Why do so many women trivialize rape?

Post Reply New Topic

Apple, dude, do you do this to deliberately make it difficult to fisk your arguments?

No, it's saying that drunk men can't get it up.

evidence, please?

Gang members don't stop being people when they join a gang, and during gang warfare the main combatants will go for anyone associated with the other side regardless of their innocence or lack thereof; should an innocent not have the right to self-defense just because some of his friends happen to be gang members? Should a non-combatant gang member not have a right to defend himself if someone is pointing a gun at him?
Fwiw, the legal system acts like you seem to want it to: alleged gang members are basically treated as terrorists, with no rights of citizenship whatsoever.

You know what's easier than charging someone with manslaughter? Not charging someone at all. Zimmerman, for example, was going to be let off without a trial until the public outcry.

You clearly haven't been following the news. There's Zimmerman; there's the guy who shot the teen in the car for loud music (apparently the teen was 'scary,' though, so he's claiming 'stand your ground.') There's also the white guy who shot a black woman in the face when she knocked on his door after being in a car crash, with her phone distorted in the wreck. Those are just the ones that actually did go to trial; the ones where the shooter is let off without being charged never make it outside the local news, if they even make it there.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ound-laws/

...{snip un-countered arguments}...


You seem to completely miss the point that rape is sex without consent.If they're both too drunk to consent, then they are both raped.


Very few times, I'd imagine, if any at all, except when the man was violent or used force. If she has hand-shaped bruises all over, she has a pretty good case even if he was drunk.

Your underlining implying that you think a woman who can't even speak or walk, much less say no, should be able to legally be found to have consented because she didn't struggle or say no?


I agree that it is a double-standard in our culture, here, but as with the definition of rape, feminists are helping to redefine this and the culture is slowly changing. So it's not "no" jury, just one full of old people who still subscribe to patriarchal notions of male sexuality.

I was assuming that you'd be a homophobe and thus squicked out enough to get the point, based on the tack of your arguments; my apologies.


because, as mentioned above, it's unlikely that 1)the drunk guy is able to maintain an erection or 2) that a woman is going to anally rape a guy with some sort of object. If he can, and if she did, then yes: that would also be rape.
[/quote]
Then we should be grateful that men are 1/8 or less of actual rape victims, neh? Because rape is horrible, regardless of whom it happens to.

It usually takes quite a hell of a lot of alcohol though, for there to be so much in his system that he can't get an erection. So, even taking that into account, it's still possible for him to be not so drunk that he can't get an erection but still too drunk to be able to give consent.

Why do so many women get raped?
Why are these men not getting prosecuted?

17.7 million rapes of women, and we are not putting those people in prison?
I don't mean to sound sexist if I have. I just am amazed and appalled this is
even happening. We do have DNA testing now.

Raping drunk women is terrible it is.
I don't understand how any person who is drunk
is immune to any responsibility, when they (unless are an alcoholic),
choose to drink in an unsafe environment.

Is a drunk woman who says yes and tries to come on to a guy,
before he even wants to, also the victim of rape?

If we are talking about an unresponsive body, then I can understand your whole argument and
kind of agree. If you mean any drunk woman ever, then I don't.

When a woman makes it clear she wants you and she is drunk, is she still unable to consent?

1)prosecution only occurs when a)a woman reports the rape to the police; b)the police believe her; c) the police care; d)the police are competent at collecting evidence; e)the prosecutor believes her and cares. There are literally thousands of examples that victims have made public, if you look, where they have been dismissed, belittled, humiliated, and been accused of lying by police - not to mention the public, where you tend to hear things like 'why were you drinking,' or 'why were you wearing a dress,' or 'why did you let your brother's friend into your house,' etc.
2)a)We also have condoms now, and b)the victim's first instinct is often flee home, lock all the doors, and shower until her skin is raw. Unfortunately, that makes for both physical and temporal loss of evidence.


There's no such thing as a 'safe' environment, unless you drink alone with all of the doors locked. Even then, someone could break in. So where do you draw the line at 'unsafe'? A party at home? A party with friends? A party at a large house with many people, only some of whom are friends? A party with strangers? Because I assure you, women are raped at all of those venues, sometimes drunk and sometimes not, and they are always questioned for having put themselves into unsafe situations.

Is a 13 year old who says yes and comes on to a 35 year old guy, before he even noticed her, the victim of rape if he responds to her overtures? I would say that she is. In either case, the female in question is not capable of fully reasoning out the consequences of her actions; in one case it's because of impaired judgment, and the other it's from ignorance. The same would be said of a drunk guy coming on to a sober woman or a boy coming onto a grown woman.
If the desire is real, they'll still want you when they're sober and/or grown.

I have personally said 'no' to a drunk friend who was seriously coming on to me at a party he was hosting, and the next day I asked him out to breakfast after giving him enough time to sleep it off. He was still interested, but he thanked me for not raping him even though he had been disappointed the night before. He didn't use the word 'rape,' but that's what it would have been.

I guess I agree with most of that.

But as for their age, I am assuming at least 21.

If an, older, and drunk 21 year old woman came on to me,
I wouldn't have sex with her because it wouldn't be right to
do so.

As for booze itself, I still have a hard time understanding. It ruined two of
my uncles lives. This doesn't make me hate alcohol, or make
me scared of drinking it myself when I am 21, I just don't understand
drunk people. I am a taster, if I am allowed to say it, not a drunkard.
I have gotten nothing but trouble from them. I have no reason to
let alcohol become an excuse for anyone else.

It's been over 6 days since the OP posted. I wonder what he's not sharing.

If a drunken comes to you and offers you to gift you with a million dollar, and you run away to buy on credit a house and a luxury-boat in expectation to pay that with the promised one million dollar, do you think anyone will be interested, that "its the drunken guys fault, because he promised to gift me a million dollar"? O_o

Maybe its because of the alcohol limit being that late in the US, but around here you get told not to give a f**k about the stuff that drunken people say, around the age of 14. If the company-boss offers you at the company-christmas-celebration to call him "buddy", then you dont yell "Hey Buddy!! !", at the next day, when he comes in, but wait until he repeats that offer to you in an sober status. If he does not, it simply was drunken nonsense.

If you take your drunken friends car keys, and he starts venting about it, and telling you that you are a piece of s**t, and he will never again want to hang out with you, you give a f**k about it, and wait until the next day, laugh about it, and forget what he called you the day before.

If one of your friends get drunken and offers to pay drinks for all, until his money is gone and he wants to start paying with credit card, you denie. (Around here its custom to take as much money with you, as you want to spend in the evening, any cards with you are only for emergency.)

So for the ones who need it as easy as possible: Dont give a f**k about what drunken people say. Its simply worth as much as "blubblubblubblub..."

A lot of the time alcohol is a "truth serum" of sorts though. That drunken-nonsense is often what the drunk person is really thinking while sober although they don't say it of course.

If whatever was said, is said on the next day as well, then you know it was the truth. If whatever was said, is not said the next day, it was nonsense. So because of that that, you can give a f**k about that truth serum stuff, and need to wait anyway if "the truth" will be told to you, when the person is sober again.

If the person doesn't say it again the next day, they probably just feel stupid for "slipping" and telling the truth while intoxicated. They try to claim it was "drunken nonsense" simply out of embarrassment for revealing something a lot of the time.

One thing I do know.........If a drunken as*hole was lying to me and giving me grief and I decided to walk up to him and punch him out......... I would be the one being prosecuted.
Doesn't matter how drunk and obnoxious they were being or how drunk I am, I commited the offense.

Is this wrong? Should the drunk take half the blame for me losing control?
What about most other crimes (including non-violent ones like fraud or theft)? Should a money fraud victim shoulder half (or all) the blame for being gullible enough to fall for someone's con? How about if the victim was drunk during the con-artist/broker's pitch?

The answer for all those questions from a legal standpoint is no. From a public opinion standpoint, I'm willing to bet most people would agree that the person who threw the punch or commited the fraud is ultimately the one responsible.

Should be simple, yet when the same logic is applied to rape or sexual assualt, suddenly it's a grey area. I really don't get it.........

If you physically assault out of no reason someone. (No someone blabbering something to you is no reason, anyway if drunken or not, self defense to an physical attack is the only reason.) then the reason why you will be judged with having assaulted without need another person, is that you assaulted without need another person. Dont know what that person being drunken or not, is linked to it. There is no grey area. Self defense or you attacked without any reason, so you are guilty for attacking someone without reason. Dont see what should be wrong about that, or why someone else should be responsible for you assaulting other people without necessary reason. (= Self defense)

About your money fraud stuff: Someone who was stolen money, normally did not agree to it. Thats why its called stolen. Someone who is drunken and so only can talk nonsense, can as well not agree to something. A person can say words in drunken status, but they dont mean anything. Its simply nonsense. So when a person only can talk nonsense while drunken, how can that person have agreed into anything? Its wayne what exactly the person tells you. ITS NONSENSE. NONSENSE IS NO AGREEMENT. So if a person cannot actually agree to anything, because everything the person talks is actually nonsense and s**t, then there can be no agreement. Dont know what so hard about that.

The same logic IS applied.

You deciding to punsh a person without agreement - you are guilty of having beaten that person without agreement.

You deciding to take a persons money without agreement - you are guilty of having taken the persons money without agreement.

You deciding to have sex without agreement - you are guilty of having sex with someone without agreement.

Same logic on everything.

And yet they aren't treated the same......... That's my point.

No other crime victims face the kind of scrutiny and blame that rape victim's get and few others have such low report/conviction rates because of this.

Some women have been shunned for putting their rapist behind bars and they have also been called liars and accused of making it up for attention. Also don't forget some officers treat the victim bad for it too when she reports it. Back when I lived in Montana, there was a girl in a town forty miles away who was raped and the town did nothing about it so the parents had to sue to get them to charge the rapists. The girl was shunned for it and it tore apart her relationship with her parents and she wanted to move on but her parents insisted on suing so they did and she ended up with problems and turned into a drug addict and she looks to be in her forties instead of 25. She and her mom appeared on Dr. Phil about it and my mom remembered the story when it happened. It was all over the news and in the papers. Apparently her parents suing made it worse for her so she shunned her own mother for it because people shunned her for it when it went all over the media. It was all sad and a mess and I am thinking maybe the mother should have listened to her daughter and instead it destroyed their mother and daughter relationship because she made it worse for her daughter. That is why rape victims tend to not report the rape or do anything about it to get their rapist behind bars and the girl knew this is what could happen and it did so she blamed her mother for it and was distant from her.