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

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?

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

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?

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.

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

(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

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

No elaboration is needed.
The Professor

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.

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

If a woman says no then the sex must stop.

The gender of the person makes no difference.

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

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.

a rapist, that's who

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.

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.

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

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

No means no.

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:

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

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.

to clarify it?

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.

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.

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.

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).

:eyes:

your reaction is identical.

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.

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.

"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".

another important delineation.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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....

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.

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.

go. How warped is that?

a warped culture and cultural message? indeed.

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

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.

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:

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.

:shrug:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

no one is suggesting that is the case.

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?

(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)..

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.

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.

ARE A F***ING MORON.

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.

No means no. That's pretty damn clear.

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.

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

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.

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

he didn't think it was rape either.

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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

miracle

:evilgrin:

i know what you mean :silly:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"we each perceive things differently."

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

there was misunderstanding.

OK I'll talk to you again.

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).

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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."

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.

"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.
_____________________________________________________________

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?

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

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."

"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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

that is what it's there for

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.

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...

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

flawed. :shrug:

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

did I ever imply that false rape claims outnumber rapes?

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.

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

: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

that is rarely understood.

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

That is my impression.

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.

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?

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?

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.

"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.

<<<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?

probably go together and then tell me what you need?

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.

Still not taking your bait.

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

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

Welcome to my ignore list.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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...

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.

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. )"

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.

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.

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. )

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"and you take offense to being called clueless?"

: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:

welcome to my ignore list.

: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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.