Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Her body still belongs to her, but she has entered into a tacit contract to share it.
If a woman voluntarily exposes herself intimately to a man, she is on her own in terms of the consequences for not having established a credible basis of trust beforehand. Just as the man is responsible if he lets a woman handcuff him naked to a motel bedpost, and then she leaves with his wallet and car keys.
You are so wrong.
A woman has EVERY RIGHT to say "NO" anytime. And, the man has no right to "push" anything. If the man does, it is RAPE
A woman has EVERY RIGHT to say "NO" anytime. And, the man has no right to "push" anything. If the man does, it is RAPE
A woman who dates a rapist is not exercising Personal Responsibility. She should have been more careful about whom she dates.
If I date a woman, and we are stopped by the police, who search the car, and find controlled substances in her purse and she has stashed some under the front seat and in the glove compartment, I have not exercised personal responsibility. I have culpability for having drugs in my car. I should have been more careful about whom I associate with. I have nobody to blame but myself, no matter how angry I am with the woman who misled and deceived me and incriminated me.
A woman who dates a rapist is not exercising Personal Responsibility.
You asked about "date rape". You said a woman gave "permission" when she allowed clothing to be removed.
You were, and are, wrong.
The man can, and if reported, will, be charged with rape if the woman, at any time, says "NO" and the man forces sex upon the woman or, even if a sexual act has started, continues that sexual act after the woman rescinded permission by saying "NO".
You asked about "date rape". You said a woman gave "permission" when she allowed clothing to be removed.
You were, and are, wrong.
The man can, and if reported, will, be charged with rape if the woman, at any time, says "NO" and the man forces sex upon the woman or, even if a sexual act has started, continues that sexual act after the woman rescinded permission by saying "NO".
Charged, yes. Convicted, theoretically, only if it can be proven to a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that she said "no". Who has the onus of proof?
The OP here is the question of whether it is appropriate that a man "will be charged with rape" on absolutely no evidence whatsoever besides "she said". Nobody questions that he will be. The question is, should he be?
In other words, is it justice when a man is criminally charged with doing something, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, that a person waits until the next day and then says he did, after reconsidering a scenario into which the accuser entered volountarily?
You don't see any room at all here for a woman to use this provision of the law to redress a completely different grievance she might have with an innocent man?
If a woman says a man raped her, he is presumed guilty and must prove himself innocent. Formally charged by the state, on her testimony alone, which he must prove false. How do you do that?
jtur, you are confusing matters of evidence with matters of fact. So let's draw a line here: What's your definition of rape? Obviously, it's different from the dictionary definition, since you've said previously penetrating a woman's body against her will is not necessarily rape. So how do you define it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Her body still belongs to her, but she has entered into a tacit contract to share it.
There is no such thing as a "tacit" contract. Flashing one's breast no more creates an obligation to allow penetration than giving a beggar $1 requires you to hand over your watch, laptop and the contents of your wallet. It's a gift -- and as such, cannot be forced. A contract requires assent, consideration, and performance by the party seeking enforcement. Even if there is a contract -- which there never is in a rape situation -- another fundamental principle of contract law is that specific performance may not be had where the object of the contract is a human body (and most of those contracts are void as against public policy, anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
If a woman says a man raped her, he is presumed guilty and must prove himself innocent. Formally charged by the state, on her testimony alone, which he must prove false. How do you do that?
This is completely false. The government bears the burden of proof in a rape prosecution as in any other proceeding. You are being totally irrational; you simply want to have rape legalized, that's all.
Charged, yes. Convicted, theoretically, only if it can be proven to a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that she said "no". Who has the onus of proof?
Burden of proof is on the accuser - as always. And the accusers in the scenario I painted are frequently successful
But, then again are the defendants. I represented such a defendant several years ago - and by presenting testimony of a number of witnessess (it was a party situation), the jury did not buy the accusers testimony and found my client not guilty.
Jtur, your comments are very crude. The fact that a woman chooses to associate with a man, even if she takes her clothes off or pretends she wants it, doesn't mean she's consenting to sex with him. If she says no, it's no.
So let's draw a line here: What's your definition of rape? .
You are asking me to give you an overly simplistic definition of a complex concept. The reason your arguments are on such thin ice is because you insist on oversimplfying your definition, and then standing by it no matter what.
Does a woman have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to evaluate the trustworthines or the potential for brutal criminal violence in a man that she picks up in a bar and voluntarily takes her clothes off for in a motel room? Give me a simple answer: [ ] Yes [ ] No. You're the one that wants oversimplified definitions. What will it be?
You want everything black and white, read about "rape fantasy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy Consider a woman who describes her rape fantasies on the interent to a guy, and then they arrange to meet. To nobody's surpise, the woman gets raped, and the guy is convinced that she is loving it. Does she have a right to accuse him of rape?
You are asking me to give you an overly simplistic definition of a complex concept. The reason your arguments are on such thin ice is because you insist on oversimplfying your definition, and then standing by it no matter what.
Oh, come on -- since you are arguing about rape, you must have some idea of what rape is. Correct? I am asking you to give some definition of a concept, complex or not. In law, statutes and courts define complex concepts all the time. So please -- define rape. We've already established that according to you, non-consensual sex isn't rape. So what is rape in your book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Does a woman have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to evaluate the character of a man that she picks up in a bar and takes her clothes off for?
Gee, does a woman have a responsibility for being so damn attractive, she provokes a rapist in a dark alley? Should women be criminally prosecuted for being out of the house, thereby inviting rape? I suppose according to you, this 90-year-old woman consented to being raped and murdered by letting a salesman into her house. I wonder, would you feel that salesman was wrongly convicted had he raped and murdered a man? Whatever the woman's conduct in supposedly "facilitating" the rape, it isn't criminal. It's not a crime to be alive and female; it's not a crime to leave one's house; it's not a crime to let a salesman, repairman, EMT technician, doctor, or friend into one's house; it's not a crime to be in a bar; it's not a crime to make out with someone without the intention of "going" all the way. A woman's "responsibility" does not extend to being brutalized with the law's blessing. She isn't responsible for the acts of a person who is perfectly in control of himself. When a woman is raped, try to remember that, stupid or not, she is the victim, and the rapist is the perpetrator. Your desire to blame women for crimes perpetrated against them is disgusting.
You want everything black and white, read about "rape fantasy". Rape fantasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Consider a woman who describes her rape fantasies on the interent to a guy, and then they arrange to meet. To nobody's surpise, the woman gets raped, and the guy is convinced that she is loving it. Does she have a right to accuse him of rape?
If she was raped, she has the right to accuse him of rape. There is obviously a problem of proving intent as far as the prosecution is concerned under the circumstances you are describing. However, I note a very interesting coincidence: how would you know this woman described rape fantasies to this guy? Because he said so, right? So, let's recap. You believe a woman's claim that she was raped should automatically be disbelieved; but you also believe that a man's claim regarding the woman's conduct should automatically be believed. Is that correct?
Also, you still did not give me your definition of rape. Forget a simple definition -- give me a complex one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
