Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

In this case however its more than likely if Gbaji admitted that he was wrong he just wouldnt be "wrong" he would probably be "guilty".

What, you guys didn't know that gbaji is a crime scene investigator and forensic pathologist? I thoguht that much was obvious at least...

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm



So, if 29% of rape is "acquaintance rape" that means that according to Gbaji's logic, over 100,000 women just "made a bad choice."

53% of women who are raped have no other injuries (i.e. bruises, or that all-important "sign of a struggle") that means that 187,975 women would not be able to "prove" rape. Nearly 200,000 rapists would walk free if Gbaji had his way.

Getting an accurate number of how many rape allegations are deemed false is difficult, because there's propagandizing both on the part of ultrafeminists and the radical anti-feminist movement. According to an article about those wildly diverging statistics concerning how many rape allegations are actually false in the Columbia Journalism Review we get this statistic from the FBI:



Assuming that the FBIs statistic is the closest to being accurate as we are going to come, then that means 28,373 men are falsely accused.

Let's see...187,975 actual rapists walking free if Gabji's criteria were adopted by law enforcement, or 28,373 men whose lives are inconvenienced by a miscarriage of justice. Looks like a gimme to me.

I feel awful for the men who are falsely accused. I think there should be extremely stiff penalties handed down for women who are proven to have filed false rape allegations. Reparations to their victim, jail time, community service, public humiliation...I'm fine with that. But the idea of letting potentially 200,000 rapists walk free just because they didn't manage to injure their victim is insupportable. Gbaji needs to be deeply ashamed of himself.

Umm... no

The onus is on you to support your arguments, not on us to accept your "facts" out of hand. When your "facts" are questioned, you don't try to turn it around by saying "prove I'm wrong!". Get some cites and numbers to support your "facts" or else admit you're making them up.

To wit:


Find a credible site that supports this claim yet? 'Cause that's not what I read when I looked for info on date rape. Or did you just decide you'll redefine the term and act as if you have some credibility in doing so? 'Cause so far, your argument has been "This is what it is 'cause I said so! Prove me wrong!"

It's identical to the way he likes to refer to 1750 definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," and call people wrong for using their modern-day meanings.

You're playing semantic games and claiming that every rape that occurs by someone who is an acquaintance is the same as "date rape". Lots of men abuse their wives/girlfriends (and vice versa, but let's ignore that for right now). You cannot assume that every woman raped by an acquaintance was the victim of "date rape", or that they recieved no bruises or beatings in the process of being raped by someone they knew.

By "date rape", I'm talking about when someone has sex with someone they know, shows no physical signs of trauma at all, and claims they didn't consent to the sex. Now, maybe they were forced, and maybe not. My point is that there's no way to possibly know. Are you seriously trying to argue that every single rape by an acquaintance includes no violence? If not, then your point and your statistic is totally irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

Nice little bit of rhetoric to imply that I don't care about 100,000 raped women. Totally false of course. First off the number of "date rapes" is lower then that, and my opinion is that it's *not* rape at all. If you physically have a choice to avoid sex and don't do it, then by definition it's consentual. You keep dragging in all these other scenarios like a women held at knifepoint. If that's the case, then she *doesn't* have a choice. Not a reasonable one at least. But the woman given the choice of walking him versus having sex does. And that's the situations that I'm talking about. My point is that that's what distiguishes rape from date rape in the first place. That's what I have a problem with. Our laws have changed such that "coersion" is incredibly wide in the legal context. To me, unless there is physical violence, or the direct threat of physical violence, then it's not rape.



Um. Not to be obvious or anything, but you are totally misreading the stastics. 53% of women have no "other injuries", then that from the rape. It's not saying that 53% have "no injuries". What that means is that 47% of women who are raped are injuried in a way other then the rape itself (beaten, stabbed, cut, dragged behind a car, whatever). That statistic says nothing about how many women in total were injured. We can assume that it's *more* then 47% though, right?

I find it really amusing that you took this number and twisted it around, but totally missed the one in the same quote that said that 75% of women required medical care. Um... Doesn't that imply that the rate of injuries from rape is much higher then you're trying to say?



Again with the horrible statistical analysis for two reasons:

1. That's the number that were discovered to be false after police investigation. That does not include any where the victim did not follow up, or dropped the charges herself, etc. I understand that we can't assume anything about those because many women are afraid to follow up with a rape case, but we're excluding *all* of them. This is the number we can "prove" were false claims. Some percentage of the remainder are going to be false as well, but were never investigated for one reason or another.

2. Also. That's specificly the statistics of false accusations in cases of "forcible sexual assault". Many states have separate rules for date rape. Remember, that the whole point of date rape is that you weren't forcibly assaulted, but were talked into having sex, or coerced in a manner other then physically. Thus, that statistic completely misses the date rape phenomenon.

I really think you keep automatically translating "date rape" into "rape", and swapping definitions willy-nilly. They really are two different things. I'm talking about the trend that started in the mid 90s (which might explain why these statistics don't account for them), in which states would charge rape in cases where there wasn't even an allegation of force of any kind. That's what date rape is. It's not someone on a date being raped. It's someone charging rape because they had sex but didn't want to, but they weren't physically forced to (usually there's some psychological pressure or something claimed).



Where did you get that number?


Ok. Follow along with me very very slowly...

I'm talking about situations where the woman was *not* raped. Get it? So we're not talking about any "actual rapists" walking around free. The cases I'm talking about are *not* guys running around holding women at knifepoint and raping them. That's rape. I'm talking about the cases where there's not even an allegation of physical force being used, and the "threats" are so vague and unprovable that there's no possible way to determine if a rape actually occured.

How many times do I have to keep explaining the defintion? Women who are most victimized would not be negatively affected at all, and might actually gain greater protection if we focused our efforts on the violent rape cases instead of one's like in the OP. I'm sorry, but if you'd rather have sex with someone then walk home, then it's not even in the same ballpark as someone being raped. That's *not* rape IMO. You can say it is, but I'll disagree with you every time.




Again. I'm not arguing that we let any rapists "walk free". I'm simply suggesting that if we focused on the violent rapists instead of trying to see if we can get a rape charge against some guy when the only evidence of rape is the womans word, maybe we'll get a lot more results and a lot fewer false charges.

I'm not ashamed. I'm disgusted at women who use rape in such a cavalier way. Rape is the absolute worse thing a man can do to a woman. Far worse then making her walk home by herself. A woman who's actually been raped would be disgusted by someone claiming rape in that case. I don't argue this point because I'm an uncaring male who feels women shouldn't ***** about stuff like that. I argue this because I do care. A lot.


When you've been beaten half to death and are held with a gun to your head while two guys drag your screaming girlfriend into a room and take turns with her, you can tell me I should be ashamed about my feelings about rape. I've seen it first hand. I can still remember the look on her face. The despair. The pain. That is rape. So excuse me if I don't place the same freaking weight on a situation where the woman made a choice between walking home and having sex with her date and feels that it was an unfair situation to be put in. I'm sorry, but I don't shed a lot of tears for someone in that situation. She chose to go out with that guy. She chose to get into a car with him. She chose to go off alone with him without any other friends around. And she even chose to have sex rather then extricate herself from the situation on her own.

That's not rape. That's a woman not even making the most remote effort to use her brain and stand up for herself. Sorry. That's not even remotely in the same catagory, and I'm disgusted by anyone who tries to argue that it is.

Huh!? I'm pointing to a case where a woman was able to make a claim of rape with no evidence other then her word. I'm stating that the changes in our rape laws that allow women to make such claims without any evidence is the reason we're seeing such things.

How do I have to "prove" this? If we didn't allow it, then the OP would never have happened. It's that simple. What is there to prove? Clearly, it's possible for a woman to charge a man with rape with out any rape have occured. I'm simply arguing that this happens because we have lowered the burden of proof in cases like that. Isn't that obvious?

I could rape my girlfriend without leaving a mark. She is tineh.

I mostly just wanted to chime in and say that Gbaji is a piece of sh[b][/b]it though. That is all.



Edit: Unless of course, Gbaji proves me wrong...

Edited, Fri Aug 19 04:31:43 2005 by NaturalDisaster

Here in the US, as the younger party, he could probably have had her arrested under Statutory. Yay.



This is silly.





Just because it was a bad idea or a bad choice doesn't remove it from being a choice. I wish it did. People have bad ideas and make bad choices every day. I just decided to make this my first post in the Asylum... see, point.

Now, lets actually go somewhere and grab a deffinition of date rape, or what I prefer... multiple deffinitions. I'll try (unlike others) to keep them in context as well.

Start here. but ignore the last, it is out of context or at least not in direct reference to the deffinition of date rape, but just rape.

I think that this will do. They cite sources and links at the bottom somewhere.

(Note: "Grey Rape" scares me. From a society standpoint)

Ok, the Wikipedia deffinition brings in duress. I'm not looking that one up for you folks, but I think you can manage.

I'll tell you that pain is one of the most effective motivators available. In your face pain, not the threat but intimate knowledge of that pain, is an amazing short-term motivator. I should say... avoiding the pain. Thats the goal.

(Switching to the date-rape context. It is assumed the victim and rapist meet the conditions of that)

Offering a choice of Pain or Sex... or even the suggestion of Pain or Struggle and most members of society will choose sex. Moreover complicated by miscommunication between two parties. "No means no" is lost on men, mostly. I grasp it as a concept. Alongside things like "Is somthing bothering you Honey? "... "No." where "No." means "Yes." it is easy to see where an idea fostered and took root.

As for a woman having a choice when it is her being raped or the death of her children... it may be a bluff but even if it isn't she makes the choice. It is rape and it isn't her fault but she made the (good) choice of saving her children's lives and allowing a man to have sex with her. It is rape because of the duress involved.

In the car in the middle of nowhere... how do you know somthing bad will happen to her? How does she know? Her own imagination working against her. She decides that it would be better to have sex and get a ride home rather than tough it out. I think of it as mildly character building. Of course if she choses to have sex she's probably building bad character.

I think the problem involved is that if Jack and Jill get drunk and have sex and Jack thinks it was a bad idea, tough sh[/u]it. If Jill thinks it was a bad idea then instead of saying "Well, oops, life lesson." she can say "Rape!" Then Jack gets raped in jail. All over a bad choice. Ignoring all common sense I will pretend that is what gbaji is getting at.

That case goes back to personal responsibility but I'll avoid opening that topic now.

I doubt I contributed much, but at least I'll say that I put some deffinitions in and such.

If you're wondering where I learned about the Jack/Jill problem... I was given about 30 hours in education on Rape/Sexual Assault/Sexual Harassment. Seems pretty da[u]mn unfair to me.

Hope you got somthing.

(First Edit... added the thing about the car)

Edited, Fri Aug 19 11:59:40 2005 by AngryUndead

gbaji - nice troll. Even varus couldn't convince us he's as dumb as the arguments you posted here.

Bravo.

Look guys. I'm make it really simple for you. We can argue about statistics all day long. We can also argue about the definition of date rape all day long as well.

I remember all the debates over this back in the day. You have to remember that the definitions you're looking up and finding are the redefinitions after the fact. Before then, a women raped by an acquaintance was "raped". No one made a distinction. We knew that statistically many women were raped by someone they knew, but no one tried to make a new term for it.

Date rape includes rapes commited by someone the victim knows, but they didn't stop there. They added in "rapes" in which the coersion was non-physical. When I talk about "date rape", that's specifically the portion I'm talking about. Those which match the traditional definition of rape are "rape" whether commited by someone the victim knows or not. Those more like the case Ambrya brought up (she's given a choice of having sex with him or walking home), are *not* rape in the traditional sense.

That's what changed. That's what I'm ******** about. And the legal changes that came along with the creaction of the date rape classification are largely what is responsible for false claims like the one in the OP. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? If you change your laws to allow for less evidence to be required for a charge of rape, you're obviously going to get some women who'll realize that they can claim rape and have a better chance of ******** over some poor guys life.


So maybe my definition of date rape doesn't match the textbook definition. But that's because I'm only including the deltas. What was "added" to the rape classification to make it "date rape". Since the simplistic "raped while on a date" fell under the catagory of rape before they came up with the date rape classification, that's *not* what I'm talking about. That's not what *changed* in the law with regards to date rape. What changed was that non-physical forms of coersion were considered "force" for the purposes of rape. The result is cases like that of the OP, and people like Abrya today coming up with a scenario like the woman in the woods and comfortably calling that rape.


Again. I don't buy those changes. They're bogus. The really sad thing is that they don't even help women or the cause of women's equality either. They hurt them. The inherent assumption in Ambrya's scenario is that the women had no choice because the woman is just a weak female who can't figure out how to manage to get home without a man to take care of her. Clearly, she's reliant for him to "save her" from the mean evil nightime. She clearly can't find a phone, or walk a couple miles on her own, so we must charge the man with a crime because she'd rather submit to sex then have to do things that any normal sane person would have no problem doing.

Yeah. Score one for women's rights on that one...

Is it ok, Pat, is it bad if little girls cry while being raped?

Totem