Women who lie in court

Remove all ads!

They had by definition unrealistic expectations if the reality was that they were not about to get anywhere with the said woman. To tangent the actual topic I don't in a similar way think that a woman who blames a man falsely for rape should get any extra leniency just because the man was a dick who played with her emotions only to sleep with her once and never call again.

 

I really don't think there are many statements I could disagree with more than that. Your case A (which is the thing most people think about when they first hear of rape) is a crime of violence and convenience. The criminal may or may not target a specific individual or type of individual (they rarely target the type of person they desire, most often the type of person they want to hurt), the primary criteria is accessability.

Your type B is often called date rape. A person has the right to say 'no' at any time, no matter what has been said or promised, and no matter what has happened between the two (or more) people in the past. It doesn't matter how far the two are at the time either -- once told to stop, everything must stop. I have absolutely no compassion for the man who pushes after that, he is a rapist and deserves punishment (I'm using 'man' because over 99% of rapes are committed by men).

Sorry, but not putting out does not constitute as torture (in many areas it's simply known as marriage).

 

@Sir Rechet,

You could similarly make a case that a murder victim may have contributed to his or her murder by doing something foolish (associating with violent people, etc.), but that doesn't mean anyone ever deserves to be murdered. Likewise with rape, imo.

I might agree that the playing field between the sexes is not particularly level (women have a uniquely powerful motivational tool at their disposal that they may use irresponsibly from time to time), but that's just the way it is. Life can appear to be very unfair indeed when you start with the assumption that it's supposed to be fair.

 

T2, you of all people should know that changing the name of something doesn't change its nature. Whether you call it a civil union, holy matrimony or marriage, torture is still torture.

 

It seems you're thinking too far ahead, thus missing the point I'm trying to make. Yes, if the tortured can't contain themselves and commits a rape, then I'd also call it a date rape. (Wasn't aware of the official term, but now that I've heard it, it makes sense.)

As I said above, I don't think being tortured that way is in any way a decent excuse for a rape. It's the act of torturing that I'm strongly against.

Thus my reasoning becomes: If you're malevolent enough to prey on a weak-willed target, IMHO you should be aware of the possible negative consequences for doing so. You MIGHT get raped, and it's your own damn fault then.

What has "not putting out" to do with this? I'm spesifically NOT referring to anything you'd normally expect to see in the broad spectrum of relationships out there, but an especially cruel form of abusing sex as a piece of artillery.

Edit:
@Gaear: Associating with known violent people is one thing, but to keep up with the spirit of the example I'm referring to...
You would assume someone was stupid enough to call that violent person names, slapping them around with trouts and doing their significant other while still expecting NOT to get killed.

 

So... Strippers are asking for it? Lapdancers? Barmaids?

There are also these things called 'delusions' and 'alcohol' which can cause the impression someone is much more interested than they are.

Or the guys who will pay for dinner, or drinks, then take it out on her flesh later because she 'owes him'

What about the girls who flirt with guys in the hopes they will ask her out on a date rather than just have a one night stand? Is that torture? Should women just put out whenever a guy expects it so she doesn't 'torture' him?

If a person expresses they are wealthy that does not give you the right to mug them when they are alone, if someone appears sexually interested that does not give you the right to use them as you see fit without their consent. If that person cannot restrain themselves from desire then they are dangerous - sexually or otherwise. A lack of self control of the criminal is not the fault of the victim.

 

Sir Rechet: If you're referring to bondage (or S&M) that's still between two consenting adults. I don't see how you even come close to drawing a comparison to rape.

 

8, Sir Rechet doesn't seem to be saying that such women deserve to be raped, just that what they're doing is itself a great wrong. If that's what he's saying, I agree with him. There are some women who use their sexuality as a weapon against others, and such women are inviting trouble (not necessarily rape, there's all kinds of trouble that activity can bring about). That doesn't mean they deserve it, but I would compare it to consorting with drug dealers and then getting shot. You didn't deserve it, but you did set yourself up for it.

That being said, as I understand it, that is the vast minority of rapes, or even date rapes.

 

No, that's their job and you can avoid them easily by not going to places where you'd expect to meet such. Besides, they're not focusing on just one person but most of them. Or in case of strippers, the ones who wave around biggest stacks of money. I'm rather missing the keywords intentional, targeted torture in the examples you gave, while I agree that they're somewhat above the "business as usual" model seen in everyday relationships.

These would be more from the alley I'm referring to: (IMHO of course)

- Golddiggers
- Persons using their significant others only as means of getting money for living while having their "real" relationship with someone else
- The sorry types that think they have the power to redeem a proven dangerous criminal by marrying them
- Bar patrons that sincerely expect someone else will pay for their drinks for the night just because they're so handsome/cute/<whatever the buzz word is nowadays> <-- NOTE: Extremely mild example, but the same intent.

You're still mixing up what I think the supposed rape victims deserves and what they should be aware about. Torture or not, the rapists is still a criminal and needs to be prosecuted. However, the victim of the rape can be about just as guilty as the rapist for the rape taking place. I'm not moving guilt away from the rapist, I'm adding to it.

Edit: Came to think of another analogy. Beat some poor guy enough times, by enough many people by enough many methods and he shows up at school/workplace with an assault rifle and starts shooting people. Whose fault?

 

Sir, I think you've made some mistakes in your classifications.
1.) Golddiggers are usually characterized by actually sleeping with their target, and marrying them, too. I don't think they're asking for anything but a long-term john. Certainly not rape.
2.) Basically the same as #1, but here you add an affair. Certainly not wise, but also not likely to put them in a high-risk position for rape.
3.) While they are putting themselves in a risky position, they certainly aren't torturing anyone. Here, they are at a high risk for rape, but due to kindness (and carelessness), not cruelty.
4.) I think this is the closest of your examples.

Personally, I was talking about women who feel like they can 'tease' every guy around them on a daily basis and then bash them if they make any kind of a move at all. Some women use this combo of desire and threat to bribe/threaten their way up the food chain at work, but others just do it as a way to grab attention. IMO, if you 'toy' with other people, don't be surprised if they turn around and 'toy' with you.

 

*bows at NOG*

Your 'tease' description is pretty much spot on. Much better than my examples, anyway.

Seems like 'torture' created a whole lot of misplaced associations with what I was actually after, such as T2's S&M reference -- I lol'd at first but also realized that it's torture by definition so no wonder he thought of that. But as he then continued, that's something between two (or more) consenting adults and not torture as such.

Edit: Then again, tease doesn't sound as inherently malicious as torture does, so that causes other misdirected associations instead.

So, replace 'torture' in the posts above with 'extreme tease with only or almost only malicious intent' and it still holds.

 

So let me see if I have this straight....

A woman wears her clothes a bit tight and goes to the bar to have a good time. She flirts and lets a couple of men buy her drinks. Because they spent $20 on her they believe she should put out and when she doesn't they rape her --- and you don't feel any compassion for her ... basically you believe she deserves the treatment she got.

If you think that's okay you need professional help.

 

Some even do that (or much worse) just because it amuses them, or "because I can."

 

As noted above, I do consider bumming drinks as extremely minor offense and thus no, I don't think she should expect (note: not deserve!!) any raping. At worst, she should expect some of the guys lashing at her verbally when they finally find out what she's after, but nothing more. But I still do consider her doing something inherently *wrong*.

It seems you haven't been subjected to or been eyewitness to some of the worst stunts people out there are capable of just because they *can*. Considering the taboo such treatment is for the victim -- "what, you mean you aren't man/woman enough to take *that* in stride, come on" -- you can't really report such abuse easily either. What is someone with, say, somewhat less developed social skills, going to do about it other than absorbing it like a noob (s)he is until the boiling point is reached?

To reiterate - yes, I think is rape is horrible and not excusable by anything. But at least a few of the rape cases wouldn't have happened if the rape "victims" didn't push their luck beyond its limits. Furthermore, if pushing one's luck involved malicious intent -- "I'll tease ya till ya drop and ya can't do a damn thing about it" -- I do consider the aftermath being the supposed victim's own damn fault.

 

Sorry, but a case of blue balls does not constitute torture. I think you're the first person who's accused me of being naive about what people can do "just because they can." You're probably not very familiar with my posts (or me for that matter).

You seem to have some price or act where rape is acceptable (or at least, the victim's fault). I do not. There are times a victim of violent crime has done something stupid to put themselve in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people, but no one deserves to be raped or beaten. It is NEVER a man's right to force himself on a woman, it doesn't matter what she's done.

 

No, I'm not familiar with your post history about such things, but I'm willing to take your word for it.

However, you're still missing my point. I'm NOT saying that anyone deserves to be raped. No matter what. I AM saying that unless you put your *own* inconsiderate/malicious/torturous actions on a reasonable leash, you might end up with unexpected results, of which getting raped is one. I can't fathom how you can twist THAT into me saying the rape victim DESERVED it.

Unfortunate? Yes. Undesirable? Yes. Criminal? Yes, very much. Unexpected? Well, THAT depends on what *you* did for the poor sob that raped you.

Catch my drift now?

 

No, no that's not it at all. In fact, that goes directly against what both I and Sir Rechet have said.

To understand it a little better, T2, think of a snowboarder who breaks his leg out on the slopes. Saying he 'deserved' it is, quite frackly, idiotic. Saying he should be prepared for risks like this, however, and realize that he put himself in a situation where it's more likely to happen, is something else entirely.

Also, as Sir Rechet pointed out, that's a very mild case of the kind of the abuses we're talking about. The worst that woman should expect is maybe one of the guys grabs her behind or something.

 

So getting raped is something it is reasonably expect to be if you behave in a certain way? Are men nothing more than raging bundles of testosterone who just have to dip it in if we have gotten enticed enough? Should a woman expect that we lack self control? The slope does not make a conscious decision to break the snowboarders leg, the rapist does, no matter the provocation.

 

No, the snowboarder makes all the choices in this case, but the lifestyle analogy still fits. Of course men have a choice, which is why not all, or even most, men will rape, but the lifestyle increases the odds.

For another comparison, consider cops. The lifestyle of a cop includes the risk of being shot. Do criminal have no choice but to shoot cops? Of course not, they have every choice in the world, but continued exposure to criminals in unpredictable and high-tension (threat of arrest and all) situations means cops should be prepared to be shot from time to time. I don't think the police deserve to be shot, nor am I saying the criminals have no choice over their actions, but in the statistical long run, it's much more likely to happen than, say, being a pianist.

 

How do those two statements not contradict? Saying that their actions caused them to be raped seems very similar to saying they deserved it (not in the sense that they are bad people and deserve to be raped, but that things they did obviously forced someone else's hand, and that because they were being a tease, the rape shouldn't be unexpected (i.e. it is warranted) ).