Attitudes to rape

Yes, let us wait for James R. to clarify.

That being said, if it was under those circumstances, the violence and intent of the man would classify it as rape, unless, of course, this was some sort of kinky sex game they were involved with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

women are so much hassle...I hope the technology will allow a.i machines to be made...something like chobits with an ability to give birth to human just like women do. But these chobits want complain or create problems, or will accuse males of raping them, because they will not be human in the first place and will not have soul...yes what a pleasant dream. otherwise, now women can say anyone has raped them and get away with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

draqon, I am appalled at the image that you have of women, and the way you apply your warped stereotype to all females.
If you've had a bad experience or two, I'm sorry... but your sexist attitude is inappropriate and not appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

please tell me how I should view women and act about them. I obviosuly have problems from the way I view/act towards women,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i am almost 20 and I never had a gf...never kissed a girl. so please change me.

 

Only you can change yourself... but it might help if you tried to treat people equally. Try not to think of others as men or women, just people.
It won't be easy!

 

As I said, nothing listed above excuses rape. But many of them are just stupid, akin to leaving the keys in your car in a bad neighboorhood. If a woman was walking around naked, I wouldn't say that gives anyone the right to rape her. It's just that I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.

 

You do realise that only 31% of rape accusations make it to court? And only 20% of those actually result in a conviction?

 

It really does happen

It took until the 1970s for the U.S. to get a serious attitude about marital rape, and we're still not where we ought to be on the issue. In history, sexual intercourse was often considered a wifely obligation.

More than the sordid image of a 16th-century lord chasing his new bride about the manor for days and nights in order to consummate, however, consider modern estranged marriages.

I would say that yes, it happens, and more than most of us would think. A spouse has the right to say "No," and expect that decree to hold.

Nor should I be found promoting the notion that estrangement is the only scene of marital rape. Many bad relationships in modern society include rapist sexuality.

Perhaps it would be better to let someone else do the talking on this one:

Approximately 10-14% of married women are raped by their husbands in the United States. Historically, most rape statutes read that rape was forced sexual intercourse with a woman not your wife, thus granting husbands a license to rape. On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes. In 17 states and the District of Columbia, there are no exemptions from rape prosecution granted to husbands. However, in 33 states, there are still some exemptions given to husbands from rape prosecution. When his wife is most vulnerable (e.g., she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, etc.) and is unable to consent, a husband is exempt from prosecution in many of these 33 states .... (VAWnet.org)​

It is, I suppose, an interesting paper. Especially if one is unfamiliar with its information. I, however, find it grim and depressing.
____________________

Notes:

VAWnet. Marital Rape. VAWnet.org. See http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_mrape.php ​

 

Well, if they could actually control themselves, there'd sure be a helluva lot less marriages in the world! That they can't control themselves is the reason for most marriages ...and over half of them fail!

But I see, Bells, that you're still typing a helluva lot of words to get just one simple thought across. Isn't it rather tiriing to type that much when only a few words is actually necessary?

Baron Max

 

bells only supports women, but cares not for men, but really the issue concerns both men and women equally.

 

Bells:

"Oh so the fact that she was forced to have sex, without her consent, she shouldn't care because she's had sex many times before? Right. So a woman has no right over her own body if she's been promiscuous in the past? You actually turn my stomach."

Again: I see no reason why she should care. It's just one more encounter.

But then again, I never said this -justified- rape. I just can't, for the life of me, see why she gives a damn.

"I've read it, and all I see is drivel. You still fail to understand the concept that there is never a justification for rape. Rape is not merely about sex. Rape is about power, control and subjugation the victim. But I guess you are too uneducated and too morally bankrupt and basically backwards to understand such a notion."

Yet in many of the cases, one could not say it is rape at all. When someone never declares - verbally or unverbally - that they do not want to have sex...how is that rape? When they are drunk and try to have sex with -you-, how is that rape? When they are neither being treated violently, nor have any obligation to accept the sex, yet give in even after some protestation in a relationship, how is that rape? And how can rape occur when there is an explicit sexual contract between both parties?

"So you think that if she's covered up, she wouldn't be provoking anyone? "

Generally speaking, yes.

"Hmmm sound about pretty much what he stated in his speech during Ramadan. A woman should be free to wear whatever the hell she may choose and not be raped. A woman has a right to not be raped."

Your protestations do not change human nature. Of course, she could also simply not care about being raped. Considering she is provoking the opportunity, that would all ready seem to be the case.

"You keep assuming that women who dress a certain way would not really attract rape or provoke a man to rape her. But women are raped on a daily basis and are dressed differently. "

Not saying that all instances of rape are based on provocative dress. You are putting those words in my mouth. I am only saying that provocative dress can inspire more instances of rape than would be otherwise.

"You are keeping the onus on the woman instead of laying the blame where it lies. On the rapist. You still don't get that if a man rapes a woman, because she was wearing something skimpy, that it is he who has the problem."

If you bothered to read what I wrote, instead of responding with a hysterical emotional response, you'd see that I have always put the moral blame on the rapist.

"Your attempting to justify his behaviour is pathetic in the extreme and makes you just as bad as a rapist would be in attempting to justify his own behaviour."

I'm not justifying a damn thing. I am simply making a comment on human nature.

"What they wear, say, do, drink, etc, means nothing at all."

Pure, unequivocal, nonsense. Women who make themselves sexually focused are attempting to convince men to have sex with them. Convincing the wrong man to have sex with them produces rape.

Certain behaviours, manners of dress, actions...all have a sexual overtone. Engaging in such things sexualizes the atmosphere more than not. Unless of course you think seduction has no foundation at all.

"I guess maybe you are trying to justify your own behaviour and attitude possibly towards women in general. "

Pathetic ad hominem.

"Are you that weak that you can't control yourself around women and therefore prefer to blame her instead of addressing your own problems, issues, weakness and lack of self control?"

See above.

I am beginning to see here the famed "hysterical woman" popping up.

"A man does't rape a woman because he merely wants a "fuck". He rapes her because he wants to control her, have power over her and demean her. "

Sometimes, they might, but actually the over whelming impetus to rape is not "power" but "sexual gratification". Some men might get off on the power experience of it, but the act is also chiefly sexual.

"A man who breaks into a womans house and rapes her, is not different to a man who rapes a woman who might be dressed in what you've termed a "sexually focused manner"."

Morally no, but pragmatically yes. He had more of a reason to rape the woman in provocative dress (not good reason, mind you, but a foundation).

"A woman is free to wear whatever she so chooses and have the right to not be raped."

Human nature says otherwise. If she wishes to buck against it, then she must suffer the likelyhood of her chances to be raped increased.

"Women are raped regardless of what they may wear or do or not do."

Some are. But you will find that the provocative dress issue -does- produce more rapes, specifically in modern society.

"A woman cannot lower the possibility of her being raped because rapists do not rape for specific reasons such as her manner of dress, her behaviour, what she's drunk, if she's married. A rapist picks his victim because he wants to control her and demean her."

That is absurd and ridiculous and I am fairly certain even -you- know it. Rapists most -certainly- target specific women. Rapists are -much- more likely to rape someone in a skimpy dress that forces a focus on her sexuality.

"She could be wearing anything at all, she could be in jeans and the sweater you so stupidly recommended, and she'd still be raped."

Could be, but -far- less likely.

""WoW, you sure" are an idiot aren't you? "

Blahblahblah, hysterical woman, blahblahblah.

"Those are some of the justifications that some men have given for raping a woman. "She smiled at me".. "She looked at me, therefore she wanted me".. "She walked that way just for me because she knew I liked it" (even though he was a complete stranger to her).. etc. Sadly they aren't strawmen arguments, they are realities of the excuses men give to rape women as well as children. I've heard paedophiles actually say that because the little 5 year smiled at him as she licked her ice-cream, she was telling him she wanted to sleep with him. Rapists, like paedophiles, will see what they want to see in every situation and with every individual they decide to assault, even if it is in their own minds."

Some make weird justifications, of course. Some are going to target anyone and probably have targetted beforehand. Many others will not.

"You're kidding right? You really think all men view the same thing as being somehow overtly sexual or 'flirtatious'?"

In a common cultural milieu? For the most part, yes! That is how -social discourse- works.

"Sex is not available if one party does not want it, regardless of their marital status. Merely being married does not mean that the man, or the woman for that matter, can merely take whatever they so choose if the other party is not willing. If a woman says no to sex to her husband, he has no right to force her. Doing so is rape."

Then there is no reason whatsoever for marriage and, in fact, the marriage contract is explicitly broken. The purpose of marriage is sex. Sex for procreation and sex to socially restrain the influence of sex in general society. Barring sex, there is litterally no reason to be married.

 

Well, sure it's right/fair! That's what trials are all about, ain't it? If you can't trust the trials and juries, then....? Or are you saying that, no matter what comes out in the trial, the woman is always right????

I think men will soon have to get signed, notarized affidavits in order to protect them from false accusations from the sluts!!

Baron Max

 

None of the Above for me.
If the woman is forced into sex, married, drunk, sexy or not it is rape.

 

Labels mean nothing in reality. Men and women can be sluts. But sluts choose who they have sex with. Whether one was a virgin and married their sweetheart and thats the only partner they've ever had or someone who has had numerous relationships. Nothing condones RAPE. It is a crime to whoever male or female it is done to. Because you find someone enticing, they did not force you to have sex with them, you braindead assholes. Both men and women try their best to be as attractive as possible to attract who they want, but in the end it is a choice that one has a right to have. It is their body and self. It is a foregone conclusion that more women are raped than men simply by default of physical dynamics but rape has the same effect on both because we are human and it is a violation, and everyone understands the grievousness of that. That is usually why more boys and young men experience molestation or rape than older men. But still the devastation and trauma is the same. There will always be people who make false claims on all sides and not even in at rape crime scenario but there is no excuse for rape if a crime was commited. There are children or young people who were so scared of their attacker they did not say no but this is just another ploy of an attacker. Did a rape not occur because it wasn't expressly stated "no" when the attacker knew the victim did not want this to happen to them but was stricken with fear or taught to obey or trust all authority figures? Of course even in a situation this was rape because the attacker knew it was abusing power or intimidation or threat against another. These things happen. The saddest and hardest part for anyone is proving guilt or innocence. For those accused wrongly, those who are a victim of rape or molestation far outweigh them greatly. It is extremely devastating for the victim and people should be more sensitive to victims of crime because it could have happened to you.

 

James R.:

You mischaracterize my argument. I have never said that promiscuity excuses rape (in fact I have noted that it does not). I have only said that I cannot understand any objections to a non-violent rape from a promiscious woman.

I'd like that to be kept in mind: I do not suggest that it is not rape to rape a promiscious woman. Only that I cannot see why the promiscious woman would care if the rape is non-violent.

As a rugby player, I'd find the experience far less horrible than were I a non-rugby player. Similarly, the idea of being tackled is not something which would cross my mind as something inherently bad, considering, as you noted, I volunteer for such regularly. Thus whereas I might have preferred it not to happen, I could not say that I was truly harmed by it.

 

Maybe not most, but I've been falsely accused of such.

It still happens. Going to court for a year isn't very fun.

But men can get into a lot of trouble over it.