seems indicative of a number of things: 1- it seems a blind spot in the male, behind which he hides what we term his obstanent "male privilege" 2- is indicative of this lust for the game of D/S to which I say fine. saddle up with a partner that is consciously choosing dominance (also termed whore mastering) from the sex menu. Conscious D/S falls into the category of sex scene play. This is an area into which both males and females will wander.

However, when speaking outside of the sex scene culture wherein both partners are actually choosing their scenes because they both know what is expected and therefore have consented to play the D/S or M/S scene as outlined; this male stubborness regarding the no means yes myth is:

1- problematic in that to some degree it is a myth
2- is indicative of what is termed the rape mentality
3- tells me the male actually might prefer sexual ambivalence in a female, that ambivalence being an allure on its own, which means
4- to some degree the male's who are encountering this ambivalence regualarly are type specific...

Noiretblu am I making sense?

[noiretextatique]

113. why yes, indeed you are

and of course, there is a certain type of (afflicted) woman who fits the fantasy...to a tee, if i hear you correctly. of course, i'm not talking about consensual activities, e.g., S/M. on the other hand, i do agree that the myth, when applied to all women, is indicative of some infection with the rapist's mentality, which is a sadististic mentality. you make perfect sense.

[Wonder]

126. males who encounter this ambivalence regularly are type specific

let's push the envelop further:

I know for a fact that all women do not play this no yes game... in its most innocent form it is most prevalent in young woman who might well be attracted but still grappling with the all the guilt that is imbred into women regarding their own sexuality and their own desire. In this example the no which requires some persuading is not a game. I mean she is not playing a game. She may very well be youthfully curious, however is hedging because of sexual mores and in that very moment is weighing all the discomfort that goes with this type of ambivalence, and young boys grapple with this in their own way as well.

I feel a male who is older must be sensitive to this and rape will never enter into the picture as long as the girl is of age.

In the more devious scenario where the women is playing a fucked up game (which depending on her own sexual malady she may or may not even be conscious of), this women constitutes a type. Men who find themselves chasing this type women regularly and as regularly find themselves getting biten... this is a whole other thing...

I still have not honed in on, in all instances in terms of this no yes catagory, why those men that seem to persist in their confusion, also do not seem to grasp that if this type women causes confusion... rather than to superimpose her upon all women, why don't they just change their type? This is what I don't understand. Or is this small percentage of males that I allude to: are they just playing a game of their own in these threads?

Because quite frankly their concerns seem to me 1- very selfish 2- irrelevant to the discussion for the most part and 3- are certainly not indicative of ALL women.

[noiretextatique]

154. 1- very selfish is my vote

:D and i do hear what you are saying about "types," and i believe, addiction. it's both self-fulfilling, and self-serving, imho. if the belief exists already, one would tend to attract this type. and if one continues to attract a type, it serves to reinforce the belief. i can see how it easy it would be to extrapolate this to all whatever, depending on the false belief one holds. and to some extent, views about "all whatever" are acceptable as stereotypes, and constantly reinforced. this is true of stereotypes about both genders.

and i absolutely agree with you about ambivalence about sex, as it relates to younger women.

i would add that the notion of sex as a prize, to be conquered or withheld, a meme in and of itself, which tends to get played out in the stereotyping.

and most certainly that all women are ambivalent about sex is a BIG LIE.

[Wonder]

175. that all women are ambivalent about sex is a BIG LIE

A VERY BIG LIE...(which also does not imply they lack discernment). I have encountered males that telegraph much discomfort with sex themselves. In fact uncomfortable with a womans comfort with their own sexuality. I can not say exactly why they are uncomfortable with her comfort of her own sexuality for sure. But in my life it seems this male discomfort has to do with his own sex guilt issues.

now to attracting certain types. I tend to attract both men and women who compete with me rather than support me emotional. In therapy I came to understand why. Of course it goes back to the role one plays growing up as a child. Here is where at one point one must become responsible for their own reality. If a male is always having to deal with ambivalent women either they are pushing sex on a women to early in the relationship so she just isn't read to have sex, or he is exactly attracted to that ambivalence for what could be a number of reasons

1- the conquest thing tends him on
2- he enjoys coaxing a woman regularly
3- if a woman is coaxed too easily it not only turns him off but could in some instances anger him
4- young adult women also understand the males ambivalence with the good girl bad girl thing and therefore make a conscious choice not to give in so easily until she gets a better read on the guys intentions

it is so complex the dating and mating game so complex.

[noiretextatique]

215. it is complex, and few bother to examine themselves

much easier to blame. family patterns...whoa! i've spent most of my adult life trying to replace what i learned with what i want...if that makes any sense. i hear you about that competition thing...i attract that as well. and we all have to take responsibility for what and who we're attracting, since we can only manifest what's in our on consciousness. when i believe i am vulnerable, i attract vampires and victimizers, often desiguised as victims. this appeals to me for two reasons: 1) i like to fix and 2) fixing someone else is a distraction from the fixing i need to do :D in any case, i have some caretaking issues to i need to focus on taking care of myself.

[Wonder]

271. BINGO: fixing someone else is a distraction from the fixing i need to do

THAT is the heart of the matter... when i first started dating again after a long shut down... dating interestingly enough was motivated by this need it seemed to love a man... in a healthy way...

over time as I became acquainted with the DATING GAME also became aware of this fear I seemed to have of receiving love. my focus was on a need to give instead... I believe the focus needs to be on this fear I have of receiving love... LONG DISCUSSION... thank god... this is off the current topic...

food for thought. In essence the need to fix is a projection of your need to be fixed and not only by you but with the help of another. That is the scariest part.

[dfong63]

90. what if

I pose the question: If we are having a romantic evening and I am fully willing to engage in good old American-man-on-top-vaginal-sex.....

and i post another question: what if, in the heat of the act, his passion overwhelms him, and he suddenly screams "MON DIEU" thereby inadvertantly revealing that he's NOT an american???

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

93. No...NON...Nicht...it's all the same and pretty universally understood

;-) DIOS MIO!

[ButterflyBlood]

92. if she says no, it's rape

now if she doesn't say anything either way and then says no after he starts and he pulls out, it's not rape. stupid yes, but i wouldn't say it's rape. if he doesn't pull out, then yes it is.

[buddhamama]

96. clearly it is about respect

if someone is uncomfortable partaking in certain sexual acts and they wish not to and say so then their partner should respect that.

if you force your sexual partner to do something against their will it is rape. plain and simple

[tom_paine]

105. Rape.

Unequivocally.

[TLM]

114. What exactly is the point of continuing to drag this crap up...

We just had a 500 response thread locked on this crap in another forum.

So why do it again... to post more flaim bait and accuse more people who might disagree with you of supporting rape?

"but a number of people seem to think NO at any time during sex should NOT be sufficient."

Just like in the other thread... where are the links to these posts? What people are saying that a woman saying NO shouldn't be sufficient for them to stop?

[Wonder]

129. no it has now moved onto an even finer point

which creates even more confusion I believe... it is the no means yes business now... you have to read the all the posts... actually there is little flame baiting going on in this thread... the discussions so far that I can see are far more respectful. I believe the issue now is why do certain myths persist?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

136. The point of bringing this up was posted in the original post

There are posts from that thread that are now removed that did argue the point that there was no rape if consensual sex began and permission was withdrawn.

You are welcome to peruse the thread again..I'm not interested and actually the conversation has been pretty respectful.

Let's keep it that way.

Since you seem to have an opinion of me indicating that I annoy you, why not put me on ignore? We'll only antagonize each other.

[TLM]

219. Oh there were? Well then please cite them...

I saved the thread localy.

So please do point out who made the argument that "there was no rape if consensual sex began and permission was withdrawn." Because I sure as hell didn't see it.

I have local copies of all the posts that were deleted.

[bloom]

172. Actually - you seem to be one of the main people inflaming others

You sound very shrill and seem to try to do your best to upset people.

[TLM]

220. Yeah I get a little on edge being called a rapist...

go figure.

[salin]

245. ironically

that didn't happen til long into the thread... and I think that the list and comment came in response to a whole lot of shrill posts. Intentional or not - I think that the comment (snide as it was) was made in response to the thread - not that your tone changed after that post was made.

[TLM]

275. Hey, you're the first one to admit it even happened.

"Intentional or not - I think that the comment (snide as it was) was made in response to the thread - not that your tone changed after that post was made."

I know that... I do not think for a second that the poster actually beleived I might be a rapists. It was just a shot at me, one that I think was way over the line.

[salin]

287. funny how you only hear/ read the part that you chose to hear/read.

I have tried all evening to use the context of that thread - to a) understand where you were coming from and to b) give you insight that you seem to need into how it came to pass that you were so "misread". Instead of trying to listen to b - you play pick and chose of items and ignore the whole gestalt. Even in this comment all you see is what you chose to see. Yes you (in a more generalized sense - it was not directly at you - but at a tone of posters of which you were a part) got a cheap shot.

BUT my comment was in relation to YOUR comment (its because I was called a rapist that I was shrill) to the previous comment regarding your tone.

My comment was that yes a shot was taken - but it was late in the thread - and it was in response to the tone of the posts (the aforementioned "shrill" tone a term someone else applied to the tone).

Point - it was a give and take thread and that was a response that was drawn - over time to the tone set out. BTW there were a few posts (posters) that the list could pertain to as well. Some of those posts were, thankfully, disappeared. Don't feel too singled out.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

No please DO take me at my word

Based on your professed hostilities, your ability to twist what others say into a set of words that weren't said, I have no reason to take you at your word. I really meant what I said. If I didn't I wouldn't have said it.

In my job, I must compare people's statements of what happened against investigations every working day. My impressions after interviewing them but before seeing investigative reports are usually dead on.

When cross examining people, they will elaborate, change their story, claim they heard something that wasn't asked or answered something they heard other than what was asked.

I wasn't saying what I said to get a rise, a reaction or to be hurtful or attack. I DID MEAN IT.

( the post was PM'ed for me to respond)

[SyracuseDemocrat]

119. It's definitely rape

It's definitely rape NSMA. I am sick and tired of hearing guys on here say that if a woman consents then the guy is free to do anything he wants, whatever, whenever and wherever. NO means NO! Get it?

[TLM]

223. Once again what guys have said this?

"I am sick and tired of hearing guys on here say that if a woman consents then the guy is free to do anything he wants, whatever, whenever and wherever."

Please cite the posts where this has been said. I have not seen it. All I have seen are these same accusations and insults being tossed around about some "guys on here" without so much as one single link or quote.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as assuming somebody said this... otherwise why would you claim it was said? So who said it.... where's the link?

[David Zephyr]

138. If 32 Strokes Were Approved, "No" Stated At Stroke #33...What If

If the first 32 strokes were approved, even enjoyed and called for and then...

After stoke #33, "No" is stated, but...

A 34th Stroke took place, which was immediately folowed by withdrawl...

Would the 34th Stroke constitute "rape"?

I'm serious here. Does anyone dare attempt an answer?

I pose this question as it seems as this is where we collectively leading ourselves...

Definition and clarity are the hallmark of good laws and fuzziness and generalizations are the hallmark of bad laws.

The question I pose the inevitable question that will at some point have to be addressed.

Is there such a thing as 1st degree rape, 2nd degree rape and third degree rape?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

146. It's far too hypothetical to answer

I would caution that it wouldn't be the women on this thread needing the law clarified to that degree either, or most of the men.

You make a good point though, an analogy being the Rodney King beating where he took 13 blows to the head and it didn't constitute undue force. It did make me wonder what did...14 blows to the head?

I simply can't imagine the scenario you are describing occurring except in a fantasy game playing sexual scenario.

I would think however that in a trial setting, the law would take into account a reasonable time to stop the act...i.e. she says stop, he pumps a couple more times but for the most part promptly pulls out.

In the California case, he continued IIRC for an additional minute and a half, possibly more and kept saying "just let me finish"..the majority of justices on the court found that fact to be unreasonable.

[David Zephyr]

161. See My Edited & Expanded Former Post. Is & Isn't Hypothetical.

NSMA, I was expanding my earlier post while you were responding. Here's what I added and it goes along the lines of what you posted:

"I pose this question as it seems as this is where we collectively leading ourselves...

"Definition and clarity are the hallmark of good laws and fuzziness and generalizations are the hallmark of bad laws.

"The question I pose the inevitable question that will at some point have to be addressed.

"Is there such a thing as 1st degree rape, 2nd degree rape and third degree rape?"

My question is, without a doubt hypothetical, but in reality it isn't hypothetical because these situations do occur.

My understanding is that historically, juries have been leary of punishing those whom they first convict of rape with severe penalties when the punative decision comes. Is this because juries perhaps are indicating that there are degrees with the crime of rape...just as there are degrees of murder?

[bloom]

166. Different levels could be a good idea - n/t

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

171. Another friend posed this question to me last week

There really isn't a need for degrees on rape, only a definition. The reason being, there are often other counts for other crimes associated with the rape, i.e kidnapping, attempted murder, battery, etc.

[bloom]

177. I was t hinking about that, but...

it seems like kidnapping, attempted murder, battery, etc. added to the crime of rape should make the punishment multiply instead of just add up. IMHO

[jpgray]

142. The situation you describe is rape, yes, but tone needs to be addressed

For me, and most men I imagine, it is generally accepted the woman will demur at the first physcial overtures. The universal assumption is you try a little more, and if she still isn't having it, stop immediately.

Now, I like to think I can differentiate between coyness and outright refusal. If I ever got the latter, I would stop immediately and not continue with anything. But I think most men will try to go a little farther before giving up when they get a coy refusal.

Let me be clear: a man should never force his sexual advances on a woman. However, being the neanderthals that we are while blood is diverted from the brain to certian areas, it doesn't hurt to be clear and NOT coy if you are flat out refusing overtures and want them to cease immediately. If I get a coy "stop that", which I've heard in playful tones in the midst of several committed relationships, I will try a little further. If I got a "stop that" that sounded in deadly earnest, I would stop what I was doing--hearing that would freak me out no matter how far along we were. As far as "what if she were too drunk?", I wouldn't sleep with a woman so drunk as to be incoherent.

So if I moved to anal, and it was something my partner did not want, it would help if she were NOT coy about her refusal. Even if she does decide to be coy, I would stop immediately if asked to stop more than once.

Am I being wrong here? What should my policy be?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

159. I think your response is completely reasonable and not intending to

obfuscate at all.

I don't know that I would recommend a policy but for listening. Again, in the withdrawn consent case in California..she kept saying "I have to go" he PINNED HER DOWN and kept saying "just let me finish" That was the reasoning they provided in saying that consent was clearly withdrawn and that it met the threshhold of rape.

I would also think that in your instance you used that exact scenario as a defense, you would probably be heard and might not fair poorly....

Sorry your honor, she said no but was being a bit shy..I tried anyway but when she gave and emphatic NO I did the right thing...the law DOES look at what any REASONABLE person would do.

[jpgray]

169. Right, the CA case wouldn't happen to your normal guy--he would stop (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

174. I'd like to think so. From the sounds of it some might not

Look, let me try an example outside of rape.

A barroom fight between two people where one finally gains control of the other and beats the crap out of him. After beating the crap out of him and prevailing (the opponent is clearly down. no longer a threat and it is at that point multiple combat), he then jumps up and down on the guy's head until the now contained person dies of head injuries. At that point it becomes murder. This scenario happens often enough to be in the news with some frequency.

Carried over to a hypothetical rape...it might take ten, twenty seconds or possibly even a minute to get reason to prevail "WOW she really means it, I'd better stop." If you HEARD stop, "I have to go" "don't so that" and kept going...why?

[jpgray]

180. Wouldn't happen--hearing that would freak me out, and I would stop

Seriously. If you hear guys on this board saying "what if I just went for x more pumps" or somesuch, I believe they just have some nebulous fear about being tricked or misled into rape. I don't think the average guy would override the continued protests (however vague) of their partner.

Also it's sort of a defensive reaction to a law that primarily affects men. Like when sexual harrassment came to be recognized for what it was, you'd have guys that would never pinch an ass in their lives asking "what if I'm accidentally overheard telling a lewd joke? Is my career ruined?" and that sort of thing.

Violent individuals who can't control their impulses would be the most likely to have a problem with sexual assault and rape. They would also be likely involved in the situation you describe above. But most men are NOT violent individuals who can't control their impulses. Power struggles in the world of sexuality always get the hackles of both parties up... that's why these threads are so long. This law is perceived as a power loss for males and a gain for females, and it is a necessary one. Some guys here will be very defensive about it, even though they would never dream of abusing a woman in the way this new law prohibits. So do we have potential rapists in DU? I sincerely doubt it.

:)

[stickdog]

144. Definitely.

However, it's also my personal credo when it comes to mixed groups.

[Starpass]

162. I'm offended at the use of the words vaginal, sex and rape in this post

I feel it is entirely inappropraite and it is embarassing to me as a woman. We need not use this language...................Let us use more delicate language, please.........

[Aaron]

170. What words would you suggest in place of those? n/t

[Aaron]

248. Maybe that was sarcasm. My sarcasm-detector is bad n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

176. Ok but you were fine with anal right?

:D

[LWolf]

165. Yes.

No means no.

It doesn't mean maybe. It doesn't mean try to change my mind through coaxing, fear, intimidation, or manipulation. It just means no.

[Catherine Vincent]

178. Of course it's rape but let me end this thread right now....

Anal sex is not worth it, I tried it once with my bf and it was very painful. Most men are more than likely too big for anal sex. It's not worth the pain.

You guys need to get off your fantasies of anal sex with women. Vaginal sex is tolerable and much better. That's the way it should be anyways.

[foreigncorrespondent]

182. If the woman says no...

...and the guy still forces himself on her, then of course it is rape.

[Nobody]

185. Here's a radical idea

How about respecting our partners and stopping when the partner has had enough or is uncomfortable with a particular sex act.

I had an enlightening talk with some people who were into BDSM (bondage/dominance/sado-masochism). They have a concept known as a "safe word" that tells the dominant person to slow down and one that tells them to stop. When those words come up, they are respected. Always.

In the case of non-BDSM sex, the word "no" should be treated likewise. When someone says no, respect that no. If a person does not respect that no and take it seriously, that shows just how little the person respects the partner. It goes beyond sex and becomes violence.

Furthermore, women have been told over and over again not to resist if attacked, whether you're being raped, mugged, robbed, or harassed. When a woman is raped, and she listens to all those well-meaning idiots, those same idiots call her a slut who had it coming because she didn't come home bloody.

And let me tell you, if I say no and it's ignored, the one ignoring that no is going to be the recipient of major fighting back from one who is actually trained in unarmed combat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

187. Well Well Well

We now learn that the rumor that Kobe Bryant tried to force his alleged victim to have anal sex is not true. That rumor started with Drudge. I wonder why?

As I said in an earlier post the accusation that Kobe or any man would go from consensual penis-vaginal sex to anal sex without seeking the permission of his partner didn't have the ring of truth.
Without consent and preparation acts like that can bring joy neither to the grantor or the recipient.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

191. But as I stated, the thread wasn't about Kobe. I simply thought the rumor

posed an interesting question for those that seemed to think that NO in the middle of what began as consensual sex was unreasonable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

194. No Means No

but I think if a no is offered it would be offered way before that point.

That rumor never had the ring of truth to me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

200. Did you read the original post?

The original post had to do with consensual vaginal sex occurring and then turning to anal sex and the person proceeds anyway. Therefore, a NO wouldn't be offered WAY before that point necessarily.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

203. I read the original post and than the nearly two hundred posts that

followed it.

I am still trying to understand what the gist of the argument is.


No means no. I just think as a practical matter I think a no is most likely to occur at that point where fondling transitions into intercourse.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

206. But one might engage in intercourse but not wish to engage in it anally

Again, my question was directed at those who felt that any withdrawl of consent after sexual intercourse began was a DEALBREAKER that did not rise to the threshhold of rape.

It is a legitimate legal question which for the most part has been treated as such.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

213. Respectfully, I think you are missing my point

I will make it. I hope this doesn't become like the Penthouse Forum.

The act in question requires express consent as well as a great degree of preparation and cooperation Without express consent and cooperation the act in question becomes damn near impossible.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

224. It clearly does NOT...if that were so then jailhouse rapes would not be an

issue. You seem to be saying anal sex is not possible without consent. That is FAR from the truth. If you really believe that you are seriously misinformed.

I do realize that people who WILLFULLY engage in it do prepare hygenically as well as by other means. That certainly does NOT mean that forced penetration cannot occur. It can and DOES. I can give you medical records of former clients to prove that point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

237. I think we are arguing on parallel

tracks.

I'm not a naif. I think everybody is familiar with the concept of jail house rape.

I just don't find out to be a plausible scenario that a man and a woman are engaged in consensual intercourse, the old fashioned way, and all of sudden the man decides he's in the mood for a little sodomy and the woman refuses and he keeps going.

That's my only point.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

241. I still take issue with your point

If it's consensual the old fashioned way, then he chooses the poop chute, she says no and he wraps his hands around her neck, her knowing he can snap it...it can and does happen. I would AGREE with you if you are only posting from the context of a loving relationship in which the request occurs with a normal male not prone to extraordinary violence or control (which BTW, I do believe constitutes the majority of men just to be clear)

[Mandate My Ass]

199. white hegemony denies power to nonmales and nonwhites

http://members.shaw.ca/sparkspeaks/languag2.html

<snip>

"Socio-linguistics include the study of the intersection of class and language, showing that binary construct of language reflects male as the norm, identifies women's inequity:

"The issue, simply stated, is power: who has it and who doesn't. Men do the things they do to protect their territory. The boundaries are sometimes fuzzy, but men will defend to the death every square inch of what they believe they `own'. In this conflict, control of the language is the crucial weapon men must keep from their enemies, because it is the first and most important method for internalising oppression in the minds of those they oppress." 14


In other words, convince women to accept that their social, moral, and physical `inferiority' results from personal failures, and not from a site of systemic oppression. Women come to believe that they are personally responsible for failure.

<snip>

English does more than hinder and hurt women: it proscribes the boundaries of the lives we imagine we might imagine, and will ourselves to live. The many ways that language obstructs our ability to conceive of ourselves as agents in the world, or as capable of rebelling against male tyranny, go beyond mere hurt to emotional, intellectual, and physical immobility that keeps us men's easy prey. We find it difficult to think outside those categorical grooves made by men, and, even as we learn the courage and necessity of speaking for ourselves, our thoughts still conform to the structures that perpetuate male dominance. Even as we demand the right to live and breath independent of men and their dependence on us, our ideas slip into the grooves worn by repetition."

[aquart]

209. Yes. It's rape. No means no.

And damn anyone who thinks otherwise.

[sendero]

231. this gets my nomination....

... as the stupidest thread ever.

The law says it is rape. Therefore it is rape. End of very stupid story.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

233. Thanks for your vote. You make a difference.

[SPICYHOT]

247. No means no

independent of the gender if one part says no, what's the point in to continue?

[are_we_united_yet]

254. sorry

It is rape!

[Name removed]

255. Deleted message

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

[Nobody]

261. Then ground rules need to be stated

The most important ground rule for me is if I tell you no, you stop. Immediately.

If someone's partner likes the rough sex, there needs to be a way to let it be known that enough is enough.

It's not that hard. Go do a google on "safe word". Before doing anything that could injure your partner, discuss where the boundaries are and how to let your partner know that those boundaries have been crossed.

[Booberdawg]

267. ".......but I don't see how it could be rape"

"If she tells him to stop (more likely screams at him to stop), then he sure as hell better stop. But there should be a grace on the first few strokes so he has time to react and pull out. By this time the poor girl may be in need of stitches, but I don't see how it could be rape."


Are you serious????????

[salin]

274. Interesting take on it

wouldn't you say. Keeps going a bit... require stitches... but its all jolly good. :eyes:

[Against ME]

282. Well consider the circumstances

If you're having sex with a girl, and she has not told you not to go analy, and you decide to, and she does not tell you to stop, or resist untill you're already doing it, and then she screams to stop, and "she needs stitches", then you have not committed rape.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

286. No then you are just a run of the mill *********(fill in the blank)

It's pretty clear some of you are really simply out to take a genuine issue and antagonize. You made that clear in the thread you started.

Please call me when your asshole is ripped by another man and tell me it is just a joke.

As I said in another thread. This level of chauvinism simply has more and more women being repelled by you and accepting dinner invitations with me. Of course you will blame that on feminism rather than take an inward look at what you may have done to cause your own rejection but hey...a victim is borne every minute...right.? When it's a rape victim no big deal....when it's you...big deal right?

[Against ME]

294. You are not being pragmatic,

If the girl doesn't stop you from moving from her vagina to her ass, then it is as good as consent. If when you're doing it, she doesn't like it, that doesn't give her the right to charge you with rape.
Every bad sexual experience is not rape.
If I'm getting intimant with a man, and one thing leads to another and he starts to engage in sex, and I don't like it after it's started, I have no right to say it was rape, because it was not rape. By your logic if a guy and girl are getting intimate and the guy starts to penetrate the girl, and it hurts her and she says stop and he stops, then it was rape.

Just because it was a negative experience, doesn't mean it was rape. And unless you can tell me why I'm being a chauvanist, I will assume it is an unfounded attack.

[salin]

301. The question is two fold

did you consent, and in your scenario you did (not rape). Then, did you remove consent, if so and he kept going then it was rape. Rape only comes into play when you do not consent, the other person is aware of it and continues on in the act. At that point it becomes forced and violent and rape.

[Wonder]

358. you are wrong

you say

If the girl doesn't stop you from moving from her vagina to her ass, then it is as good as consent. If when you're doing it, she doesn't like it, that doesn't give her the right to charge you with rape. Every bad sexual experience is not rape.

she has every right to STOP what she doesn't like. that is what this NEW LAW is addressing IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE NEW LAW and instead insist on being stubborn about it. you will be rightful accused of rape, based on the scenario you just described above. Why? because perhaps why she allowed you to change venue was because she herself had never tried and did not know whether or not she might not like it. once anal penetration occurred was when perhaps she realizes this is not for her. At that point she is within her right by law to withdraw consent.

If I'm getting intimant with a man, and one thing leads to another and he starts to engage in sex, and I don't like it after it's started, I have no right to say it was rape, because it was not rape. By your logic if a guy and girl are getting intimate and the guy starts to penetrate the girl, and it hurts her and she says stop and he stops, then it was rape.

wrong if you don't like it after it is started and state outwardly have every right to stop it. period.

Just because it was a negative experience, doesn't mean it was rape. And unless you can tell me why I'm being a chauvanist, I will assume it is an unfounded attack.

It has nothing to do with it being a negative experience. It has nothing to do with what you feel are the rules. THE LAW STATES if for any reason a sex partner male or female withdraws consent, if the sex continues after consent is withdrawn a rape has occurred.

Now just because you may thing it is cute to resist this law. Does not mean that if you violate you will not be accused, charged and convicted of rape. so you can resist the law or not like the law all you want. It is the law. period. The both scenarios you raise are perfect examples of when one sex partner would have every right to withdraw consent.

[Against ME]

438. You whole first paragraph is a none issue,

because an above post said it was rape if you moved to another hole, and "ripped" and she needs stitches. I was proving that if she didn't no consent, then damage is irrelevant when proving rape. Read the post before mine, it will help you to understand what I am saying.

"wrong if you don't like it after it is started and state outwardly have every right to stop it. period."

Please, telle me how your quote is any differenet than

"If I'm getting intimant with a man, and one thing leads to another and he starts to engage in sex, and I don't like it after it's started, I have no right to say it was rape, because it was not rape. By your logic if a guy and girl are getting intimate and the guy starts to penetrate the girl, and it hurts her and she says stop and he stops, then it was rape."


You are the most condescending person I have ever met, you twist my words, and then call me cute for things I did not do. You are seeing things in black and white. In one scenario, I bring up that the guy might not hear, or comprehend what the girl is asking, and if she does not further persue him to stop, then why is he at fault. And the other scenario was from a previous post, in which I showed that getting hurt from sex does not correlate with rape. I said, if I don't like what he is doing ,and i tell him to stop and he stops, then it is not rape. The other poster was telling me it was.
Try to read what I say in context, and then try to understand what I wrote

[Wonder]

442. please read here so we are talking about the same post

I rewrote it when I pasted it in. Please reread it and post to it. I rewrote it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=130104&mesg_id=152522&page=

[Against ME]

447. Okay, what I say stands.

Read the posts leading up to that, and read what I said for what it is. And then if you think I am stil lin the wrong we can continue.

[Wonder]

444. let's get something straight AgainstME: you write a post about DOING HER

AND YOU ARE CALLING ME the most condescending person YOU EVER MET? I think you need to check yourself. You are telling me to try to read what you say in context...

Consider yourself READ. I READ YOU on that other thread you openned wherein you expressed who RIDICULOUS you thought this law is. PAY ATTENTION AgainstME. Do you think this is the first thread I have encounter your poetic thoughts and intellectual discourse?

Lets meet down at that other post. So we can get this straight.. you and I... because you are a jive piece a work as far as I can see. And there is not one word yet I have read that you have written that has told me differently. You have expressed yourself with great DISRESPECT in that other thread I read of yours YET you have the AUDACITY to falsely accuse me of personally insulting you.

As represented by that post you made wherein you make it clear that your women are DONE. You made your ACT real clear. Doesn't take a clairvoyant to see just where you are coming from. So if you want to talk with me it might behoove you to CUT THE BULLSHIT.

[Against ME]

448. Well wonder,

I suggest you shouldn't apply attacks you have against me, to points I am making. If you go back and look, much of you infamous 358 agrees with me, and pins things on me, that I did not start.

Yes I did say "doing her", because I live in a society where that is acceptable, but that is quite irrelevant to me being condescending, and it is really quite irrelevant to this post. I now regret saying it, but I wanted to keep that post lighthearted, and I thought that might achieve it.

Where have is given disrespect? and where did I falsely accuse? That post was on the other thread, and I said it once and only once, I have been completley acceptable since then. If you cannot argue and want to limit everything to one phrase, then be my guest, but yes lets finish down below.

[Wonder]

453. No AgainstME the expression DOING HER is not acceptable

I do not care what the society implies... if the society told you it was fun to stick your head in a urinal would you do it just because the society accepted it as fun.

just the terminology is disrespectful AgainstME, and if you can not see that you might need to learn some manners.

as to where you falsely accused me. I never insulted you personally. that was another play as far as I am concerned you are running by me, and it was not based in reality.

Yes that post was on the other thread but you wrote it didn't you. Just because you wrote that post in another thread does not mean it is an impression forgotten.

you say... Yes I did say "doing her", because I live in a society where that is acceptable, but that is quite irrelevant to me being condescending, and it is really quite irrelevant to this post. I now regret saying it, but I wanted to keep that post lighthearted, and I thought that might achieve it.

How do you figure saying DOING HER is not condescending or that it is irrelevant to you .... YOU SAID IT... it is very relevant to you.

now are you saying that DOING HER is a flattering use of terminology? Is that what you are telling me?

[Booberdawg]

309. Again - are you serious??

Here is your original statement:

"If she tells him to stop (more likely screams at him to stop), then he sure as hell better stop. But there should be a grace on the first few strokes so he has time to react and pull out. By this time the poor girl may be in need of stitches, but I don't see how it could be rape."

If the few initial strokes result in "the poor girl requiring stitches", don't you think that suggests a severe change of tone from consensual sex to violence and the use of force? In that case, why would any woman consent in the first place to having her asshole lacerated so severely that it required stitches??

Are you suggesting that women who DO consent to anal sex often require a trip to the emergency room for stitches afterwards?

Are you okay with the idea of performing anal sex on a woman if you believe it will result in her asshole being lacerated and requiring stitches?

[Against ME]

440. First of all, you are just wrong.

If a girl consents to me having sex with her, and does not resist when I move to have anal sex, untill I'm already doing it, and she tells me to stop, and I instantly stop, then it is not rape. The consequences of the girl, is irrelevant to the actions involved with rape. If she needs to go to the hospital after she consented, then It was not rape, it was just a mistake.

The quote that you brought up, is not mine, and I was going off the scenario brought up. And if you want to challenge the quality of the scenario, you are talking the wrong person. If she consents, and does not stop me from penetrating her ass, even if it does hurt her, then IT IS NOT RAPE. The same thing can happen vaginally too, usually not the this extent, but I did not define the terms.

The fact is, I do not know how compatable her ass is with my penis, if it happens to lacerate her, then I would stop, but she does not have the right to charge me with rape. She wanted me to do it.

[Booberdawg]

445. Okay, my mistake

It was the scenario that I took issue with. I must have missed where it came up originally.

My apologies. :hi:

[Wonder]

351. as soon as she resists YOU STOP

in this case scenario you just offered... that she screams for the male to stop he stops. period. if the male does not stop... it is rape... there is nothing hard about this.

[Booberdawg]

257. Of course it’s rape.

Of course it’s rape. It’s distressing that this is even a question in any person’s mind, but there are men, albeit a few, who like to argue that once “some” sexual contact has taken place they have a blank check to do whatever else they want and the woman has waived her right to have any choice in the matter.

I posed a situation in another thread in which the man is raped that might be instructive here. In this case, they were having consensual sex, and then the woman started to massage his balls. This is a major turn on for her and he was getting pleasure from this. She started applying more pressure, and initially this gave him more pleasure and was still consensual, but at some point she applied so much pressure it became painful. He asked her to stop and tried to push her hand away, but she was very turned on and sexually excited by this and continued anyway. In spite of his continued protests she applied even more pressure and resisted having her hand moved until she climaxed 20 or 30 seconds later. Needless to say, he is in pain – and now he’s furious.

So, does this man have the right to change his mind about having his balls massaged, even though he initially consented to this, (and even enjoyed it)? Does this man have the right to say no to having his balls touched at all, even though he consented to other sexual contact? Does this man have the right to withdraw his consent if the woman is so turned on by it she is close to climax? Is it okay for the woman to continue over his protests while she contemplates whether he really means no, or because she likes it regardless of whether he does? Is the woman entitled to a “grace period” of 20 to 30 seconds to “finish”? Was this man assaulted? Was he raped? Does he have any right to feel victimized by what she did?

Can you imagine the outrage from some men if I were to suggest that because this guy initially consented he was “asking for it”? Can you imagine the outrage from some men if I were to suggest that he didn’t have the right to refuse to have his balls touched if other sexual contact took place with consent? Can you imagine the outrage from some men if I were to suggest that once he agreed to have his balls massaged, he had no right to change his mind? Can you imagine the outrage from some men if I were to suggest that since this was so intensely pleasurable to the woman that the man no longer had any choice in the matter? Can you imagine the outrage from some men if I were to suggest this man is a loser, a tramp, a teaser, a whiner, and just should have known better than to allow himself to get into this position to begin with?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

I have a feeling that the same men who resist the notion of a woman saying no or changing her mind would find the issue less ambiguous if the roles were reversed.

[West Coast Democrat]

268. It depends on whether someone is forcing an act

if a sexual act is forced, then it is rape. If I just said I didn't want to try it, but then let it happen anyway without fighting it off, then no...but perhaps it would be very unpleasant. If it's a matter of whether forced non-vaginal intercourse can be considered rape, of course it is...whether it happens to a woman or a man.

[Against ME]

272. I have no problem with saying no, and the guy continueing

being considered rape, but a law that says if a girl says no and you continue for say one more thrust, then it is rape. Not to mention that when you are in the act, you may not be aware of a girl simply saying no, but you would still be considered a rapist.

If the girl heads south and I ask her not to, but stay and let her do it, then it is not rape. Saying no, and yet still letting her do it is seems to convey that I really wanted her to. If we're becoming intimate, and she starts to do something, and I simply say no, then she is not raping, because I could stop it if I want. She is not forcing me, I am willingly participating, by staying and not moving out of the way or back off. Now if I say stop stop stop stop, and physically get her attention and try to get her off me, and she still does it, then it is rape.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

283. There isn't any law that says that

[Against ME]

289. Yeah, but a law allows for that.

It is to random, it doesn't specify how long it should take for the other person to respond, and what is sufficient for the victim to do to convey he/she is removing consent.
It allow for way to many people to be accused of something that is not IMO a crime.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

293. Here is the law. Please elaborate

(c) A person who initially consents to sexual
penetration or sexual conduct is not 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.

[Against ME]

298. Yes okay here's a scenario, that it allows for.

A unexperienced boy is having relations with an unexperience girl, and they are starting to get into it when the girl says stop. The boy who is not mentally aware of anything other than the fact that he's gettings something he's wanted for 5 years, continues in the same manor as before. The girl says nothing else, but does not work towards the common goal, which she probably wasn't doing in the first place, so their was no change.

According to this law the boy has just raped her. You don't see a problem with this?

[salin]

322. Lets try the same scenario

the girl is really nervous and unsure about doing this. It goes against her "morals" and she is scared. The boy starts - she freezes. Says "STOP/NO" but he is oblivious. She shuts down further... suddenly each penetration is like a punch - not on in the face but one into the inside of her body... she feels as if she is getting pummeled... thrust... (stop!).. thrust... (omg) thrust... (help!)... thrust... (yikes).... she is immobilized.... thurst (oh please god let this be over soon)... thrust... (OW)... thrust... (oh god what is happening he wont stop)... thrust.... etc. and he wonders why she is in tears, shaking/trembling and cant speak when he finishes.

Now, if the young man had been given any awareness of rape, and how common it is, and that some young men, just like him - do it. And if he was given an awareness of how that same incident is likely to screw up the girl in the head for a long, long time... make her possibly either inable to have intimate relations til she deals with the rape.. or conversely leads to a period of excessive promiscuousness (both common aftermath effects of rape)... perhaps he would be more attune to her when he is beginning his thrusting - and there for more aware and hears when she says STOP/NO!

[Against ME]

336. Okay, but in your case she never consented,

and in my case she did, and then retracted the consent.

Their's a certain amount of nerves, on the side of the innocent boy too. Their's a certain amount of fear, and if this girl is capable of completely freezing up, then you would also admitt that a scared boy is completely capable of missing or being unaware if a girl simply says stop once, and then does nothing else. You cannot dismess my scenario, and then say yours is possible, I am willing to recognize that your scenario is possible.

But, is anyone at fault if the girl says yes, the scared fearfull nervous girl sasys yes, and the scared nervous fearfull boy begins to have sex, then she says stop once, the boy, may not be aware of such a request, he is probably so caught up in the moment, and the girl freezes up, showing no signs of resistance or displeasure, and is hurt and emotionally scared by the experience? To me it seems that they both are at fault, the girl has resposibility, she put herself in this position, atleast in the case I have described, she has. Maybe that is why it is better for girls and boys to wait untill they are mature, and able to handle it. But it seems the girl is taking the risk, or the boy if he freezes up, when he/she consents at a young age.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

337. No I don't. I see a bigger problem with the boy not being educated

and being indoctrinated by a group of men that may have trained him not to hear this. If you take me on a drive and I say, take me home and you proceed to drive me to some other location it can be considered abduction depending on the circumstances. WHy is it so hard to get this about rape?

You wish to make it about dissatisfied customers. Even your languaging regarding it is revealing "I go for the ass"...perhaps being mindful that there is a person attached to that ass would be a start. It goes to objectifying your mate.

[Against ME]

355. You keep trying to demonize me,

the scenario was supposted to be dis-connected, and I wanted it to sound ridiculous. You are making to many assumption, you are turning me into what you want me to be.

If we're driving to the movies, and you tell me you want to go with me, and then half way through while i'm talking on the phone, and in heavy traffic, you say once "I want to go home" then it is not abduction

[salin]

356. interesting comparison

so that you are not demonized... let me ask... you are comparing a benign trip to the movies... and a drive in traffic to rape?

[Against ME]

370. NO, READ THE POST BEFORE MINE,

so loaded, "benign trip" "to rape"

I don't know if you just didn't read the post before mine, or if you did. If you did then you are once again trying to discredit me through half-truths and assumptions.

[salin]

378. didn't catch the details

thus I appologize for pinning the comparison on you.

Don't agree with the second analogy - but that does not merit "demonization" (strong word - I would call it dismissiveness).

[Against ME]

436. Okay, fair enough.

eom

[Wonder]

362. no one is demonizing you.

your resistance to the law can be rightfully construed by others as indicative of your ignorance. But if you fail to understand this law, it may be that you will run the risk of breaking it. if you break it the law has been clarified to protect your accusers right to withdraw consent whether or not you feel she has that right or whether or not you feel she may not be correct for doing it. you see Against ME the state that you live in is not playing by your rules, but instead has made an important clarification to Rape Law. Your rules and your considerations are meaningless in regards to the new clarification to rape law. You know the law. you break it. you pay for it. simple.

[Against ME]

373. Thanks, no wonder people are demonziing

"rightfully construed by others as indicative of your ignorance", I mean it's so obvious

I understand the law completely, no one has said I haven't, and I have not even challenged the meaning of the law.

I don't know how else to respond, if you would clearify what you're saying, and insteand of saying "your rules" tell me what the rules are, and instead of making things so personal, keep it on topic.

[Wonder]

379. I clarify "your rules" in my post #358

you will have to read post #358 and let me know if I make it clear what I mean by "your rules" as opposed to the law. The law overrides "your rules."

[Wonder]

395. Haven't read post 358 yet AME. What is up with that?

[Wonder]

400. still no AgainstME GEE and I thought he wanted to discuss this civily

are you having a problem ascertaining the difference AgainstME between YOUR RULES vs THE LAW. If I stand corrected with my read on you. I urge you to correct me. I would much prefer you correct me than falsely accuse me of personally attacking you. How do you like that still now response from AgainstME.

[Name removed]

364. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

412. I' m demonizing no one

I challenged your assertions and I challenged your language. If challenging you is demonizing you then I can't really be responsible for that.

But first of all, let's clarify a couple things. I couldn't really follow your post 272 but you present a scenario as though the law favors any gender. The law states "PERSON" and is therefore, gender neutral.

You also state over and over the POOR INNOCENT MALE in other posts. If a female says STOP and he doesn't STOP, according to the law, he is NO LONGER poor and innocent.

Now, extrapolate this to the ACTUAL EVENTS described in the case that I posted and the justices decisions.

The justices even clarified it was not about him being bad in bed or showing her a BAD TIME. It was about the fact that she said THREE TIMES "I have to go". While they make no concession for the length of time that elapsed, IMHO that would make for a BIGGER mess. This way leaves it to the fact pattern in each individual case.

Let's pretend the justices had said, it was rape because a REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME would have been 2 minutes.

If I say STOP AND YOU IMMEDIATELY pin me down push real hard and fast and ejaculate within 2 minutes, I could have been raped and you could have claimed the 2 minute rule cited from the case as an affirmative defense.

They also didn't say pull out in a NANOSECOND OR YOUR TOAST.

It wasn't tied to timeliness in all likelihood for a good reason. It isn't the TIME but the totality of the circumstances that will weigh more heavily as it should be. Time would simply be a convenient focus for the accused and the accuser.

I'm not out to demonize anyone.

I will point out language that you use that may indicate and underlying interpretation of others. Language is how we define and interpret our environment.

[bloom]

299. you want something black and white

like a time period - .075 seconds or something. That is silly.

There are many laws where reasonableness is taken into account. Prosecutors don't consider prosecuting the kind of trivialness you are suggesting.

[Against ME]

303. But something as importantant as rape law,

needs to be in black and white, and cannot allow for "trivial" things to come into play. The fact that such triviallness can be applied to this law is a red flag.

[bloom]

307. Have you read through these threads?

Do you know the case that the law was based on?

[Against ME]

311. yes I do,

wasn't it between two 17 year olds? I was the one that started the first thread, to my knowledge about this.

[salin]

323. and he kept going for quite some time

and you are only empathizing with the boy in the story?

[Against ME]

330. I have never said that,

or even hinted at that, but I am not suprised that you are using this in an attempt to demonize me.

[bloom]

332. Another "victim"

try looking at your post #298 to find your "hint"

[salin]

340. It was an easy inference

based on the example you gave (two inexperienced kids girl says stop boy doesn't hear... is it rape?) with only a view of the boys perspective, followed by your comment that your scenario (the above) was based on the case. Hence... it appears that your empathy is with the boy. While it was easy to draw that conclusion, I appologize that I was not more couched in my terms... "it appears, based on the scenario you gave, that you claim is based on the case, that your empathy is focused on the boy with no equal time for the girl"... is that more to your liking?

[Against ME]

354. I never said my scenario bas based on the case,

i said the law allowed for it, and the inference is only their if you want to put words in my mouth, and put me in a group with everyone else.

No, my empathy is with the one i precieve to be experiencing injustices. The girl experience an injustice, but i do not believe the solution is to pin rape on a boy/girl that did to their knowledge nothing wrong. To me them going to jail for this would be a bigger injustice.

[salin]

359. Just curious

it is clear you understand what is at stake for the young man, but can you tell me what the likely consequences over time are for this young lady after going through this (the REAL case not your version)?

[Against ME]

366. The consequences are that

she will be emotionally damaged, and everything else stems from that. Their are many different avenues that can result from such a case.



(the REAL case not your version)?

What I brought up was not a version of the case the law was created over, it was simply something that could happen. I never addressed the case that the law was created for. What I said was not a "version", but something completely independent, questioning the law, and not even touching the "case".

[salin]

374. Then i misunderstood

the damage can take many, many forms - but it is there. It can be higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse. It can be the inability to form intimate relationships or it can lead to the disolvement of a current intimate relationship (including marriage). It affects self esteem in many different ways. It can lead to excessive promiscuity. In the end it often effects people extending beyond the victim. Thus a discussion of the problems brought to the boy over percieved ambiguity, wihtout a discussion of the problems brought to the girl - is woefully incomplete. Why? Because then when we move the conversation to what we do about it - we think holistically about the situation rather than the fairness/justice for the boy. Ideally we talk about how to prevent the scenario and variations of it from happening in the first place.

[Against ME]

380. Okay, Okay.

I see your point, but, the question at hand is not if the girl was harmed or not, but rather a what I precieve as an innocent boy should be charged with rape. To think of the consequeces that the girl will suffer will bring emotion into the consequences the boy should suffer. They need not be equal, but they need to be just.

You know my scenario well, but I do not know if you would still want the boy to be convicted of rape. Would you under my circumstance think the boy has committed rape? Remember, the definition of rape has nothing to do with the consequences the girl will suffer, but the actions at hand.

[salin]

387. and there is our disagreement

I don't find him as innocent as you. I think if the boy was aware of this possible outcome - he might have listened a little more closely to his partner. I think these are preventable situations. More focus should lie in prevention.

Btw, don't you think the sentencing policies have been developed in part because of the recognition of the consequences the victim suffers?

An afterthought: when nothing happens to said boy - why - does he ever listen to his partners? This sort of sets a precedence for him. I sure don't want him going out on his second date/potential experience with my niece.

[Against ME]

441. Hey, though the girl knew this could be a possible outcome too.

that she would become scared, and all the other things i've deffined. Why is it his job to listen, once he has consent, he knows he can do what he is doing. Doesn't the responsibility of communicating the need for the activities to stop lie with the person that wants it to stop?

I think you are underestimating the power of the boys conscience, I would assume had her heeard understood her, he would stop. If this happened to me, I would be scared to ever have sex again, the emotional consequences weigh heavily on both sides.

The sentencing policies are effected by the severity of the victim's suffering, but proving guilt or innocents is totally independent of the suffering.

Just think how emotionally damaging it would be for you, if after getting done having sex, you find out that your partner didn't want to do it, and is completely afraid of you, and going to press rape charges.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

446. Yes it would be emotionally damaging to rape someone and be

charged with it. YOu already indicated in this series of posts that permission had been withdrawn.

I'm not out to demonize anyone as you suggested. I think the backlash OR REBELLION as I prefer to call it that has feminists DEMONIZED is an irrational fear. That fear is that if women have power, men won't get their way.

I am not out to see anyone wrongfully punished but I think the onus has been on the woman or GIRL far too long and that everything in our culture encourages young guys to go get LAID regardless of the consequence it creates be it pregnancy, not LISTENING to a NO or the like.


Do me one eeny meeny teeny tiny favor. At least LOOK at this site and see what distinguishes THEIR outlook from yours. I have read all the MEN's rights sites. In fairness I would like at least ONE male who argues along your lines to look at this site.

http://www.mencanstoprape.org/info-url2699/info-url_list.htm?section=U.S.%20Men\'s%20Antiviolence%20Organizations

[Against ME]

452. Tell me this doesn't demonize me

"“No then you are just a run of the mill *********(fill in the blank)”
“This level of chauvinism simply has more and more women being repelled by you and accepting dinner invitations with me. Of course you will blame that on feminism rather than take an inward look at what you may have done to cause your own rejection but hey...a victim is borne every minute...right.? When it's a rape victim no big deal....when it's you...big deal right?”"

Call me chauvanistic, then tell tell me I won't get any women and will attribute that to one of your headlines.


I will look at this site, but please explain to me what you precieve to be "your Lines"...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

459. I'll admit.

At the time that YOU arrived with your unique set of questions, I had had it with another poster and responded to you not taking into account that you actually were asking an honest question.

I apologize.

I hope you accept my apology.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

346. Here is the case. Here is their reasoning for the interpretation

It was a 5 to 1 decision.

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.

EDITORIAL NOTE: if you add the time up, he appears to have continued for over 6 minutes. Tie a rope around your neck and hang for six minutes...it's a long time

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

[salin]

350. oh.. but he was young.. surely he didn't hear what she was saying

.. oh - then he grabs her waist and pushes her down..and continues...she says it again... he continues.... she says it again... he continues... so much for absurd fake theory/scenario it just doesn't seem to fit.

[Against ME]

357. Everything you say is absolutely loaded,

and condescending. Why don't you try actually addressing things i've brought up, then we can accomplish something constructive.

[salin]

361. I have - just from the girls perspective

you seem to continue to minimize the real heavy impact of the event on the girl. Having been raped, I can tell you from a second to second perspective of how long it lasts and how horrible it is.

So until you include that reality - and then discuss that as part of the equation - not just that sure it is bad for her but it would be worse of an injustice to him... then we can talk. I have yet to see an honest recognition of what you are asking us to swallow in your scenario. Until I do, I will treat it lightly - and yes, be as condescending as the scenario you have created - without the real perspective of the female (which is much more than you suggest) - as you are being in pitching the scenario.

[Against ME]

369. Why, do you associate a bad sexual experience with rape?

If a girl or boy is having sex, and finds that it hurts, and doesn't like it, and doesn't nothing to stop it, it is not rape.


What are you talking about, I haven't hidden behind words or anything, I've been straight foward with what I'm saying.

how's this, the scenario is one that will happen often, a virgin girl and a virgin boy having sex, when they are not mature enough to.

They start off easy, then one thing leads to another, and the girl willingly allows the boy to penetrate her, and then some arbitrary time into that sex, the girl decides that she is not ready, she becomes very scared, more so than she was, and nervous. She percieves the boy on top of her as an enemy, because he is still having sex. She thinks about, embarraced to wan to stop, but decides to say stop. She says stop to the boy, but the boy does not respond, and keeps going. At this point she becomes petrefied and freezes up. She is to afraid to move, to talk to do anything. This boy she sees is penetrating her now against her will.

Now that I have acknowledged, and proven that I know what is going through the girls head, why don't you tell me what is going through the boys head. And do not turn this boy into some kind of horn dog, an innocent virgin guy, that is just as scared and nervous as the girl.

[salin]

382. I appreciate the more accurate description

but here we differ. When she declares - and gets to the point of freezing up - it is rape. You see it as a "bad sexual experience". There we differ. I don't think we are going to find agreement on it - but the scenario is much more realistic. Indeed, said this way, it might wake up some young men before their first experience - so they are more attune to the girl to ensure that they do not do this to a girl.

More information to both young people including honest discussions of rape and its impact, I would bet would lower some of the incidents of rape. Both through more clarity and understanding, as well as through forcing a little bit of empathy into the discussion. Then adding legal consequences - and some eager beavers might be a little more wary. Conversely, giving that same lectures along with what the consequences are for boys - (prosecution) - might make some young ladies a little more willing to be more specific and clear as well.

[Booberdawg]

402. Run that by me again??

Here is the hypothetical you posed:

"They start off easy, then one thing leads to another, and the girl willingly allows the boy to penetrate her, and then some arbitrary time into that sex, the girl decides that she is not ready, she becomes very scared, more so than she was, and nervous. She percieves the boy on top of her as an enemy, because he is still having sex. She thinks about, embarraced to wan to stop, but decides to say stop. She says stop to the boy, but the boy does not respond, and keeps going. At this point she becomes petrefied and freezes up. She is to afraid to move, to talk to do anything. This boy she sees is penetrating her now against her will."

You have indicated that she told him to stop. And that the boy keeps going anyway. She sees him penetrating her now against her will because he IS. It's rape. That's not even taking in to account the numerous cues she has telegraphed - "becomes very scared", "nervous", "freezes up", "afraid to move". The fact that they are virgins is not relevant. It doesn't matter what her reason is for changing her mind. She doesn't need a reason.

Are you saying that you don't understand this is rape?

[salin]

407. I think she (he?) is saying

that the boy doesn't know the signs... so even if it is rape, if he doesn't know its rape, should he be charged with rape.

The poster finds this a more intriguing question than I. I do find it challenging - (as in ... poor kid) - but not questionable.

Still say more awareness raising before the kids are in this situation would make the answer that much more clear. If he KNOWS this is a possible outcome - he will be more attentive to the signs.

[Booberdawg]

424. Well it's pretty hard to tell

whether this person really understands clear examples of rape or is looking for loopholes to discount the consent of the other person.

This same poster described a situation earlier in which a man attempted anal sex and the woman refused, but by the time he stopped the woman required stitches. :wow: I can't imagine any scenario in which the amount of force and momentum required to cause a laceration requiring stitches could take place without force being used or taking a LOT longer than the time it takes to pull out.

I agree more awareness is needed to make the answers to such hypotheticals more clear. The time to be clear on what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior is before sex is contemplated.

[Against ME]

431. I must remind you,

that I was responding to such a scenario, and did not bring it up. If you cannot see such I case, then their is nothing I can say. I would venture to say ingongruous sexual organs is a problem that a feew would incounter.

[Booberdawg]

450. OK

I was under the impression that the scenario was your original words.

Nevermind!:)

[Against ME]

434. Did you read all my other posts,

this was just representing that I understood what the girl was going through, because I was told I did not.

The experience and consequences the girl has, does not define rape. The actions of the boy in spite of what the girl did would decide if something was rape. While what I described above is terrible, it is a folly to say something is rape because a girl doesn't like it, or is emotionally damaged by it. If she is scared enough to freeze up, and lose motion, then I have to admit that the boy could be so scared/ nervous, that he could also freeze up, and consequently not hear her say stop. And if that is the case, I cannot see how someone could want to charge him with rape. The consequences the girl will suffer is irrelevant to whether it was rape or not, and her internal thought process is irrelevant also. If she has consented, and fails to properly revoke the consent, then it is not rape. I guess the problem for me is the fact that she is so scared and neverous that her body can freeze, then it is also possible that the boy didn't hear/comprehend, whatever her request. If he is in the act of donig it, doesn't she have the responsibility to properly notify him that she no longer want to partake in the activity? Or should simply thinking he should stop suffice?

This situation is terrible, and I do not think the boy should be charged with rape because of a misunderstanding.

[Booberdawg]

454. I agree with this

.. as it's stated here.

In your original account of this she DID say no. That's what I was taking issue with.

[Wonder]

471. AgainstME. I have a couple of questions?

I just returned from dinner. Would you mind if I asked you two maybe three questions? I think it might help me to clarify some confusion both you and I might have in regards to this topic, and your understanding of it.

Let me know if you are up to answering a couple of questions.

[Wonder]

405. you have got to be pulling our legs AgainstME because

Because after being falsely accused of personally attacking you I thought you were sincere about wanting to discuss this civily or was that just a tactic. I must have misunderstood I thought you wanted to have a discussion about your rules vs. the law. My mistake.

[Against ME]

433. Your post lacks substance,

I cannot respond to this except by saying that I did not violate my will to keep this civil, and sure a disscusion of the law is what this is all about.

[salin]

409. I'll try

and not being a boy - I really have absolutely no idea.

But I imagine extreme anticipation at the moment... fumbling and akwardness at the beginning - twinged with a great deal of "performance anxiety" (am I doing this right)... (which in some ways would make me think he WOULD be intune to her freezing up.. but that's another thing altogether).... so he gets going...she says stop... he sorta hears it - but either thinks... (nah, I didn't just hear that)... or thinks (isn't that what they say - they are supposed to give a bit of a fight... since we are already going I think its okay)... so he keeps going. She freezes... he sorta notices but is so busy into trying to "finish" his business and get it right that he chooses to ignore it.

The thing I can't try to empathize with - is afterwards - how does he NOT notice she is still frozen, or is crying, or is shuttering?

This exercise, however, does not change my perspective of what happened. He "heard it" but chose not to hear it ("Stop/No!"), he noticed even if he didn't know what it meant the change in her body actions, yet he continued.

I keep coming back to the same place. Giving both kids more tools to understand this type of scenario before they are in it is the best way to avoid it.

[Wonder]

368. whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not

this clarification to rape law was necessary for the exact reason of the existence of the those two scenarios you raised. If in the future you take part in a scenario similar to one of the scenarios you raised in one of your earlier posts. It means you will be violating your partners rights. What right. her right to withdraw consent even after anal penetration. in that scenario if you do not withdraw she is within her right to accuse you of rape. This is now law.

[salin]

290. this is getting absurd

lets figure out the ways to skirt it ... and when making our partners need stitches is OKAY... lets count the number of thrusts that are okay after NO is invoked.. or get really funky and stopped - but then start again with more strokes and which stroke is which degree of rape...

Lets face it. For awhile this thread was constructive and civil.

Now it is absurd.

I hope those who are finding these little loopholes are just being contrary. And are not just giving demonstration of why that "murky line" (which appears not to be terribly murky to most posters) lead to a continued high rate of sexual assaults in this country.

[Against ME]

302. Why do you dismiss

valid arguments against such a law.

[salin]

324. absurdity does not valid make n/t

eom

[Wonder]

372. salin this was absurd from the words in his very first post on this thread

it is way past absurd now.

[Against ME]

377. Wonder, do you care to have a constructive argument?

Or are you going to continue to simply say i'm ignorant and absurd, and then tell me my rules are ridciulous.

First of all, it is impossible for you to know my rules, and to say that you do is a blatant lie, or a broad assumption.

I would like to discuss this with you, but it would be nice to do it in a manor that is civil and that actuall challenges each others ideas, not them.

[Wonder]

381. read my post 358 and then come back Ill wait

let us see if we can have a constructive discussion you and I about "your rules" vs the law. fair enough?

[Wonder]

394. so where are you Against ME?

post 358? I am very interested in your response to it.

[Wonder]

375. IMHO this post was absurd post 282 I pasted it here

against ME says

If you're having sex with a girl, and she has not told you not to go analy, and you decide to, and she does not tell you to stop, or resist untill you're already doing it, and then she screams to stop, and "she needs stitches", then you have not committed rape.

[salin]

389. In fairness

this is to what I was refering when I used the term absurd - but it was a different poster all together who created this little scenario.

[salin]

393. Never mind

just found the tagalong which built on the absurd post.

[Wonder]

398. is the tag along not absurd

I mean really and then it is suggested that I do not want to discuss this civily and that I am personally attacking. Salin. really at one point the resistance to this law is just no where. it is just game playing. Against ME as far as I can see, as he has not yet responded to my post 358 seems to feel he can overide THE LAW with HIS RULES.

I feel that is absurb based on the words he chose to use in those two scenarios he presented as not rape. or not a good enough reason for the girl he is DOING to change her mind. Just because she doesn't like the experience does not seem to be a good enough reason according to AgainstME's rules. of course my interpretation may not be accurate, but he has yet to respond to the distinction I make between:

AGAINSTME'S RULES vs THE NEW CLARIFICATION IN RAPE LAW OR THE LAW.

Absurd or not Absurd? I mean that he would really argue that a girl he is DOING can not withdraw consent simply because she does not like the experience. AND WHY? because AGAINSTME seems to feel she has to play by HIS RULES rather than by THE LAW.

Am I making sense?

[salin]

410. I am refering to the two posts (not yours)

the absurd thing I first refered to was the person (not agme) who created the anal sex keep going needs stitches scenario. So I posted that I thought you may have been addressing agme about something that another poster introduced. The tagalong was my going back and seeing that agme added to the scenario and that is what you were reacting to. My comments were more a clarification of my clarification. Sort of a "never mind" moment.

I found both the first scenario (and she needs stitches) and Againstme's followup absurd.

[Wonder]

420. oh well it doesn't matter salin

I did not mean for you to clarify I thought the need stitches post was an AgainstME post, however that was not the scenario I thought the most absurd. The againstME posts I found completey absurd where those addressed in my post 358 which he never came back to respond to. It doesn't matter all in all.

[Wonder]

371. whatever Against ME

blah blah blah is all you are saying. Your protests are based in non-issues. we have already been through this male concern. oh how long after no is it considered rape... you are wasting peoples time...

it is not how you define it. it is how the law defines it. if after a no you do not stop one would assume if the girl meant stop a struggle would ensue. it would be best to be very consciencious from this point on so when or if you hear no in the future after you have begun what you call "doing her" it will behoove you to pause and ask her what it is she meant by no.

[Against ME]

385. Once again wonder, you bring personal attacks and assumption into this.

I would wish you could see what I am saying, and only what I am saying instead of infering what others have said, and what you think about me.

You don't argue the issues, you dismiss everything I have said and narrow everything down to one comment. You assume that every circumstance will happen exactly how you think it should, and dismiss everything else. But now i'm becoming personal, and I don't want to do that, but it seems to be inevitable.

[Wonder]

392. have you read my post 358 yet? or do you prefer to avoid the issue?

stop accusing me of attacking you personally it is a cop out on your part. that is the way I preceive it. At this stage of the game I have now participated in this absurdity to the point that I have heard many of your concerns from other posters. IMHO, little of what you have offered by way of scenario is new to me. It is just wrangling. the law is clear it is you that appears to be confused.

we are not taking about an innocent boy and girl going steady having sex for the first time and you know it. So stop playing games and deal with the issue. post 358 I address your rules vs the law. I am still waiting to hear if you understand the points I make. or if you will return with yet another scenario wherein you will require further clarification. I am not saying you will do this, mind you but based so far on the scenarios i have read thus far. I have taken it upon myself to read you. And this innocent both virgins scenario is game playing on your part. that is who I read it. it is in no way a personal attack.

so stop resorting to that false accusation.

[Against ME]

435. Please provide a link to 358, or copy and paste.

I cannot find it.

[Wonder]

439. Post 358 pasted in.

you say

If the girl doesn't stop you from moving from her vagina to her ass, then it is as good as consent. If when you're doing it, she doesn't like it, that doesn't give her the right to charge you with rape. Every bad sexual experience is not rape.

Trust me if the issue is she just doesn't like it rape accusations will not be made. Judging from this scenario you have provided, while you say you understand the clarification of the law, it is clear that you don't. If you did you would not have provided this as a scenario.

However if while in the moment she might decide this little change in venue, is a bad experience and she says STOP and withdraws consent completely, her decision that sex should end is protected by the law and she is well within her rights to end it. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE NEW LAW and instead insist on being stubborn about it. If you force her and a struggle ensues; you could be rightfully accused of rape if indeed you do not heed her no or her displeasure and you FORCE the change in sexual venue on her.

Why would she change her mind is not your business. But lets look at one possibility why she might. Perhaps why she allowed you to change venue was because she herself had never tried it and did not know whether or not she would like it. When anal penetration occurred perhaps is when she comes to find this is not for her. At that point she is within her right to stop anal sex. If you chose not to stop and apply force wherein she can not pull away herself. you will be in violation of the rape law.

If I'm getting intimant with a man, and one thing leads to another and he starts to engage in sex, and I don't like it after it's started, I have no right to say it was rape, because it was not rape. By your logic if a guy and girl are getting intimate and the guy starts to penetrate the girl, and it hurts her and she says stop and he stops, then it was rape.

Is that your rule AgainstME. Well that is just tough because this law overides your rules. If you or me enters consentually into a sexual encounter and either of us find we are not turned on or for whatever reason we don't like it after it is starts both you and I are within the law to stop the sex. period.

Just because it was a negative experience, doesn't mean it was rape. And unless you can tell me why I'm being a chauvanist, I will assume it is an unfounded attack.

It has nothing to do with it being a negative experience. You are playing games and you know it. It has nothing to do with what you feel are the rules. THE LAW STATES if for any reason a sex partner male or female withdraws consent, if the sex continues forcibly after consent is withdrawn a rape has occurred.

Now just because you may thing it is cute to resist this law. Does not mean that if you violate you will not be accused, charged and convicted of rape. so you can resist the law or not like the law all you want. It is the law. period. The both scenarios you raise are perfect examples of when one sex partner would have every right to withdraw consent, and the party who was forced is within their rights to report a rape occurred.

This is not about your rules. your rules mean diddely. THE LAW overrides your rules. period.

[Against ME]

443. For the love of god, quit coming in on my responses to people

and pinning stuff on me.

The scenario you talk of, was not one i provided, just one I defended. Which you seem to agree with my position on. I've never disagreed that if she struggles it is rape, if she screams for you to stop it is rape, or if you know she wants to stop it is rape. You do not read what I say, you only make assumptions. You are telling me part of the laws I never challenged, read what I say.


once again, you are saying what I said. If she says stop, and I stop it is not rape, regaurdless if she is hurt. You are not reading the context of what I say, and you are not ever reading what I say. I have never once said that i can keep having sex with a girl if i know she doesn't want to.




You have not addressed anything I actually said. The only problem I had with this law, is that the girl might not sufficiently express it to the boy, but since she did express it, it would still be rape. If she is scarred enough to freeze after saying stop once, then then you must also acknowledge that the boy is capable of not comprehending understand or even hearing her request. The responisibility of withdrawling consent lies withen the one that is withdrawling, and if he/she does not communicate with the other person properly, then it is not rape.

Just try to tell me these aren't dismissive condescending, and personal.

"construed by others as indicative of your ignorance"
"Your rules and your considerations are meaningless in regards"
"blah blah blah is all you are saying. Your protests are based in non-issues"
"you are wasting peoples time..."
"civily or was that just a tactic"
"It almost seems you feel it is cute to resist it"
"IMHO your ignorance is showing."
All quotes by you.

[Wonder]

449. your problem with the law Against ME is a non issue.

<<The only problem I had with this law, is that the girl might not sufficiently express it to the boy, but since she did express it, it would still be rape>>

If that is your problem with the law... it is a non issue when women do not want sex to take place ... it is made clear... if a women does not like a change in venue ... she will make it clear ...

this notion that oh how will I know if she didn't like it is a bullshit little game some of you guys are playing in here... this little fear you have about being confused and then being falsely accused ... is another little myth you are perpetrating ... it seems it is you guys that are "DOING HER" that might just be the most confused about a clarification in a rape law that is actually quite simple to understand... nothing confusing about it.

now if you can't get that well than the only thing I can infer is that you have perhaps a little problem with comprehension... but cause most all of the post I have read that you have written are mostly just a waste of my time.

This is not about two young and innocent first timers here darlin'. In that instance there would be know change or rape occurring in some innocent way and you know it. If you don't know it something is wrong. something is seriously wrong. the only way in that scenario rape could be called is if she were underage and it was statutory or that young innocent boy was just DOING HER and could give a shit what she had to say about...

in the case when the boy is just as nervous as she... darlin' I do not think you would have to worry that the young girl would miscontrue it as rape. WOMEN DO NOT MISCONSTRUE RAPE. When a woman is RAPED...she knows she was RAPED she doesn't have to spend much time trying to figure it out.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

451. I disagree WONDER. I think his problem with the law is an issue

for him.

He's a young guy and wants some definition. The only request I would have is that he look to the way he is indoctrinated in society NOT to be geared to hear a subtle NO.

I agree with him that of the woman does NOT make her intention clear it's not rape...but as I said..in the California case...that girl said "I have to go" ..nowhere could one reasonably conclude she MEANT KEEP BOINKING me.

I think he's not arguing FOR rape...he's arguing FOR clarity.

I'm asking him to BE THE ONE TO GET CLEAR AND STAY clear during the occasion. I don't think the woman (or girl as the case may be)abdicated from that same responsibility, but she may not want to hurt him even though she doesn't want to DO IT...therefore ...if it even SMELLS like no, he should respect that and stop.


I don't think AGAINST ME is stupid or ignorant. I thnk he's probably young.

[Booberdawg]

455. Thank you. n/t

[Wonder]

474. interesting that you would jump in here

(just a note to myself)

[Against ME]

457. Keep in mind, I have never argued the actual case.

Thank you, and to me this law allows for an occasion where lack of clarity turns me into a rapist, do you not agree?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

462. I don't entirely agree with that and here's why

The law states that at ANY TIME consent is withdrawn, it's rape.

That was the case PRIOR to this law if you had made out but not actually engaged in penetration. You could have left DNA evidence before. ( I mean come on every once in a while that thing fires off before you even get going right?...ask Clinton)

As for the "he said, she said" part that some will argue that has ALWAYS been the case. She said she was raped, the guy put forth an affirmative defense that it was consensual. That's what results in SO FEW rape convictions compared to charges.

I really don't think this is as BIG of a deal as some suggest since the victim still has to be believed by a jury that she withdrew consent after she consented.

[Wonder]

469. NO i don't agree

This law could never turn anyone into a rapist. you know why? because it probably is as enforceable as all the other rape laws presently on the books. Burden of proof still rests on the state, and rape is impossible to convict.

A man is either a rapist or he isn't. I feel the confusion is not so much in the law as it is in the minds of those at odds with the law, and perhaps society itself, even as sad as this is, even some very confused women, some whom I have had the misfortune of encountering within these sex crime threads.

When I look at the reality in terms of prosecuting a rape, it seems clear to me that legislators made this clarification for the specific reason that date rape does occur regularly wherein a woman might consent to, for example, having a drink privately in either her apartment or his, or even engaging in foreplay, which does not mean she has consented to intercourse (nor does it mean she expects intercourse just because she may not be ready to go home or have the date end) whether it be vaginal or anal.

In this day and age considering the acceptable mores there is nothing out of the ordinary in a teenage or a young adult woman going indoors privately for more conversation or to smoke a joint or whatever with a guy after a movie.

That she does do this IN NO WAY MEANS she intends to have intercourse with her date. This clarification in the law focuses on withdrawal of consent. why? because in my mind when prosecuting a date rape even in these oh so modern times, a woman is looked down upon if she decides after a date to go private with the date, why? because societal mores have not caught up with the times in regard to women as they live within modern society whose mores have eroded considerable regardless of those that are of the opinion that morality can not be dictated.

Date rape is endemic. legislators know this better than most of us... The clarification in rape law pretty much proves this. Legislators are clearly trying to find a way to beat society at its own game.ergo the clarification in the law. That the law required this clarification is further proof of just how antiquated society is when it comes to women and not so much women, but women and sex.

I just had to say this... Against ME, the real truth is: Is that it is near to impossible to turn you or any man into a rapist even if you or any other man has raped.

[Wonder]

468. NSMA I have no problem

with you assessment. Wonder was not born yesterday. I agree with you your assessement. I just had to make clear regardless of what society says DOING HER is unacceptable. I do not judge AgainstME's intelligence. You are talking to a woman that lives and thrives on reality.

I do not believe Against ME is stupid or ignorant I believe he is young and misguided by societal conditioning just as you say.

I in no way was out to insult him. or harm him. at the same time. He needs guidance and clarification. The question is does he understand this. He may. I do not say that he doesn't. I had dinner and just returned and have not caught up on this thread yet. I will though and if at any time I find I disagree with your assessment I will let you know. At present my senses tell me that you are correct. That is based is the use of his wording in the post just before I told him the expression DOING HER was unacceptable. since those posts between Against ME and myself. I have just returned back from a late dinner.

[Against ME]

456. Okay wonder,

so we can just throw out my scenario, and you can tell me that the fact that women can freeze up(which someone else brought to my attention) won't happen.
I will admit that the first time I had sex, I was very afraid, and very immature. It was at a party, and I was completely unaware that people came in during it and come even watched. Had she asked me to stop, I probably would not have responded, beccause I would not have known she asked. But had she proceeded to put her hands on me, and get my attention, I would have stopped. I have been in this vulnerable position, and for that reason I can understand that this law technically could have said I was raping her if she would have said stop, and I wouldn't have responded.

With that in mind, do not twist this on me, into me not being aware, and I should, the fact was that I wasn't even aware of people in the room, so that leads me to beleive if she would have said stop I wouldn't have been aware. Do I deserve to be charged with rape, or should she have better communicated it to me. Guys block out thing when their watching TV, so why is it so hard for you to understand that someone could block out things during sex. I acknowledge that it is different, and I do not block people out when I watch tv, but I did when I was having sex. You can dodge this and tell me I said "doing her", and so I am wrong, but I will come back with this in rebuttle.

I am stupified, that you can dismiss possible situations like this so quickly, and then tell me their something seriously wrong.



To her in the scenario where i did not hear her, it would be rape, but to me it is not rape. My actions were not consestent with the def. of rape. The communication of withdrawling consent is on theperson withdawling.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

458. Sweetie...if you were at a party and people were walking in and watching

A) you were probably drunk or on your way to it
B) you VERY well COULD have committed rape (not saying you did but alcohol impairs judgement...just so you are clear I am not saying that OK?)


I DID have a similar occurence when I was your age. There WERE AND ARE consequences to it. Whether drinks are involved or not, once you are over 18, you ARE responsible for what you do with your body...some of it's legal...some of it's NOT...the LAW DOESN'T care if you are not aware of it.


It's ALL a wake up call as is this law.

[Against ME]

460. You dodged it,

I was not drunk, I was not high, I neither drink nor do drugs.

If she had said no, and I had not heard, do you maintain that I would have raped her?



Neither of us were 18, and we still aren't, not that that matters.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

463. Sure it matters. If you're not 18 you won't be tried as an adult

If she had said NO and you SHOULD have heard..is the legal question. If she did it in sign language behind your back...a jury probably wouldn't buy it.

If you had NOT heard because you were not listening, I doubt the law would feel sorry for you or take much mercy.

Our body parts come with a whole slew of responsibilities.

[Against ME]

464. True, but it is irrelevant to guilt or innocents.

Doesn't the person withdrawling cosent have a responsibility to communicate it to me, in a way that I will understand?

And isn't my actions that dictate if I raped or not?

I don't feel it is rape, if she didn't communicate it to me, in a way I understood. And I also feel that this law allows for me to be a rapist for if I do not understand.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

465. Ignorance (not stupidity but a legal term) is not an excuse

under the law.
Intent is a part of any crime. But if the law mandates that you listen and you don't listen, you might still be guilty of a crime.

an analogy would be driving down the street with your stereo on when an ambulance comes rolling down the boulevard with its siren blaring, you don't hear it and you get a ticket. The law doesn't care that you didn't hear it if you should have. That BTW is true of all crimes not just rape.

[Against ME]

466. I see your point,

but I think the case you brought up was loaded, because hearing the siren is imperative to this law. And the law has established that a loud siren is a adequate warning. And being unaware in this case, is the "criminal activity", and the consequence is not severe.

If I'm going down the road, messing with my radio, and run right into the back of someone, I do not get criminally charged, it was an accident.

I dunno, I see your point, I just for the life of cannot agree with it. For me, the person that has consented has the responsibility, if they want to withdrawl to properly notify the person. And in the case I described, I think proper notification is not met with a simple stop. But then that gives rise to men with maliscious intent using this as a defence. I just don't like that the law is so cut and dry, it should say something about intent, define "force".

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

467. OK but there are exceptions anyway

Statutory rape for instance has never required force. But in California the SC did imply that force was present. The burden of proof is still on the state to prove that a rape occurred.

My only other point is that the scenario you described is not too likely.(i.e. a girl not making herself heard)

I know you will argue that it is, but even in the California case, the girl kept saying I HAVE TO GO...and it was a full six minutes with him holding her down.

Secondly, you will notice there were a couple guys arguing on this thread that their GF's mean YES when they say no...there's kink and all that but even KINKY needs to take place responsibly..certain sex acts can result in injury or infection. It's not a risk free game.

There will always be attempts to mucky up the water.

as someone who has had a SHITLOAD of sex in my life...I speak from experience when I say, it isn't that hard to distinguish a YES from a NO and if one is in sexual situations where it IS HARD to distinguish...then in spite of the personal pleasure...get out of them..not just for the risk of rape but because in the long run there's LOTS that can go wrong in that arena.

Sexual pleasure is wonderful. Having some freedom is wonderful. Freedom isn't free...it comes with a SHITLOAD of responsibilities.

Anyway...are we done with this line of questioning? :D

[Against ME]

470. You did not answer my question

Sorry, thought you were someone else. My apologies

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

472. Ya got me going there

[Wonder]

473. AgainstME?

you have to update me on where this conversation is at. firstly, what is this about a girl freezing up, but before we go there, this thread is long long long..


I have a couple of questions. I need to get something straight.

[Wonder]

479. Okay AgainstME I guess we missed each other.

I had to get some dinner in the midst of this.. not sure you are up to date on my last 2 posts and because this thread is so long ...I decided to paste them here.

I might have well misunderstood where you are coming from, and if we could just achieve some understanding between us, you and I, we may be able to clear up some of this confusion it seems you still have with this law... as well as some of the confusion I still have with your viewpoint.

In order for me to feel confident that you and I are on the same wave length with this... I just need to know that you are uptodate with my last two posts. That way for the most part at least I will know, you know where I am coming from... .

453. No AgainstME the expression DOING HER is not acceptable

I do not care what the society implies... if the society told you it was fun to stick your head in a urinal would you do it just because the society accepted it as fun.

just the terminology is disrespectful AgainstME, and if you can not see that you might need to learn some manners.

as to where you falsely accused me. I never insulted you personally. that was another play as far as I am concerned you are running by me, and it was not based in reality.

Yes that post was on the other thread but you wrote it didn't you. Just because you wrote that post in another thread does not mean it is an impression forgotten.

you say... Yes I did say "doing her", because I live in a society where that is acceptable, but that is quite irrelevant to me being condescending, and it is really quite irrelevant to this post. I now regret saying it, but I wanted to keep that post lighthearted, and I thought that might achieve it.

How do you figure saying DOING HER is not condescending? or that it is irrelevant to you .... YOU SAID IT... it is very relevant to you.

now are you saying that DOING HER is a flattering use of terminology? Is that what you are telling me?



469. NO i don't agree
Edited on Fri Aug-08-03 11:33 PM by Wonder

This law could never turn anyone into a rapist. you know why? because it probably is as enforceable as all the other rape laws presently on the books. Burden of proof still rests on the state, and rape is impossible to convict.

A man is either a rapist or he isn't. I feel the confusion is not so much in the law as it is in the minds of those at odds with the law, and perhaps society itself, even as sad as this is, I feel there is sometimes confusion in the minds of some women (even those who one might expect should not be confused), a tiny tiny minority of whom I have had the misfortune of encountering within these sex crime threads, but i have digressed.

When I look at the reality in terms of prosecuting a rape, it seems clear to me that legislators made this clarification for the specific reason that date rape does occur regularly wherein a woman might consent to, for example, having a drink privately in either her apartment or his, or even engaging in foreplay, which does not mean she has consented to intercourse (nor does it mean she expects intercourse just because she may not be ready to go home or have the date end) whether it be vaginal or anal.

In this day and age considering the acceptable mores there is nothing out of the ordinary in a teenage or a young adult woman going indoors privately for more conversation or to smoke a joint or whatever with a guy after a movie.

That she does do this IN NO WAY MEANS she intends to have intercourse with her date. This clarification in the law focuses on withdrawal of consent for this very reason. To protect these women when they do go behind closed doors with a date an perhaps even engage in some foreplay. Just engaging in foreplay does not mean intercouse must follow. It is not always the case.

In my mind when prosecuting a date rape even in these oh so modern times, a woman is looked down upon if she decides after a date to go private with the date, why? because societal mores have not caught up with the times in regard to women as they live within modern society. A soceity whose mores have eroded considerably regardless of those that are of the opinion that morality can not be dictated.

Date rape is endemic. legislators know this better than most of us... The clarification in rape law pretty much proves this. Legislators are clearly trying to find a way to beat society at its own game.ergo the clarification in the law. That the law required this clarification is further proof of just how antiquated society is when it comes to women and not so much women, but women and sex.

I just had to say this... Against ME, the real truth is: Is that it is near to impossible to turn you or any man into a rapist even if you or any other man has raped.

_____

I believe my first question would be: do you understand why DOING HER is an unacceptable expression and why it might be insulting to women in general (not necessarily all women--because indeed some women are in fact confused as well), but insulting to women in general?

I know it might not seem so, but I do feel it is an important question.

When you return you might also share with me your thoughts on the other questions I have taken the time to bold within this post. And once you do we might be ready to begin a more civil discussion on this topic as well as hash out some of your confusions and your concerns and set straight some of my confusion with your viewpoint.

[Against ME]

482. It would be a misunderstanding, and confusion,

if you would have not understood 1 or 2 things, or attacked me about something I didn't say 1 or 2 times, but with the ever proliferating ignorance of what I say, I cannot attribute it to confustion. Their has to be something wrong here, either it's you being stubborn, and blatantly not reading my posts, and then attacking me for things that I did not say, or you are just antagonizing me.

The gross misunderstanding on your part, has limited this debate to nothing more than clearifications, and further misunderstandings. You do not read the context in which I post, and you assume asenine things about what I say. You have attacked me several times, and brought personal feeling ideas into this at times when they should be left out. You twist simply phrases in an obvious attempt to go around the argument at hand, and try to make me forfeit my credibility. You are bringing things from other theads into this, and by no coincedence, you put this in place of a rebuttle. YOu have said nothing about what I actually believe, but simply attacked one phrase after another, and attacked me for scenarios I did not create.

You have left the talking points to bring in phrases from other threads, specifically "doing her", and this is obviously personal, you are attributing this to some character flaw, and you are dodging things by hiding behind things that you see as uncuth. I have answered everything you wanted, and superfluously explained my position. Then you dismiss everything I said, to try and lecture me with a rant about society, and things that are quite irrelevant.

I do not care if you find what I said insulting, I said I regretted saying, and I said it wasn't meant to be anything, and the only reason you are bringing it up, was to dodge the fact that everything in you celebrated 358 post was ridiculous. Everything you argued in that was against something I did not say, or for the common goal that I already described, I told you this in a reply, and then this whole "doing her" thing came up, This is an obvious defence mechanism, and a way for you to dodge your gross indeference for what my opinion is. You talk about Isulting expressions, but you are a hypocrit, because you go ahead and insult me by attributing things to me that I did not do, and limiting everything I have said to one ill thought out phrase, that is quite common to hear.


Observation: You said nothing to my actual veiwpoint, but focused on something that is irrelevant to this argument, and something that by no coinsedence is desgined to discredit me by ascribing a blight of my character, given to me by society.

Sorry for grammatical/spelling mistakes, and typos, I do not feel like taking the time to fix them.

[Wonder]

485. It is not a misunderstanding on my part AgainstME

notice how I asked a number of questions which you still refuse to answer, not one of my questions. It seems instead you point the fingers outward and avoid very pertinent issues that I have raised more than once.

For the most part you are coming in pretty clearly... I even cut and paste what you yourself have written.

You did answer one question: it seems you say that you DO NOT CARE I find the term DOING HER insulting. of course you admit this in a very left hand way and I quote:

<<I do not care if you find what I said insulting, I said I regretted saying, and I said it wasn't meant to be anything, and the only reason you are bringing it up, was to dodge the fact that everything in you celebrated 358 post was ridiculous. Everything you argued in that was against something I did not say, or for the common goal that I already described, I told you this in a reply, and then this whole "doing her" thing came up, This is an obvious defence mechanism, and a way for you to dodge your gross indeference for what my opinion is. You talk about Isulting expressions, but you are a hypocrit, because you go ahead and insult me by attributing things to me that I did not do, and limiting everything I have said to one ill thought out phrase, that is quite common to hear.>>

thank you at least we got that straight. from my viewpoint you haven't a clue what the significance of the term DOING HER connotates or why it is completely relevant to my read on you (when I first read it and no less relevant now). Sorry, I find it difficult to just brush it away as it just being indicative of your youth and society.

I know if society told you to stick your head in a urinal for fun you would probably oppose that as a trend. I can not imagine society insisted you would just go along with a trend that required you stick your head in a urinal for fun. So the excuse that this DOING HER term is indicative society and your youth, I just don't buy that.

And it in and of itself is why it seems you are having way more confusion with this new clarification in the law than other males at DU. Also why it seems you are fearful of not being able to read your partner when she might indicate no. That fear and confusion as much to do with this DOING HER term you find it so easy to brush to the side.

Because 1- that term is UNACCEPTABLE TO MORE WOMEN THAN YOU KNOW. AND

2- that paragraph you wrote is also way filled up with with much persumption about my defensive mechanisms which is JUST MORE AVOIDANCE ON YOUR PART , because you have not the slightest care in the world about how foully insulting that term DOING HER is nor WHY I continue to bring it up. Yet you accept to be taken seriously?

It is very relevant you know why because just that term itself discredits your every word. You are not credible. Especially since you find it so easy to turn the tables, and expect that no one in this thread will see just how transparent you are.

[Against ME]

486. Actually you asked me to answer the bold type,

and i did.

Okay, lets see, whoever reads this reply, please tell me and wonder who is dodging the question, and who is "transparent".


I answered the questions you wanted, about the "doing her" phrase, I cannot answer anything else, because their are no more questions.

But it is fun how you totally change the whole conversation to one point, right after i destroyed your 358 post.

[Wonder]

490. yes I know you answered the part about the DOING HER phrase

and I comment that was the one question you answered. you must have missed it in my post... so I have pasted again for you...because you don't seem to think it is relevant to anything... I will bold my answer if you check the above post you will see I did mention you answer this one question. And your answer was quite revealing though I can not say you understand why:

CUT AND PASTE FROM PREVIOUS POST.

You did answer one question: it seems you say that you DO NOT CARE I find the term DOING HER insulting. of course you admit this in a very left hand way and I quote:

<<I do not care if you find what I said insulting, I said I regretted saying, and I said it wasn't meant to be anything, and the only reason you are bringing it up, was to dodge the fact that everything in you celebrated 358 post was ridiculous. Everything you argued in that was against something I did not say, or for the common goal that I already described, I told you this in a reply, and then this whole "doing her" thing came up, This is an obvious defence mechanism, and a way for you to dodge your gross indeference for what my opinion is. You talk about Isulting expressions, but you are a hypocrit, because you go ahead and insult me by attributing things to me that I did not do, and limiting everything I have said to one ill thought out phrase, that is quite common to hear.>>

thank you at least we got that straight. from my viewpoint you haven't a clue what the significance of the term DOING HER connotates or why it is completely relevant to my read on you (when I first read it and no less relevant now). Sorry, I find it difficult to just brush it away as it just being indicative of your youth and society.

I know if society told you to stick your head in a urinal for fun you would probably oppose that as a trend. I can not imagine IF society insisted, THAT you would just go along with a trend that required you stick your head in a urinal for fun. So the excuse that this DOING HER term is indicative of society and your youth, I just don't buy that.

[Against ME]

491. The fact is that saying "doing her" hurts nothing,

and does not potentially get my head wet, and make me sick. It is a phrase, and you are reading way too much into it. I made that one comment, and it seems to supercede everything else I have said. I would see your point if their was a trend with me using such "rude" phrases, but their is not. I do not view women as objects, and once again you are making obtuse assumptions, from one phrase. It is an attempt to demonize me, and to limit the debate, to a character flaw.

But really me saying "doing her" has nothing to do with the law being unfair, or anything related to this argument. You are just being petty.

[Wonder]

512. the phrase DOING HER implies

whether you view women as objects or not remains to be seen (and not by me). The phrase DOING HER implies that she is not there. Which was also implied by your "first time" scenario when you were being watched. In that scenario you imply that you would not have necessarily been clued in enough to your partner to have known if she wanted to stop. This is very bad. this is wherein confusion can be problematic. I feel some men do not know how to rightfully define rape. Or what a women might consider bad sex for that matter.

None of us are really stupid here (and potentially neither are you -- but instead it appeared that you were pushing a FALSE NOTION -- which implied you had an agenda). There are those guys that do view women as objects. Once they saddle up they are more concerned with their own orgasm and the force and velocity that will induce there orgasm, than with the comfort or pleasure of the woman. The term DOING HER implies just this kind of unconsciousness in the male. This why I fixated on it, especially in tandem with your various scenarios. If a male just saddles up with no consciousness of the woman in DOING HER... he would not be inclined to feel her at all, but instead just himself, it is a form of masturbation. Generally I would guess is most common in casual one night stand scenarios.

In this setting as I described it above, a woman could express discomfort that, while the man might accurately read it as resistance in the female, from his perspective he may feel she hasn't the right anymore to express much of anything (not till he is done anyway). In fact, quite plainly state, he could care less. Why? because she consented to penetration which pretty much means to some males that in giving this consent the female has basically relinquished her vote. From that point on a type of male feels she no longer has any rights, or her rights take a back seat to his privilege which for the most part is his orgasm.

Therefore with some men this consent seems to indicate that he has from that moment on carte blanche. It is a MALE NOTION that remains alive and well even in these oh so modern times. A number of your scenarios suggested this was the case. This kind of a mindset is insulting, can be problematic and can also be indicative of a male with power or control issues (which would also connotate violence). In this kind of scenario, while the woman may not come to voice her discomfort as outwardly as she should, this kind of experience is not pleasant for her. The male on the other hand has no conscious sense in this instance that even the most innocuous force that may be applied is in fact rape whether it is reportable or not. In my mind when a man says I was DOING HER or GIVING IT TO HER this is a warning sign for me (I realize other women might disagree with me). It would tell me to avoid this male at all costs.

Booberdawg is correct, in this type of scenario most women would just chalk it up to a bad fuck, others might call it rape, in both instance rape will not be reported, as for the most part a woman under those circumstances would not define it as rape... and even if she does she would have a hellava time getting a DA to take a case of this nature. To take a dape rape case ... some kind of substantive evidence besides the woman's word is necessary which means that enough force would have to be employeed to create bruises. Man that dape rape with regularity I would assume they know this. and at all costs would avoid the kind of force that would leave bruises. In most cases the strengh of a male can be enough to keep the woman pinned down without too much force. That is what I call the rape game.

In the above scenario yes even with subtle force of this nature it is rape, but it would be mighty difficult to prove, but one never knows a DA might take the case. Which is why, if you remain confused or worried, it is good advise more than one poster gave you here, to become more conscious of your sex partner (whether you like her or not), because I might venture to say there could be that 1% that might define that as rape and would report it as a rape. The scenario that I described in the above paragraph.

It would be hard to prove and the changes of getting a DA to prosecute are not all that good. Why? because the fact remains that DA's will not take a rape case that they do not feel they can win beyond a reasonable doubt. How do I know? From experience. The scenario just outlined is not defined clear enough, evidence would be only the rape kit, but of course now consent a defining factor any longer. So who knows. It is a tough call. While a women might seek charges in this scenario, proving rape would be near to impossible in the absense of a struggle, unless of course she is the DA's daughter or her father is a Don (in which case one of her brothers might beat the shit out of the guy and that might be her only chance of justice being served. A two by four scenario comes to mind). Life is funny we can never speak in finite terms. The fact is many rapes are not reported and a higher percentage of rapists are not convicted they are acquitted.

Since most of your scenarios struck me as somewhat ridiculous, as if you thought you conversed with fools, I was more interested in focusing on the connotation of the language you used all by itself. DOING HER in my mind conjurers up the scenario I just described above, wherein the male could care less about what is under him... this type of mentality can be risky, particularly if the male goes into the act with the FALSE NOTION that once the act starts the woman has no further say. And in fact one of your scenarios implied just that... which is the one wherein I described what you had implied as your rules rather than the law. For instance if going into foreplay at any time even after intercourse any other sexual scenario might arise either partner has the right to say NO. If no is not heed casual sex becomes rape. That is all this law clarifies that exact right. Why? because there are a percentage of males that are DOING HER that do not wish to be stopped and will get more forceful as well as violent if the female does resist. And even in this case Rape would be difficult to prove.

Burden of proof remains the same. Police procedure remains the same, i.e., police are not going to run out and pick up the accused just on the accusation of the accuser. Judicial process remains the same, ie the accuser is a witness for the state and until judicial procedure decides to shift burden of proof... to the accused wherein he will be asked to show evidence to support his side of the story; as it stands now, in some instances the defense attorney can advise his client NOT TO TAKE THE STAND, so for the most part it is mostly the accuser that stands trial, as well as the evidence supplied only by the DA.

The reason why some get frustrated here in these threads, is because these are facts that have been repeated over and over and still these facts are questioned as if we are making them up just to be difficult. There is a small group of what has been termed neanderthals (which someone who uses the term DOING HER can easily be mistaken for). These neanderthals seem to only want to perpetrate myths. These myths or falsities are misleading and only blur the issue of rape even further. There arguments only intend to smear women in general while giving them room for justification to rape.

This is why I became fixated by that term DOING HER. It is indicative of much more than trend and even if it is the result of societal conditioning some of that societal conditioning does encourage violence toward women, and the term itself does imply objectification. IN that it is a crude term, it can have a variety of other unsavvory ramifcations. I fixated on the phrase not so much to argue about the law, but to raise other important points as well. There is what is called a rape mentality that society in its still archaic conditioning does seem to encourage. Boys will be boys you know, and this mentality so far always seemed to be the responsibility of the woman, with the boy generally not held responsible for his participation in an act that takes two, whatever the consequences may be. The laws look like they may be shifting in an effort to make men think and perhaps start fielding some responsibility for their actions.

I like to be clear... I never thought you a rapist sleeper... or whatever you called it. I thought you were running an agenda to aimed at bluring the facts. Perhaps I was wrong and perhaps this clears it up better.

I know a wordy post. I took the time because this is the last rape thread or sex crime thread, or sexist thread, I will participate in. I learned what I needed to learn. and for the most part I am glad I participated, but going round and round like this, it would be a better use of my time to volenteer my time at a rape crisis center. To be there for those girls that will be completey abandoned by most everyone she knows, even who she thought was her best friend, and in what might prove to be her darkest hour. The round and round with questionable types (however small of a percent they are) is definitely not a good use of my time. Why? because even the little bit of blindness I witnessed here in these threads is a darkness I no longer have to witness. I understand some of the realities better. The law I always understood.

[Booberdawg]

492. I think you have made yourself pretty clear ...

that you are simply seeking clarity on the issue. I don't think your concerns have been unreasonable, and I also think NSMA covered them very well and I couldn't add anything to what she's already said.

You seem pretty intelligent to me, certainly not stupid or ignorant. And I don't think you're a closet rapist, by any stretch of the imagination.

Other that, I'm not going to comment or get into the back and forth you're having with Wonder. You are not obligated to respond to it.

Linda

[Booberdawg]

493. PS

Check your inbox. :)

[Against ME]

495. Yeah, check yours.

Thanks, it was nice to see some people are still sane.

[Name removed]

497. Deleted message

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

[Wonder]

494. actually YOU seem big on avoidance and confusion NOT I

the truth is AgainstME - men are either rapists or they are not.

this new clarification in the law is not really going to impact rape conviction rates that much. So the truth is it will run little risk of making a man a rapist who didn't rape, mostly because it may not be able to get a conviction on a man who did rape.

All it really might succeed in doing is giving some men pause to consider the rights of the partner they choose to DO they next time DOING HER is something it seems they can not DO without regardless of whatever her name happens to be.

All you have been running by the posters on this thread is one irrelevant consideration after another...while at the same time you have accused more than me of dodging your "confusions" when in fact it is YOU that is the DODGER here and not really a very artful one.

[Against ME]

498. "Little risk" is unnaceptable risk!!!!

and this law allows for not only accusations, but also conviction of innocent men.

so if this law runs little risk of making a man a rapist who didn't rape, then that means their is a risk of an innocent man being convicted of rape, ergo the law is unacceptable.

Yes, I have accused, and I believe all of them recognized that they made a mistake, or that my new clearification changed what they thought, except for you ofcourse.

Funny that you're bring an new argument in, that veers even further away from the question at hand.

[Wonder]

501. I think I will let the blind lead the blind on this one

no longer worthy of my time.

[Against ME]

Ha

I have hit an all new low

[Booberdawg]

504. I disagree with you here

This law does not pave the way for false accusations or conviction ot innocent men. It's not based on he said she said. There would have to be EVIDENCE of a rape. The misunderstanding you describe would not get you accused or convicted of rape unless you used FORCE. Just ain't gonna happen.

The law isn't new, by the way. The clarification that rape can occur even after some consensual contact is being adopted by more and more states. It has ALWAYS been the case that a person has a right to change their mind after consensual contact.

[Against ME]

506. Maybe you are right. Maybe I should go put on a foil hat.

I dunno, only time will tell.

[Booberdawg]

511. It's not a trick or a conspiracy

to "get" truly innocent men. :tinfoilhat: It just isn't. And if you stay "in tune" you won't even have to worry about the gray areas that have you worried.

[noiretextatique]

475. here's a suggestion: don't "block out" your partner

you may block out the television or the other people in the room, but if you are paying attention to your partner (instead of just a few parts of her) you might notice if she's responding or saying no or screaming, and so on. it works for young, and old alike.

[Wonder]

476. Hello Noretblu

you may have some catching up to do with our young misguided AgainstME (I say this only because as far as I know you have just arrived). your take will be most appreciated here. As you know I do have my senses and as usual they may or may not be in conflict with the senses of others Gee. you will have to read my posts from this evening going back to around let's say 8:00 pm or so. Those posts that have to do specifically with AgainstME.

[noiretextatique]

477. you and i see eye-to-eye, friend

:shrug: maybe i'm jaded and cynical, but...nah, i'm just in touch with my senses :hi:

[Wonder]

478. okey dokey

let us just say that is what I thought :hi: back at ya!

[Against ME]

481. That is not the point,

the point is that it is possible for someone to block out a simple stop, and thus they become a rapist. You see no problem with this?

[Wonder]

483. No! this is what is problematic

>>the point is that it is possible for someone to block out a simple stop, and thus they become a rapist. You see no problem with this?<<


What is more so problematic is the blocking out of the simple stop. If it is rape the stop will not be simple...or to slight to not notice it. however... it might help to clue into your partner... so even the smallest one of her considerations won't pass you by. Than you will not have to worry.

[Against ME]

488. Funny how you dodgethe question

by saying if it is rape it will not be a simple stop.

But that would mean that if it is a simple stop, then it is not rape. I guess you unwittingly answered my question, and the discussion is over because you agree with me.

[Wonder]

496. actually against ME I disagree with booberdawg completely

you do not strike me as that intelligent really... you are just playing a little game here. As for your confusion with some of games some of the girls you meet up with might be playing, especially those that like you DOING THEM... probably contributes to some of that confusion you have going here. A percentage of the girls can be mighty CONFUSED themselves.

It is almost like the blind leading the blind. and I no longer have the time. A girl who can't call you on DOING HER... she has alot of her own issues to unravel, makes for much confusion.

[Against ME]

500. Ahhh ha

so now i'm not intelligent, maybe that's why you cannot understand what i type, It's just the ramblings of an ignorant sleeper rapist.

But the fact still remains that this law allows for a boy that is not sufficiently communicated to, to be charged with rape.
Do you disagree or agree?

[Wonder]

503. tut tut

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth thats what comes of bad advise... that is a presumption on your part... never said you were a sleeper rapist... but delusion is endemic... hear what we need to hear ... believe what suits you...

[Against ME]

505. But you see, I never said you said I was a rapist,

so now you are putting words in my mouth.

[Wonder]

508. no you implied it here are your words

"so now i'm not intelligent, maybe that's why you cannot understand what i type, It's just the ramblings of an ignorant sleeper rapist."

[Against ME]

507. Once again not reading what I say,

and instead reading what you think I should say, or what you want me to say.

[Wonder]

509. whatever

you got the blind man's dog -- likes pissing contests a hellava lot more than I do... have fun.

[Booberdawg]

487. I think she's just suggesting you be more "in tune"

with your partner. As pointed out before, it is also the woman's responsibility to communicate NO to a partner as well.

You're not likely to be charged or branded as a rapist for the situations you decribe in your question. A NO is going to be pretty clear 99% of the time, and you wouldn't be able to block it out as you say.

[Against ME]

489. Exactly, it's going to be clear 99% of the time,

and i'm not concerned with that, just the other 1%. She is suggesting I be more intuned, which is nice, but that did not answer the question, and frankly it dismissed it.

[Booberdawg]

499. An innocent misunderstanding

is not going to get you branded a rapist. That's not what the law is about - the law is about using FORCE after a person has changed their mind.

Really, using "what if" cases of just being innocently out of tune minimizes the seriousness of rape, and dismisses the importance of the fact that a person DOES have a right to change their mind, and be taken seriously.

[Against ME]

502. But do you think something like what I have described could happen?

Or rather, does the law allow for something like what I have said to happen?

I think it is very possible for someone to not hear/understand a simple no, and I also think that according to this law they have raped someone.

[Booberdawg]

510. No, I don't think it would happen

"to not hear/understand a simple no"

Rape is not about innocently misunderstanding a simple no. No prosecuter is going to prosecute the situation you describe. The law is intended for USE OF FORCE. It is very clear when it happens.

But, I would point out again what others have, that there is also the possibility of not being focused on a "mutual" experience and tuning out your partner. It isn't hard to understand a NO when it happens. You do have to take some responsibility for being sensitive to the wishes of your partner.

I think some of the impatience you see is with some people using scenarios like you have in order to minimize the seriousness of rape. Or, making false accusations the center of discussion rather than addressing the fact that a person DOES have the right to withdraw consent after some sexual contact. There ARE some men who believe that once sex has started they have a blank check whether the partner agrees or not. That's what the law is about and that's what this thread is about.

[Booberdawg]

461. This seems reasonable

I will admit that the first time I had sex, I was very afraid, and very immature. It was at a party, and I was completely unaware that people came in during it and come even watched. Had she asked me to stop, I probably would not have responded, beccause I would not have known she asked. But had she proceeded to put her hands on me, and get my attention, I would have stopped. I have been in this vulnerable position, and for that reason I can understand that this law technically could have said I was raping her if she would have said stop, and I wouldn't have responded.

I don't think you would be charged with rape in this scenario. There is clearly no intent to use force. Just maybe some missed cues, but not rape. I doubt she would even accuse you of rape.

The law isn't intended to trick otherwise innocent men. It just clarifies the issue of consent - that consent can be withdrawn after initial consensual contact. There would have to be EVIDENCE of a rape or use of force, and not just based on her word.

[Wonder]

480. I must admit AgainstME I am having a couple of problems

with this incident you have shared regarding the first time you had sex... I need some clarification.... I guess my problem is not so much with whether this was rape or not, I a not sure I can say as I am not sure I am actually clear on all the details here.

it is this verbiage I am having a problem with:

Had she asked me to stop, I probably would not have responded, beccause I would not have known she asked.

I am not sure I follow you here. YOu say if she had asked you probably would not have responded. Why is that?

YOu continue on to say explain that you would not have known if she asked. Again I am not following. How is it you would not have known if she asked you to stop.

What preceded this sex you had with this girl?

Were you and she already going together? Had you just met her at this party? was she conscious or trashed?

Was it a dare from your friends?

That you tell me you would not have known if she asked you to stop well that tells me you were not aware of her presence or in sync with her at all. If this is the case. Well this is where many problems can arise.

Let us put the question of rape to the side for the moment. I am more interested in clearing up some of my confusion with you use of words. Therefore, I am more concerned with my bolded questions at the moment.

[Wonder]

414. AGAINST ME 's RULES vs THE LAW

what happened to our civil discussion? OH WELL.

[okieinpain]

292. I've never understood why a guy would want to fight for sex

it kinda ruins the mood.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

295. It's because you are a gentleman who is not into violence to have

your way...and women like me appreciate men like you. Thanks

[Cassandra]

305. I think it's at least assault.

Might be rape; I'd want to know more before deciding that.

[Wonder]

349. really. I am always interested in the female perspective here as well

two people engage in sex consentually. one party changes sexual venue outside the boundaries of the other. The other states they do not like the venue suggested. the party having made the suggestion then forces the other party to comply with the change of venue against their will.

is it rape? yes or no?

[Terwilliger]

306. Rape is when someone is being forced to have sex against their will

like you say in the original post, why would you want to continue if your partner says no?

Stupid jerk-off men need to go into the bathroom and jerk off. They do anything else, it's rape.

I don't know why that's even a question. You have to wonder about men :crazy:

[Capn Sunshine]

312. I'm down with that

No pun intended. What you just described is rape plain and simple.

[Shanty Oilish]

384. It is now.

Clearly, this law holds that withdrawal of consent equals rape. And the controversy over this law is due to its widening of the net.

And that, IMO, is because rape is now considered to be an act of violence rather than a sexual behavior. This is an improvement in law, since rape was once regarded a crime of property and that perspective ignored the rights of women, and a sexual act primarily, which discounted the illegality of coercion.

However, people are more complex than their laws. Individuals of both sexes may derive pleasure from fantasizing about sexual coercion, may act it out or not. Do they receive protection from this law, or peril? And what of the man who does not, would never, set out on an evening with the idea, "I'm going to commit violence against another person," but winds up in bed with a strict interpretationist who counts thrusts? What if he's young and unworldly and merely in the throes of passion? Technically he's in the wrong to continue, but is his intent to act out violence?

If our legal system has evolved to the point where rape is so defined, then I believe the law should also acknowledge different degrees of the crime. All wrongful taking of another's life is not first-degree homicide; neither should all sexual activity beyond the word "no" be undifferentiated rape. Otherwise, too much is left to particular prosecutors, judges and juries.

The intent of the law is good, but its application may prove draconian.

[salin]

396. thoughtful response

and while some day it could be draconion (and I have never denied that threat is there) the way rape is handled at this point in time by the authorities, it isn't overly likely - at this point in time. The cards are still stacked against the rape victim (or sadly to admit they exist, the false accuser). Police departments often are uncomfortable with the cases and view them as he/she said and thus messy to bother with; Prosecutors offices need a level of proof beyond he/she said... I don't think these problems that make even bringing charges very rare change with this change in the law.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

403. Why lessen the punishment for a crime that is already under reported

and under punished? If punishment is supposed to be a deterrent to crime, then it seems to me that to divvy it up into degrees minimizes it.

I'm certainly not saying lock em up and throw away the key, but if this law forces a young man to think twice about who he is being so that he doesn't end up in jail then it has alarmed many but produced a valid result.

When drunk driving laws began carrying mandatory jail sentences drunk driving ratios improved.

The threshhold for EVIDENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY has not been altered. All that has been altered is the interpretation of WHEN IT IS RAPE AND WHEN IT ISN'T.

The justices in the California case were clear about what they did and did not consider to be excessive.

I would NOT want to see anyone convicted of a crime they did not commit but even recent justice statistics indicate that the problem of rape continues to be UNDER REPORTED, UNDER PUNISHED and given the numbers ALL TOO FREQUENT.

While I don't advocate for zero tolerance laws, if this law (or in the case of California SC precedent) has a few people thinking twice, three times or more, then all the better.

Since it is an issue that men fear being used on them though, I have no doubt someone will come up with a lesser charge.

[Shanty Oilish]

416. Because it may end up being underprosecuted, for one thing...

It's one size fits all. A dumb teenage boy will get convicted for the same offense as a serial rapist.
Then what? The prosecutor who's seen the effects of that injustice will decide not to prosecute this crime. The racist will prosecute specific groups only. Juries will shrink from dooming certain defendants with the stigma of a rape conviction---but not others, not the poor, unpopular, underclass types. People will get cynical and victims will multiply, resulting in more high-profile cases discrediting victims, resulting in deeper distrust of women. Backlash. The law becomes a joke, like Prohibition became. After a while, the standard for evidence goes even higher than it was before.
I'm cynical too, nsma, and I see the downside.
Yes, someone will come up with a lesser charge. The system is still of the male, by the male, and for the male. So a law that mainly applies to male violators, should get some fine-tuning before it does women more harm or little good.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

419. Possibly but not entirely true

A serial rapist will get convicted for multiple offenses as the title implies and usually gets convicted on a variety of counts, not just rape.

A dumb teenage boy is safe until he is 18 since I believe most states don't proscute teens as adults for rape, that privilege seems to be reserved for murder although I might be incorrect on that.

As far as reticence in prosecuting and convicting, I don't really see how it could get much worse but will gnaw on your thoughts for a while.

As far as race and class are concerned, again, that is a given in the justice system that will prevail even if we give 20 degrees of rape.

[Shanty Oilish]

422. Serial rapists get convicted for multiple offenses?

Are you sure? If you're right that rape is underreported (and I'm sure of that), I would think most serial rapists don't get convicted at all.
This law is, IMO, a step in the right direction but lots of those go down to the hell of good intentions. Remember there are not only the males running the system, but also mothers of dumb teenage boys everywhere. How defensive are they going to be, when their sons are accused?
People are looking askance at rape shield laws now. They're thinking (so to speak) that if a woman now has such power that her very syllable, "no," can brand a man a rapist, then it must be fair to subject her to public scrutiny. Most particularly would this occur in the case you originally postulated. She says yes to this-sex and no to that-sex? Good grief, he's going to have a sex crimes conviction because of her sexual preferences? And what's she got against anal sex anyway?
That's how it'll play out. It won't be about coercion.
Wait, there's one place I can think of, where this law might be easily and correctly enforced. Prison. But I don't think it'll make a bit of difference there. Not enough idealism.

[Shanty Oilish]

418. PS: I hear the sound of rape shield laws fracturing.

Backlash has started.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

421. That backlash was present long ago.

There has been an organized effort by men's groups on the internet to turn others against these laws for several years. That is part and parcel of Kamin's view and is also where these posters are coming up with S and M stories to bkur the issue.

You can do a perusal of thousands of MEN'S RIGHTS sites that have been online for several years and find all the backlash you want.

Almost every site uses a case where a woman talks about an S AND M fantasy and gets raped. It is where the majority of men who argue against on these posts glean their information from.

These sites are quite popularly linked to gun rights sites as well.

The backlash is already here and has been virtually since the time the laws were passed in the 70's.

[Shanty Oilish]

423. Yes, but now they can act on it, and are doing so.

The internet makes it easier for the world to know about the accuser/victim. So far we have laws. The laws lack teeth when it comes to the internet, and soon we will see the laws struck down.
Unenforceable---unfair---contrary to free speech rights---whatever.
Rape will be more underreported than ever. I'm hearing liberal women commentators saying rape shield law is archaic. Some say, because the "stigna" is irrational. That's way too idealistic.
If the law is eventually going to be modified by degrees of criminality, I think we should go that way now and skip the fallout.

[El Mariachi]

427. A few things I've learned.

No means yes, yes means maybe, and maybe means no.

You know its true ladies ;)



Please take that as a joke. I would never want to have sex with a woman who isn't aroused. So, I'm pretty much ruling out situations where I could be raping a woman. Right? MAYBE. I mean, she might get aroused but maybe once I get inside I'm so terrible that she yells "NO STOP AFLDFJS:DFLK" At that point I'd stop. Then I'd cry because she's laughing at me. Then I'd go run in the corner and play with myself thinking of my mom wearing a cooking apron and a mickey mouse hat. Wait what was I talking about again?

[prez_sux]

428. damn...

...what a thread.

[West Coast Democrat]

429. Please Lock This Enormous Thread!!!!!!!!!

...........and continue it elsewhere!!!!

[Lady Freedom]

430. When she says no...

IT MEANS NO! Thats it! All she wrote! No more! So if you make her do something she does nt want then it IS RAPE! Even if you are in the middle of having sex, she says stop,STOP!

[ibegurpard]

432. No question.

That's rape in my book.

[MaraJade]

437. Absolutely Rape. Period.

The person on the receivng end of penetration HAS THE RIGHT to say
when, where and how they want penetration to occur. I don't care
what anyone here says. If a person is invading your body you have
the right to call all of the shots.

[rasputin1952]

484. In my humble opinion...

if an individual says 'No', that is all there is to it.

To force oneself upon another, for whatever reason, may not necessarily be illegal, but it is certainly immoral.