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.
It was those boys who saddled themselves with criminal records. They need to take responsibility for their behavior. If they didn't want to end up in court, they should have behaved appropriately. Their actions had consequences. If they didn't want to deal with the consequences, they shouldn't have done the deed/s. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Ruth, in that particular case it was not just your regular crime of a rapist - I mean what rapist is running around town, announcing his crime to the whole world?
It was a dumb teenage stuff intended to torment the victim, as they often do in nowadays.
In another similar recent case the girl committed suicide, she was only fifteen.
That's the true cruelty of it, and that's why they deserve their punishment at the first place.
But even if they DO jump them, what do you think would happen then?
You must be really confusing men with women...
That's the entire point! There is no confusion here. No one should be jumping anyone. Neither a woman or a man. I know you said this to be funny but it isn't. Maybe put another man who is turned on by another man in the tight sweater and jumping him. Would you laugh then?
You are confusing a power act with a sexual act. It's not about confusing men with women.
Quote:
It's only natural.
When you walk down the street coming back from work in the evening, when you are attacked and raped by a stranger, how long do you think it'll take jury to decide who is at fault here?
When you, however, invite someone in your house by your own accord, or go to visit someone and this someone happens to destroy your expectations, obviously it would bring a lot of deliberations to a jury, because it becomes your word against his.
It shouldn't because inviting a man into my home does not invite him to have sex with me. The guy doesn't get to pick and choose and neither should the jury. You just can't seem to get that.
Unless the woman says "Please have sex with me." No man has the right to have sex with her no matter how she dresses, whether she invites him in her home or does any of the other million things men invent for excuses they use to get free of rape charges when facing a jury.
Read the sentence carefully....I did not say children and men were the same.
A child ( I raised 4 boys and three girls) when told NOT to touch will do so first chance they have.
Men know they are NOT supposed to touch a girl/woman that is (dressed or should I say undressed) even tho SEX is so obvious to the naked eye......they are Flaunting SEX.
Why do girls/women do the following?
Victorias Secret is SO POPULAR with their SEXY underclothes.
Wear push up bras to enhance their breasts.
Clothes that show their Cleavage and part of the breast.
Dresses that expose the sides of their breasts.
Could go on but those are just some of the things that arouse Male animals.
And as for the 80 yr old or child Rape victim I have my sympathy in that regards.
Get a bskt of strawberries or bskt of tomatos and there will be a rotten one in the bunch.....it is called the Law of Averages.....same goes for any country on this planet.
The problem with this theory is that it's not the women who wear risque clothes who are the ones getting raped in many cases. Women who dress modestly, even in a long skirt, women dressed in jeans and a men's shirt to hide the breasts, girls too young to know what sex is, grandmothers, peasant women in traditional dress, women accompanied by their husband or boyfriend (in the cases in India), these are the women who are getting raped. Rape has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of underwear a woman wears, that's preposterous. Most women in the world who have been raped have never heard of Victoria's Secret.
The question is: why are so many men inclined toward violence? Why can't men abide by the law and public order? Part of the reason is that they know they can get away with it. But that doesn't explain why they're inclined toward violence in the first place.
Sorry I wouldn't want to offend you in any way, because I really don't know the whole story, however I do have couple of comments right away. You are saying "I was in my home with a man I thought was a friend," but "a friend" in the US often means "potential lover," whenever woman might decide to give it a go.
That's number one, and number two, since you knew him for a year, there could have been a lot of other things happening that he could have been perceiving differently comparably to your own ideas or expectations. Just saying.
That's why in courts those cases are not as "cut and dry" as you'd like to see it.
Yes it was cut and dry. He pinned me to the floor and forced himself on me-so much so that I had vaginal abrasions and bruises on my thighs. I did not want it and fought as much as I could against man who was over a foot taller and 100lbs heavier than me. I said NO. I said it over and over. He was NOT a potential lover. I had no interest in him and he was a married man with kids. We worked together and I considered him a friend. I don't know where you get your information from, but to most people, a friend means A FRIEND. I have several close male friends and that's all they are. There is nothing even remotely sexual about our friendships. Your victim blaming disgusts me. NO MEANS NO. A rape victim is NEVER to blame for what happened to them. I'd say a lot more but I don't want to get banned.
That's the entire point! There is no confusion here. No one should be jumping anyone. Neither a woman or a man. I know you said this to be funny but it isn't. Maybe put another man who is turned on by another man in the tight sweater and jumping him. Would you laugh then?
I'm sorry, I'm laughing about the whole "tight sweater" thing when it comes to man "jumping" another man. I still think that you erroneously equate men with women.
Quote:
You are confusing a power act with a sexual act. It's not about confusing men with women.
No, because it can be a power act and it can be a sexual act. It depends on a case.
Quote:
It shouldn't because inviting a man into my home does not invite him to have sex with me.
That's the way YOU see it, but there are still TWO of you, and the TWO of you might not see same things eye to eye.
Quote:
The guy doesn't get to pick and choose and neither should the jury. You just can't seem to get that.
Unless the woman says "Please have sex with me." No man has the right to have sex with her no matter how she dresses, whether she invites him in her home or does any of the other million things men invent for excuses they use to get free of rape charges when facing a jury.
What you don't seem to get, is that in your mind you are in control of men, and you believe that that's how it should be. They have to jump when you tell them to jump and they have to heed when you tell them to heed. But since your expectations/demands are unrealistic, the jury is the one that decides what's reasonable and what's not, instead of bending to your demands.
You can argue with me all you want, but things are set in this way for a reason.
I'm sorry, I'm laughing about the whole "tight sweater" thing when it comes to man "jumping" another man. I still think that you erroneously equate men with women.
No, because it can be a power act and it can be a sexual act. It depends on a case.
That's the way YOU see it, but there are still TWO of you, and the TWO of you might not see same things eye to eye.
What you don't seem to get, is that in your mind you are in control of men, and you believe that that's how it should be. They have to jump when you tell them to jump and they have to heed when you tell them to heed. But since your expectations/demands are unrealistic, the jury is the one that decides what's reasonable and what's not, instead of bending to your demands.
You can argue with me all you want, but things are set in this way for a reason.
Okay, you gave the impression that a woman jumping a man or whatever you want to call it would be a good thing. Well picture this instead. In your fantasy you have control because that's what fantasies are all about. We can fantasize whatever we want because we can control them. That's what rape is about. controlling another person to the rapists desires. Ask any psychologist.
So let's say you are in the real world. A women whose strength and size is twice that of yours decides she wants to have sex with you. She doesn't ask. She takes. She is pretty brutal about it. She beats you and is not at all gentle with your most precious body parts in the process. It's a situation of another PERSON violating your physical and mental being. Male or female. You didn't ask for it and you didn't want it. It's not about sex it's about being attacked, injured and maybe even fearing for your life. Remember, this women is much stronger than you are, it's possible you know, and she is dominating you in the worst way possible.
There is no "she sees it one way and you see it another" because her way is prevailing. Because like you her attitude is she has a right to see it her way over yours and in this case her way is winning and yours is losing. But you don't care about that. You don't care why she is doing these things to you. You don't care that her nature is different from yours because she is of a different gender that yours. All those lame excuses as to why she is doing what she is doing to you don't mean a thing because she is doing something really horrible to you and you do not like it.
Now when it's all over, what do you do? Do you try to convince your friends you were taken advantage of? Will they doubt you especially if you knew her beforehand? If she were a stranger will they say you somehow "asked for it?" If you have the guts to go to court will the jury laugh at you because how could a big strong man be raped by a women just as a woman might be asked, as we have seen in this thread, how could she not defend herself by punching her rapist by kicking him or squirming free etc.
You can put yourself in the woman's place with some modification. Your excuse of a man doesn't have to control himself as much as a woman because he is The Man is just so much baloney. It's no excuse. I should not have to be any more responsible for your behavior than you do for mine. I don't want to control any man for my safety nor should I have to. The human race should be evolved enough at this point that men should be able to do that all by themselves. Fortunately the majority can. But for those who can't, I think stricter laws need to be enforced to make certain those who cannot control their actions will not be tolerated. And the victims need to stop being blamed.
You probably still won't get it but I can only try to get through.
Two men are in a bar. One of them starts an argument and is verbally aggressive and crude to the guy who is just trying to defend his side. Then, suddenly, the guy who was verbally lambasted takes out a gun and shoots the mouthy one to death. When he's on trial for murder does the fact that he didn't start the verbal altercation save his hide for killing an unarmed man? No, it doesn't. So why should a rapist be let off because "she asked for it." Didn't the verbally aggressive and crude guy "ask for it"?
I'm sorry, I'm laughing about the whole "tight sweater" thing when it comes to man "jumping" another man. I still think that you erroneously equate men with women.
No, because it can be a power act and it can be a sexual act. It depends on a case.
That's the way YOU see it, but there are still TWO of you, and the TWO of you might not see same things eye to eye.
What you don't seem to get, is that in your mind you are in control of men, and you believe that that's how it should be. They have to jump when you tell them to jump and they have to heed when you tell them to heed. But since your expectations/demands are unrealistic, the jury is the one that decides what's reasonable and what's not, instead of bending to your demands.
You can argue with me all you want, but things are set in this way for a reason.
So you don't think that you (since you say you are not a man, you must be a woman) have the right to decide when someone can put something inside you? Consent is not necessary, because you are just trying to "control men" by telling them you don't want sex??
News flash: the control is over your own body and not wanting to allow it to be harmed or invaded by someone with poor impulse control or a desire to overpower another. You know, criminals.
So you don't think that you (since you say you are not a man, you must be a woman) do not have the right to decide when someone can put something inside you? Consent is not necessary, because you are just trying to "control men" by telling them you don't want sex??
Of course I have a right to decide, but I do take in consideration the difference between men and women, so I do not project my own thinking on them. I do understand what they might perceive as provocative behavior, and I do understand what they might perceive as an opportunity. I've had a couple of close calls when I was young, so I am a fast learner. And since I like my life simple and uncomplicated, if someone jumps on me while I am walking down the street from work - trust me, jury will not have much to sweat trying to figure out whether it was a rape or not.
Let's now get back to that "confusing men with women" statement made awhile ago by our debater erasure. If these are not examples of just who is "confused" I don't know what is.
If we were to use the logic of many of the men posting in this debate, we women should start warning men, for their own good of course, to take a lesson from these unfortunate males (victims) in the above situations. Perhaps they would have been able to avoid their fate by either dressing less provocatively, not drinking, not being with women with whom they didn't know, not being alone with a woman in her apartment, not being on a dark street at night or looking less sexy.
Sounds just as ludicrous when the shoe is on the other foot now, doesn't it?
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.
There is no confusion here. No one should be jumping anyone. Neither a woman or a man. I know you said this to be funny but it isn't. Maybe put another man who is turned on by another man in the tight sweater and jumping him. Would you laugh then?
