HKG,

Is there any way to get this in a wallet size?  Laminated preferably.

Last edited by Scotty (2008-08-09 18:19:38)

fnord wrote:

Most of us have at some point been in the midst of sexual activity and wished we hadn’t said yes.

I know what you mean; but I bet you have no idea how bad things can get in certain situations.  I think that you, and many other men, think that way because most men, who are decent people, have no interest in hurting/scaring a woman during sex.  But not all people are decent people.

Still, just as you say, a run-of-the-mill crappy lay that you want off you certainly does not equate to being raped.

That said, like HKG I have some pretty mixed feelings about this myself.

Mostly I'm glad I don't live in MD where people are going to have to start carrying consent forms around with them, and bars and clubs will have to have a notary public on premises.

Zookeeper wrote:

IMNSHO a woman who decides she's tired and doesn't want to continue or who has had second thoughts after the act has started with her consent is not a "rape" victim.  That isn't to say the guy hasn't necessarily done something wrong.  But whatever he has done probably shouldn't be considered a crime and it certainly shouldn't be considered so serious an act as "rape".  To call it such is an offense to women who really have gone through the soul-shattering trauma of rape.

What if he holds her down against her will so that he can finish?  What level of force is necessary to turn it into rape?  There are legitimate reasons other than being tired that might make a woman want to stop in the middle of sex and not complete the act, like if it's painful, for example.  Should I have to take a brutal cock pounding just because some asswipe doesn't have the decency to stop when asked?

So, what's the consensus? It's not rape until the guy is finished? Next thing you know, sex will require two impartial witnesses and a notary.

headkicker_girl wrote:

What if he holds her down against her will so that he can finish?

What if she gets hers and decides she's done for the night, and then you've got the fucking blue balls?  Who's the bitch then?

My question is this... I have gotten drunk and fucked several fat ugly chicks. If on the next day I wish the fuck I wouldn't have, did I still fuck an ugly fat chick? Do I still have to admit it?

Hmm.

Situation: consent given, and an erect penis is moving in a wet vagina.

Female changes her mind, says "Please stop."

Any reasonable male will comply, but does he not also have the right to ask for a hand job at the very least?

Don't you understand? Is there a female equivalent of Blue Balls?

jesusluvspegging wrote:

sigmoid freud wrote:

Don't you understand? Is there a female equivalent of Blue Balls?

Yes, it is called Not Having Money or Being Poor.

You presume to speak from the female perspective, MonoBrow?  Ain't that kinda...gay of you?

sigmoid freud wrote:

Hmm.
Situation: consent given, and an erect penis is moving in a wet vagina.
Female changes her mind, says "Please stop."
Any reasonable male will comply, but does he not also have the right to ask for a hand job at the very least?
Don't you understand? Is there a female equivalent of Blue Balls?

It would never occur to me to be so rude as not to provide an outlet. 

But some women are bitches.  Some guys are bastards.  Some of the bitches and the bastards, apparently, come together in some kind of shit-for-brains Venn diagram, forming a group that wants laws on the books to protect them when they behave like assholes; hence, the subject of this thread.

The next phase will be when some bastard who got blue-balls when the bitch he was having sex with called it off in medias res brings a lawsuit against her.

"I never went to bed with an ugly woman. Woke with a few."

So at this point we're defining rape not as non-consensual sex, but only non-consensual penetration? 

And what's the big deal about blue balls, anyway?  Just go whack off if you have to, it won't kill you.

Banjo wrote:

Bottom line, this ruling is based on proving the evidence of rape.

If a man is allowed to penetrate a woman "consentually," his DNA is probable at the scene of the "crime." Historically, "he said-she said" cases are much more difficult to prove than the classic rape case. Who's to say that he didn't blow his nut twenty seconds after she says "no." DNA alone would convict him while common sense would not.

This law was probably written to avoid this exact scenario.

You didn't read the article, did you?  The law was based on precedent that was much older than DNA testing.  Let's just say that the offense was described as deflowering a woman.

All this convolution, and the truest wisdom in the thread came first.

be more picky about who you let into your pants

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

IMNSHO a woman who decides she's tired and doesn't want to continue or who has had second thoughts after the act has started with her consent is not a "rape" victim.  That isn't to say the guy hasn't necessarily done something wrong.  But whatever he has done probably shouldn't be considered a crime and it certainly shouldn't be considered so serious an act as "rape".  To call it such is an offense to women who really have gone through the soul-shattering trauma of rape.

What if he holds her down against her will so that he can finish?  What level of force is necessary to turn it into rape?  There are legitimate reasons other than being tired that might make a woman want to stop in the middle of sex and not complete the act, like if it's painful, for example.  Should I have to take a brutal cock pounding just because some asswipe doesn't have the decency to stop when asked?

I'm with you on this one. Am I the only one that can envision a situation where a sociopath schmoozes his way into the missionary position with a lady, and then things get quickly out of control? If a lady agrees to sex, does that mean that the guy automatically gets to do whatever he wants to her from the list of bizarre, aggressive fetishes? And if the law needs to be written to protect either from blue balls or being violated, I'll err on the side of blue balls. Sorry fellas, but our male predecessors earned that for us. Profiling is a bitch.

ptah13 wrote:

Next you are going to say that what those evil, rich, white lacross bastards from Duke did to that poor black woman wasn't rape, either?

I hope they all get their balls cut off when they get convicted!!! At the very least they should be medically sterilized.

Why am I kidding myself. Rich white college pukes vs poor working black girl.. You know their lawyer will either get them off on a technicality or they'll try and pay off the state AG and claim it never happened and get the case thrown out.

fucking evil bastards.. I hope they die.

The woman at the center of the Duke case was a low class lying whore who didn’t clean herself between johns.  Below are two excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the case.





Shortly after the party, the prosecution ordered 46 of the 47 team members to provide DNA samples (the only black member of the team was exempt since Mangum had stated that her attackers were white), though some members had been absent from the party. The players gave cheek swabs and statements to the police the day after the party. They also offered to take lie-detector tests, but the police turned them down.[12] On Monday, April 10, 2006, it was revealed that DNA testing had failed to connect any of the 46 tested members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team.[24] After the initial rounds of testing done by the state crime lab were completed, the district attorney sought the services of a private laboratory (DNA Security of Burlington) to conduct additional tests. DNA from multiple males was found inside Mangum and upon the rape kit items that had been tested.[25] However, Nifong falsely represented to the public and to the court that DNA had only been found from a single male source, her boyfriend.[26][27]

On December 13, 2006, defense attorneys filed court papers stating that the private lab had found DNA from multiple males in Mangum's body— but none that belonged to the accused players.[28][29]

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

It revealed, according to conservative estimates, that the lab had discovered at least two unidentified males' DNA in Mangum's pubic region; at least two unidentified males' DNA in her rectum; at least four to five unidentified males' DNA on her panties; and at least one identified male's DNA in her vagina.[35]

Last edited by fnord (2008-08-11 03:57:35)

I'm aware of all of this.

My point was that in our society, a woman only has to accuse a man of rape and he's pretty much convicted. It took the OVERWHELMING evidence against that ho-bag to exonerate the Duke kids.

The reason I'm so "uppity" about this issue is that I personally know 2 boys fucked by this same scenario. One boy dated this girl (and they were having sex) for months. Apparently he cheated on her with her friend and the day after she found this out, she went to the police and claimed he raped her two days earlier. This happened on a college campus and it didn't matter what the truth was, all that mattered was this kid was now "the rapist" in the eyes of the college. He was getting death threats, he got arrested and was in jail for 24 hours before he could get in touch with a relative (his parents were travelling). It didn't matter that cameras show him a good 4 miles (without transportation) away from where she claimed the rape happened, at the time she claimed it happened. It didn't matter that credit card records show him using his credit card 6 miles away not an hour later (heading away from where she was) or that security cameras didn't show him anywhere near her dorm.

All that mattered was she said he did it, so he must have. That and that you can NOT question the "victim".

Second scenerio involves 19-year-old girl all over 18-year-old guy at a party. Girl informs entire party that she is going to "fuck the brains" out of the guy at the party. Girl is said to have "dragged" the boy into her bedroom (at the party). Then both come out a hour later and are laughing and joking around. Next day girl calls guy and guy doesn't want to go out. 2 hours later girl tells parents how she was raped and guy gets arrested.

It doesn't matter that 17 witnesses all tell the same story (over 1/2 of which are the girls' friends). It doesn't matter what the facts are. All that matters is that if a woman says she's raped, then she's been raped.

I believe that if you accuse someone of rape and it is found that you are a liar, you should then have to serve the 20 years. How is it possible that Crystal Mangum didn't serve a day in jail for this? How she could have sent all those kids to prison for the rest of their natural lives and we are suppose to feel sorry for her?

This is the one thing I don't understand about women. The same thing happened when I was in high school and a girl accused a guy of rape only to be caught on tape bragging to her friend about how she was going to send the guy to jail so he could get raped to "teach him a lesson" about how to treat women (again, guy dumps girl, girl accuses him of rape).

sick sick sick...

George Orr wrote:

Any of these anecdotes result in convictions for the wrongly accused?

The answer is no, however, the first one of those cost the guys dad over $200,000 in legal fees. The other two were thrown out. The one from high school was luck that it got tossed because of them getting her on tape.

If you don't think it happens, though, ask Mike Tyson. His judge was known for her rape conviction rate. She didn't allow most of his defense in court (including the part about the woman being naked in the limo and answering the hotel door naked for room service).

Remember, that was the lady who didn't want her identity revealed and promised this had nothing to do with money (then she was on every talk show the day after Tyson's conviction talking about book deals she was making).

Not to say Mike wasn't a cretin of the highest order, but there is no way what they did was considered rape until after she got home and realized Mike wasn't going to be calling and giving her some diamonds and furs.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe a rape accuser because there's so many women that get raped and never come forward; I'm loath to do anything that might discourage other victims from coming forward. People get screwed hard by false accusations, but I would still suggest that the pain of being falsely accused isn't as bad as the pain of being raped and having nobody believe you. Not saying what happened to your friends wasn't awful, this is just why I think we have the guilty until proven otherwise policy now.

ptah13 wrote:

How that Crystal Mangum got away scott-free from what she did is beyond me. At least they nailed the psychotic prosecutor to the wall.

I think she got away with it because she had mental health issues.  It would be difficult to prevail in a malicious prosecution lawsuit against someone who is mental.  Also, malicious prosecution is a civil action.  She has no money, hence it's not worth the effort.  In addition, as a society we don't want to scare people into not reporting crimes out of fear that they can be incarcerated if there is not sufficient evidence to prove a crime.

headkicker_girl wrote:

In addition, as a society we don't want to scare people into not reporting crimes out of fear that they can be incarcerated if there is not sufficient evidence to prove a crime.

I don't think Ptah was suggesting that if the guy is not found guilty she should go to jail.  If it's provable that she is lying THEN she should go to jail.  Of course, it will be up to the DA to prosecute and it's doubtful that any would ever do so.

Zookeeper wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

I also don't get why 'no' doesn't mean 'no' halfway through a sexual escapade, if it need be said.

I don't get how you have come to think anyone here is saying "no" doesn't mean "no" halfway through a sexual escapade.  All I'm saying is it isn't "rape".  That doesn't mean a guy has the right to do whatever he wants to a woman after she agrees to have sex with him and he's already entered her.  It just isn't "rape" at that point.  She wasn't assaulted and dragged into the bushes. She didn't have a knife put to her throat.  She agreed to become as physically intimate as a person can be with the guy.  Of course there are exceptions but to say that the guy is a rapist if at any point after entering her she says stop and he doesn't stop (regardless whether force is used and regardless of how long the act continues and regardless of how forcefully she protests) is simply wrong.

"Rapist" carries one of the worse stigmas a man can be branded with.  It follows him for life.  Nobody should be branded a rapist unless they damn well are guilty of being one.

You're playing semantics.  In many jurisdictions there is no "rape."  It's just degrees of "sexual assault" depending on whether there is vaginal (or anal) penetration or not.  Whether he's called a rapist or not, you can still be labelled a sexual predator and subject to reporting.

headkicker_girl wrote:

You're playing semantics.  In many jurisdictions there is no "rape."  It's just degrees of "sexual assault" depending on whether there is vaginal (or anal) penetration or not.  Whether he's called a rapist or not, you can still be labelled a sexual predator and subject to reporting.

OK, use search and replace: Change the word "rape" to "sexual assault" or "sexual predator" if that will help.

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

The standards used for prosecution currently, for the most part, are wise. I'm only talking about that rare occasion when it is PROVEN that it is a situation of false accusation.

It won't happen because it would still have a chilling effect on women who might think that they won't be believed.  Also, how do you "prove" a false accusation without videotape?

Witnesses at the party.  Friends of hers who testify about conversations with her where she bragged about making it up.  Etc.  Come on, examples of these are right here in the thread...

Decadence wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Personally, I'm inclined to believe a rape accuser because . . . .

You've . . .  Uh . . . How should I "put this" (Oh, man, this is awkward) . . . .  Never really spent any "spent any time" around an actual woman have you (Your "Real Doll" collection doesn't count)?  That's "sweat and all;" But, a bit of a "news-flash" for you . . .  Yeah . . . Most females are bat-shit insane, manipulative cunts (Give me that fucking look if you want; But, you know that it's true).  Eh, you're young still.  Just turn off the CNN, and "step out" for a bit each day.

And, if I'm coming off as a bit of a "misogynist," there's good fucking reason.

Vie est le chienne et tu morturi.

Sort of to my point. I can't imagine a male, getting his feelings hurt and retaliating by making up a story to get her sent to prison for 20 years and then laughing about it. (Yeah, I know, there are men out there that beat women and do all sorts of horrid things... )