lol, i can't believe this is true. it would just be too stupid if it was. i'll have to see if i can verify it. but from one of the links in this thread, forgot which one.
Quote:
A recent California appeals case leaves an 18 year old boy owing child support to a 37 year old woman. He was 15 and she was 34 when the baby was conceived. She was convicted of statutory rape and allowed to keep the child, leaving him owing $200 a month in child support.
The California Attorney General has pursued the support case, saying "... the teenager should be responsible for the child because he was a willing sexual partner" according to the media report. The spokesperson for the Attorney General's office was Carol Ann White, a lawyer who heads the agency's child support enforcement unit. (as reported in the San Francisco Examiner)
lol, i can't believe this is true. it would just be too stupid if it was. i'll have to see if i can verify it. but from one of the links in this thread, forgot which one.
How much more idiocy can you bring into one case? Unbelieveable.
You have still not given me an example of a state with a definition of rape that excludes females.
I didn't because that isn't what you asked... you asked this...
Quote:
I've never heard of a case like that, either.
Why do you think that is?
Referring to this by me....
I'm saying I haven't heard nor read of a conviction of a woman against a man for nonconsentual rape via regular intercourse due to that woman not getting the man's consent.
It appears you are asking questions around a point. Why not just state it.
Quote:
What numbers?
The numbers from studies questioning men and women having had sex when they were unsure or incapable of giving consent or knowing if they desire it. (Date rape)
Quote:
And we come to the word, "agenda".
Whose agenda? (<- key question!) How are they pushing this agenda specifically?
The agenda is pushed by legislation. The agenda is mostly pushed by a few radical feminist groups who engage in misandry.
Quote:
What do those two things have to do with each other?
Who calls men "potential rapists"? Who calls men paying what they are legally required to "deadbeat dads"? Do you realize how logically disconnected the first part (homosexuality) is from the last (your usual gripes about women attacking men)?
The two have to do with each other in that they use the method of demonizing someone instead of dealing with someone. Dealing requires learning about and understanding, demonizing reflects ignorance.
Take for example "deadbeat dads." A small minority of men don't pay child support. When you factor in the number of those men who have had no custody, lack of enforcement of their custody or move aways done on them, there is a very strong correlation. So often it isn't that they are deadbeats but rather that the state has stopped letting them be dads. Demonizing them won't fix the problem that is occuring there.
As for the men as potential rapists, it is a short hand for the numerous phrases made by some very radical feminists about males and heterosexual sex. If you have been on a college campus and not encountered signs using that phrase in conjunction with protests and awareness actions then consider yourself lucky. It happened on my campus. Here are a few anecdotal references to it.
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, in 1974
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think that's too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that." -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified
Now again with say deadbeat dads. Is it hateful to give fewer rights to a group? Men are tossed in jail without a trail for custody payments, or for contacting their children when their custody orders are being ignored. They have fewer rights. They are discriminated against by family courts that award custody to women in staggering displays of bias. Terms like deadbeat dad teach that for not having cash dads are immoral, inferior and a threat to our society.
That is my definition of hate for a group. People have taken those actions for homosexuals as well, as I said it is not okay to selectively end hate, or to simply change who you hate.
Quote:
I would just like to point out that you screamed like a stuck pig when I brought up how social conditioning affects women in these matters, so I really have a difficult time respecting your use of it now.
Would this be called the "Nick made a valid point, but I don't like him so it doesn't count" defense?
Quote:
So Jane jumps on Joe... and the only way he can stop it is to harm her? Pushing her off is harming her? Unless we're talking about 5'2" Joe and 6"3" Jane I do not see where the harm would happen from a man resisting.
You implied using physical strength to overpower someone. Obviously Jane is just a capable of pushing away and walking away as Joe is. You seem to be changing to be changing the context now. We go from overwhelming physical strength to, "Gee, couldn't he just get up?"
Quote:
I do not think it would be as ridiculous as you state. You make the assumption that it would not be accepted and run off into the wild blue with it, that just doesn't make sense.
Joe and Jane make out, Jane gets all hot and bothered and starts to take Joe's pants off. "oh... no... I don't think..." and she gets ready to go and he pushes her off and walks away... then what?
Then it sounds like in your scenario, she respected his wishes and yielded to them. The same would be true if the scenarios were reversed. The then what is if she didn't respect him and he had to fight her off. Then when the police come he gets questioned about how such a little thing could have tried such a tactic, or come on buddy, we are supposed to believe you didn't want to have sex, or again "well she claims you were pressuring her and those marks aren't from you resisting, but her resisting, so you're going to have to come downtown."
Quote:
Ok, so your assertion is that, worst case, that man would have to sit in jail for a bit while they decided what happened?
Seems reasonable to me. Are you asserting that that (theoretical) temporary jail stay is what's keeping men from reporting rape by women?
Are you high? I mean that seriously. Women underreport rape all the time and they are given full belief, full support, and even get to be sheltered as an accuser with regard to their name and prior history. Even with all this in place they underreport. You then have the gall to question why a man wouldn't report when he would have to go to jail accused himself? Please....
Quote:
How many men who are falsely accused of rape say that the women actually tried to rape them?
You are bringing up a tactic you claim is used by females with absolutely no backing that it is actually used? You are quite literally making this up as you go along.
Please don't twist this up on me. You brought up the hypothetical. I responded. You asked what would happen and I applied the law, societal conditioning and hypotheticals as I thought they would go. The hypothetical is made up (Joe and Jane) so of course my response to it is conjecture. I haven't looked up any statistics as for what percentage of false rape claims were used to cover aggressive females. You asked how I thought it would go and I told you.
Quote:
The first sentence invalidates the rest of the paragraph. How the hell can you deem your experience comparable enough to label what others feel? Insanity.
Look back at some of those feminist quotes and definitions of date rape. Reverse the genders and that is what happened to me. Most even claim that most women don't necessarily call it rape, realize they've been raped, or report it.
The agenda is pushed by legislation. The agenda is mostly pushed by a few radical feminist groups who engage in misandry.
And with this you invalidate any further claims. You've just used the ultimate stereotype of feminism as the "hatred of men." That's just.....lazy. Now, for your understanding (because obviously you don't get it), I'm going to tell you what radical feminism is about:
Confrontation.
Radical feminists don't see liberal feminism as far-reaching enough to actually change society. That's why they are radicals. Duh. They generally advocate the following two proposals:
1. Androgynous culture
2. Replace male culture with female culture
But I would love to see how you think radical feminism is actually man-hating.
You tell me. It isn't for reproduction so what sort of structure is it then?
Likewise you ignored what I said about abortion.
Nick
It's a sexual act, not a social or legal structure. Marriage is defined by the government and they can choose to keep multiple spouses out of that definition. Sodomy is a private act between two individuals that has nothing to do with anything or anyone else. How is sodomy related to polygamy?
As for abortion, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Like sodomy, it's not even remotely related polygamy.
I didn't because that isn't what you asked... you asked this...
Then provide a state's definition of rape that excludes females. I'm asking it again in very clear English. It's our shared language.
Quote:
It appears you are asking questions around a point. Why not just state it.
I can't go with a point you make if you can't prove the point in the first place. You're trying to get around the track and haven't even established enough to get off the blocks.
You want me to assume that state definitions of rape only point the finger at men, I want you to prove this.
Quote:
The agenda is pushed by legislation. The agenda is mostly pushed by a few radical feminist groups who engage in misandry.
So the few radical feminist groups have enough lobbying power to criminalize "a lot of sexual matters with men"?
Can you cite an example or two?
Quote:
The two have to do with each other in that they use the method of demonizing someone instead of dealing with someone.
So do lots of things but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the topic.
You are literally carting in your outside baggage and throwing it all over the room.
Quote:
Take for example "deadbeat dads." A small minority of men don't pay child support. When you factor in the number of those men who have had no custody, lack of enforcement of their custody or move aways done on them, there is a very strong correlation. So often it isn't that they are deadbeats but rather that the state has stopped letting them be dads. Demonizing them won't fix the problem that is occuring there.
You're just waving in more bell-hops with their carts of baggage. ("Just throw that suitcase on top of the original topic of discussion, thanks.")
Start Custody Thread 9000 already. Jesus Harold Christ.
Quote:
As for the men as potential rapists, it is a short hand for the numerous phrases made by some very radical feminists about males and heterosexual sex.
You admit they are a radical fringe, so why even bring them up?
You've got letters to college newspapers from almost 3 decades ago. Not exactly convincing evidence of an effective, nation-wide anti-man conspiracy.
Quote:
Would this be called the "Nick made a valid point, but I don't like him so it doesn't count" defense?
No, it's the "Nick is intellectually dishonest." card.
If you want to start discussion of socialization and how that affects these situations I would be more than happy to. We've discussed this before, however, and you dismissed it entirely. Now, when you think it may be convenient to you, you try to use it (in quite an ignorant way).
Quote:
You implied using physical strength to overpower someone. Obviously Jane is just a capable of pushing away and walking away as Joe is.
No, she's not. She's weaker than Joe. Joe is stronger. Get it through your head.
Quote:
You seem to be changing to be changing the context now. We go from overwhelming physical strength to, "Gee, couldn't he just get up?"
Men have little to fear physically from women. Women have more to fear physically from men. If you want muddy water then you can have your fill here. The psychology of this could fill a book.
Take a case from Texas a few years back. A man breaks into a woman's house and rapes her at knifepoint. The grand jury refuses to indict because.... she begged him to wear a condom.
You want muddled ideas of consent? How about that?
(This (pdf) opinion from Florida references the case. Also some nice bits of how rape victims are attacked in court, lovely stuff.)
Quote:
Then it sounds like in your scenario, she respected his wishes and yielded to them.
Is he in danger of her physically overpowering him?
How many women do you know that could take you down physically?
Quote:
The then what is if she didn't respect him and he had to fight her off. Then when the police come he gets questioned about how such a little thing could have tried such a tactic, or come on buddy, we are supposed to believe you didn't want to have sex, or again "well she claims you were pressuring her and those marks aren't from you resisting, but her resisting, so you're going to have to come downtown."
You are once again asking me to assume that the police would automatically suspect the man. There is just no reason for me to make that assumption.
Quote:
Women underreport rape all the time and they are given full belief, full support, and even get to be sheltered as an accuser with regard to their name and prior history. Even with all this in place they underreport. You then have the gall to question why a man wouldn't report when he would have to go to jail accused himself?
Life is grand for a woman who reports rape!
Just look at Kobe's alleged victim. Offers from hitmen to kill her, national humiliation, guys breaking into her home... who WOULDN'T want that?
And then, if you get into court, you get to take the stand and have the defense attorneys call you a whore! YEAH!
Quote:
Please don't twist this up on me. You brought up the hypothetical. I responded. You asked what would happen and I applied the law, societal conditioning and hypotheticals as I thought they would go. The hypothetical is made up (Joe and Jane) so of course my response to it is conjecture. I haven't looked up any statistics as for what percentage of false rape claims were used to cover aggressive females. You asked how I thought it would go and I told you.
We don't live in a world of hypotheticals. If you want to make an argument then do it.
Quote:
Look back at some of those feminist quotes and definitions of date rape.
What the $$$$ do a handful of radical feminists matter? If I brought it a few radical mysoginists would that matter? No.
I'd still like to see the state definitions of rape that exclude women.
And with this you invalidate any further claims. You've just used the ultimate stereotype of feminism as the "hatred of men." That's just.....lazy. Now, for your understanding (because obviously you don't get it), I'm going to tell you what radical feminism is about:
Confrontation.
Radical feminists don't see liberal feminism as far-reaching enough to actually change society. That's why they are radicals. Duh. They generally advocate the following two proposals:
1. Androgynous culture
2. Replace male culture with female culture
But I would love to see how you think radical feminism is actually man-hating.
There you go again... Welcome to the Shawn-iverse...
Oh gee... I've been INVALIDATED by ShawnJ.
Oh the horrors....
You are perhaps the first person I have encountered who can take the words few and radical and associate them with generalization.
It's a sexual act, not a social or legal structure. Marriage is defined by the government and they can choose to keep multiple spouses out of that definition. Sodomy is a private act between two individuals that has nothing to do with anything or anyone else. How is sodomy related to polygamy?
As for abortion, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Like sodomy, it's not even remotely related polygamy.
If marriage is defined by government, then they can also choose to define it as exclusively between a man and a woman.
Then provide a state's definition of rape that excludes females. I'm asking it again in very clear English. It's our shared language.
Yes and I want you to pretend for a second that I don't have the time of day to go through the penal codes for all 50 states. Of course the fact that 99+% of all rape arrests being men isn't convincing to you at all, so don't be convinced.
Quote:
I can't go with a point you make if you can't prove the point in the first place. You're trying to get around the track and haven't even established enough to get off the blocks.
So don't assume, and don't believe. I don't have to convince the unconvincable Groverat. I don't believe the fallacy that if you knew what I kmew, you would do what I do. You are welcome to your opinions. I present mine, I discuss yours, I'm not going to argue or waste hours looking for something you would dismiss anyway. I know because I have wasted the time in the past with you just to watch you dismiss it. You're not worth the time.
Quote:
So the few radical feminist groups have enough lobbying power to criminalize "a lot of sexual matters with men"?
Can you cite an example or two?
No I can't. If you are interested in it, write a book. This is a forum, not my doctoral thesis. These posts are already several pages long.
Quote:
So do lots of things but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the topic.So do lots of things but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the topic.
You are literally carting in your outside baggage and throwing it all over the room.
Yeah, yeah. Grove doesn't believe any other group besides the ones he declares can be oppressed. Got it. Enjoy your ignorance.
Quote:
You admit they are a radical fringe, so why even bring them up?
You've got letters to college newspapers from almost 3 decades ago. Not exactly convincing evidence of an effective, nation-wide anti-man conspiracy.
You can't read either. The quotes were dated from a while ago. The actions on the colleges were all within the last couple years. But again, it doesn't matter. You care to dismiss it and then wonder why I'm not going to waste my time with you. What's next... gee that's just a Google search again? Again enjoy your ignorance. I suppose I should be greatful you actually didn't spam the thread to death this time with your whining.
Quote:
No, it's the "Nick is intellectually dishonest." card.
If you want to start discussion of socialization and how that affects these situations I would be more than happy to. We've discussed this before, however, and you dismissed it entirely. Now, when you think it may be convenient to you, you try to use it (in quite an ignorant way).
Grove questions, dismisses and doesn't like the views. So I'm dishonest. Again I know that this is read by more than you. You don't want to be convinced. Enjoy your ignorance.
Quote:
No, she's not. She's weaker than Joe. Joe is stronger. Get it through your head.
Sorry I guess I don't imagine your hypothetical the way you do. Perhaps that is why I don't use them often. Again if you don't like the answers to your hypothetical, then so be it. You brought it up. I'm not going to argue the details of your imagination with you. Perhaps I pictured a 170 lb man with a 135 lb girl. I guess you pictured a 95 lb girl with a 225 lb man. Whatever... enjoy your imagination.
Quote:
Men have little to fear physically from women. Women have more to fear physically from men. If you want muddy water then you can have your fill here. The psychology of this could fill a book.
Take a case from Texas a few years back. A man breaks into a woman's house and rapes her at knifepoint. The grand jury refuses to indict because.... she begged him to wear a condom.
You want muddled ideas of consent? How about that?
(This (pdf) opinion from Florida references the case. Also some nice bits of how rape victims are attacked in court, lovely stuff.)
Exception to prove the rule... what is the name of that fallacy again? There are men who have obviously been convicted and sentenced for rape who later have been cleared by DNA testing. How is that for muddled consent? The guy wasn't even there. This has happened for paternity cases as well.
I mentioned that my nieces boyfriend as arrested and held for a rape claim when he wasn't even in the state it was claimed it occured in. How is that for a muddle?
Quote:
You are once again asking me to assume that the police would automatically suspect the man. There is just no reason for me to make that assumption.
You show it yourself. The man must be able to do X and the woman unable because of physical strength. You make this assumption in your statements and then don't allow me to say the police would follow the same line or reasoning. Classic!
Quote:
Life is grand for a woman who reports rape!
Just look at Kobe's alleged victim. Offers from hitmen to kill her, national humiliation, guys breaking into her home... who WOULDN'T want that?
And then, if you get into court, you get to take the stand and have the defense attorneys call you a whore! YEAH!
Well that's what happens when you show up with the semen of two men in your pants. Again I suppose all women who claim rape are treated just like her.
Quote:
We don't live in a world of hypotheticals. If you want to make an argument then do it.
That is what I did several times in here. I addressed one post directly to BRussell who asked how I thought it would work out. You asked about a hypothetical. I responded. If you don't like it, then oh well.
Quote:
What the $$$$ do a handful of radical feminists matter? If I brought it a few radical mysoginists would that matter? No.
I'd still like to see the state definitions of rape that exclude women.
Palooka!
The state, do you mean the federal definition?
Either way it is neither here nor there. Any law that is applied 99%+ of the time to one group is not "neutral."
Again if you don't want to believe that, then enjoy.
Honestly, I come to AO and sometimes feel like you guys are beating the same dead horse with the same stick and then argue about whose stick is bigger and to what degree the horse is dead.
Honestly, I come to AO and sometimes feel like you guys are beating the same dead horse with the same stick and then argue about whose stick is bigger and to what degree the horse is dead.
I think the stick is probably dead, as well.
But you have to admit that watching someone spend screens' worth of posts to tell someone he's not worth the time is pretty funny.
[QUOTE] But you have to admit that watching someone spend screens' worth of posts to tell someone he's not worth the time is pretty funny./QUOTE]
Well, i think you're wrong. And in a moment I'll post a link that will explain to you why Cheese Whiz is better on crackers than Peanut Butter. You scruffy looking Nerf herder.
But you have to admit that watching someone spend screens' worth of posts to tell someone he's not worth the time is pretty funny./QUOTE]
Well, i think you're wrong. And in a moment I'll post a link that will explain to you why Cheese Whiz is better on crackers than Peanut Butter. You scruffy looking Nerf herder.
Oh yeah, well, that still doesn't explain why grandmother leather fetish porn is more popular with eleven toed irish dwarf republicans than with 3 breasted latvian hermaphrodite democrats. Get a life and stop pretending that you know more than the collective corpses of lemmings that drank tequila before leaping to their abrupt end.
Comments
A recent California appeals case leaves an 18 year old boy owing child support to a 37 year old woman. He was 15 and she was 34 when the baby was conceived. She was convicted of statutory rape and allowed to keep the child, leaving him owing $200 a month in child support.
The California Attorney General has pursued the support case, saying "... the teenager should be responsible for the child because he was a willing sexual partner" according to the media report. The spokesperson for the Attorney General's office was Carol Ann White, a lawyer who heads the agency's child support enforcement unit. (as reported in the San Francisco Examiner)
Originally posted by alcimedes
lol, i can't believe this is true. it would just be too stupid if it was. i'll have to see if i can verify it. but from one of the links in this thread, forgot which one.
How much more idiocy can you bring into one case? Unbelieveable.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
You have still not given me an example of a state with a definition of rape that excludes females.
I didn't because that isn't what you asked... you asked this...
I've never heard of a case like that, either.
Why do you think that is?
Referring to this by me....
I'm saying I haven't heard nor read of a conviction of a woman against a man for nonconsentual rape via regular intercourse due to that woman not getting the man's consent.
It appears you are asking questions around a point. Why not just state it.
What numbers?
The numbers from studies questioning men and women having had sex when they were unsure or incapable of giving consent or knowing if they desire it. (Date rape)
And we come to the word, "agenda".
Whose agenda? (<- key question!) How are they pushing this agenda specifically?
The agenda is pushed by legislation. The agenda is mostly pushed by a few radical feminist groups who engage in misandry.
What do those two things have to do with each other?
Who calls men "potential rapists"? Who calls men paying what they are legally required to "deadbeat dads"? Do you realize how logically disconnected the first part (homosexuality) is from the last (your usual gripes about women attacking men)?
The two have to do with each other in that they use the method of demonizing someone instead of dealing with someone. Dealing requires learning about and understanding, demonizing reflects ignorance.
Take for example "deadbeat dads." A small minority of men don't pay child support. When you factor in the number of those men who have had no custody, lack of enforcement of their custody or move aways done on them, there is a very strong correlation. So often it isn't that they are deadbeats but rather that the state has stopped letting them be dads. Demonizing them won't fix the problem that is occuring there.
As for the men as potential rapists, it is a short hand for the numerous phrases made by some very radical feminists about males and heterosexual sex. If you have been on a college campus and not encountered signs using that phrase in conjunction with protests and awareness actions then consider yourself lucky. It happened on my campus. Here are a few anecdotal references to it.
Letter to editor
Essay
More letters
Here's a few quotes to go along with that.
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, in 1974
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think that's too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that." -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified
Now again with say deadbeat dads. Is it hateful to give fewer rights to a group? Men are tossed in jail without a trail for custody payments, or for contacting their children when their custody orders are being ignored. They have fewer rights. They are discriminated against by family courts that award custody to women in staggering displays of bias. Terms like deadbeat dad teach that for not having cash dads are immoral, inferior and a threat to our society.
That is my definition of hate for a group. People have taken those actions for homosexuals as well, as I said it is not okay to selectively end hate, or to simply change who you hate.
I would just like to point out that you screamed like a stuck pig when I brought up how social conditioning affects women in these matters, so I really have a difficult time respecting your use of it now.
Would this be called the "Nick made a valid point, but I don't like him so it doesn't count" defense?
So Jane jumps on Joe... and the only way he can stop it is to harm her? Pushing her off is harming her? Unless we're talking about 5'2" Joe and 6"3" Jane I do not see where the harm would happen from a man resisting.
You implied using physical strength to overpower someone. Obviously Jane is just a capable of pushing away and walking away as Joe is. You seem to be changing to be changing the context now. We go from overwhelming physical strength to, "Gee, couldn't he just get up?"
I do not think it would be as ridiculous as you state. You make the assumption that it would not be accepted and run off into the wild blue with it, that just doesn't make sense.
Joe and Jane make out, Jane gets all hot and bothered and starts to take Joe's pants off. "oh... no... I don't think..." and she gets ready to go and he pushes her off and walks away... then what?
Then it sounds like in your scenario, she respected his wishes and yielded to them. The same would be true if the scenarios were reversed. The then what is if she didn't respect him and he had to fight her off. Then when the police come he gets questioned about how such a little thing could have tried such a tactic, or come on buddy, we are supposed to believe you didn't want to have sex, or again "well she claims you were pressuring her and those marks aren't from you resisting, but her resisting, so you're going to have to come downtown."
Ok, so your assertion is that, worst case, that man would have to sit in jail for a bit while they decided what happened?
Seems reasonable to me. Are you asserting that that (theoretical) temporary jail stay is what's keeping men from reporting rape by women?
Are you high? I mean that seriously. Women underreport rape all the time and they are given full belief, full support, and even get to be sheltered as an accuser with regard to their name and prior history. Even with all this in place they underreport. You then have the gall to question why a man wouldn't report when he would have to go to jail accused himself? Please....
How many men who are falsely accused of rape say that the women actually tried to rape them?
You are bringing up a tactic you claim is used by females with absolutely no backing that it is actually used? You are quite literally making this up as you go along.
Please don't twist this up on me. You brought up the hypothetical. I responded. You asked what would happen and I applied the law, societal conditioning and hypotheticals as I thought they would go. The hypothetical is made up (Joe and Jane) so of course my response to it is conjecture. I haven't looked up any statistics as for what percentage of false rape claims were used to cover aggressive females. You asked how I thought it would go and I told you.
The first sentence invalidates the rest of the paragraph. How the hell can you deem your experience comparable enough to label what others feel? Insanity.
Look back at some of those feminist quotes and definitions of date rape. Reverse the genders and that is what happened to me. Most even claim that most women don't necessarily call it rape, realize they've been raped, or report it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
How is sodomy confined to the bedroom? You can now sodomize in the living room or anywhere else it is legal to have sex.
How is abortion confined to the bedroom? The right to privacy extends to more than the bedroom.
Nick
Try again. Is sodomy a social and legal structure?
Originally posted by bunge
Try again. Is sodomy a social and legal structure?
You tell me. It isn't for reproduction so what sort of structure is it then?
Likewise you ignored what I said about abortion.
Nick
Men are sodomized by force all the time in prison.
Also women can be raped and sodomized.
Concentual anal sex between adults is not sodomy.
Originally posted by trumptman
The agenda is pushed by legislation. The agenda is mostly pushed by a few radical feminist groups who engage in misandry.
And with this you invalidate any further claims. You've just used the ultimate stereotype of feminism as the "hatred of men." That's just.....lazy.
Confrontation.
Radical feminists don't see liberal feminism as far-reaching enough to actually change society. That's why they are radicals. Duh. They generally advocate the following two proposals:
1. Androgynous culture
2. Replace male culture with female culture
But I would love to see how you think radical feminism is actually man-hating.
Originally posted by trumptman
You tell me. It isn't for reproduction so what sort of structure is it then?
Likewise you ignored what I said about abortion.
Nick
It's a sexual act, not a social or legal structure. Marriage is defined by the government and they can choose to keep multiple spouses out of that definition. Sodomy is a private act between two individuals that has nothing to do with anything or anyone else. How is sodomy related to polygamy?
As for abortion, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Like sodomy, it's not even remotely related polygamy.
I didn't because that isn't what you asked... you asked this...
Then provide a state's definition of rape that excludes females. I'm asking it again in very clear English. It's our shared language.
It appears you are asking questions around a point. Why not just state it.
I can't go with a point you make if you can't prove the point in the first place. You're trying to get around the track and haven't even established enough to get off the blocks.
You want me to assume that state definitions of rape only point the finger at men, I want you to prove this.
The agenda is pushed by legislation. The agenda is mostly pushed by a few radical feminist groups who engage in misandry.
So the few radical feminist groups have enough lobbying power to criminalize "a lot of sexual matters with men"?
Can you cite an example or two?
The two have to do with each other in that they use the method of demonizing someone instead of dealing with someone.
So do lots of things but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the topic.
You are literally carting in your outside baggage and throwing it all over the room.
Take for example "deadbeat dads." A small minority of men don't pay child support. When you factor in the number of those men who have had no custody, lack of enforcement of their custody or move aways done on them, there is a very strong correlation. So often it isn't that they are deadbeats but rather that the state has stopped letting them be dads. Demonizing them won't fix the problem that is occuring there.
You're just waving in more bell-hops with their carts of baggage. ("Just throw that suitcase on top of the original topic of discussion, thanks.")
Start Custody Thread 9000 already. Jesus Harold Christ.
As for the men as potential rapists, it is a short hand for the numerous phrases made by some very radical feminists about males and heterosexual sex.
You admit they are a radical fringe, so why even bring them up?
You've got letters to college newspapers from almost 3 decades ago. Not exactly convincing evidence of an effective, nation-wide anti-man conspiracy.
Would this be called the "Nick made a valid point, but I don't like him so it doesn't count" defense?
No, it's the "Nick is intellectually dishonest." card.
If you want to start discussion of socialization and how that affects these situations I would be more than happy to. We've discussed this before, however, and you dismissed it entirely. Now, when you think it may be convenient to you, you try to use it (in quite an ignorant way).
You implied using physical strength to overpower someone. Obviously Jane is just a capable of pushing away and walking away as Joe is.
No, she's not. She's weaker than Joe. Joe is stronger. Get it through your head.
You seem to be changing to be changing the context now. We go from overwhelming physical strength to, "Gee, couldn't he just get up?"
Men have little to fear physically from women. Women have more to fear physically from men. If you want muddy water then you can have your fill here. The psychology of this could fill a book.
Take a case from Texas a few years back. A man breaks into a woman's house and rapes her at knifepoint. The grand jury refuses to indict because.... she begged him to wear a condom.
You want muddled ideas of consent? How about that?
(This (pdf) opinion from Florida references the case. Also some nice bits of how rape victims are attacked in court, lovely stuff.)
Then it sounds like in your scenario, she respected his wishes and yielded to them.
Is he in danger of her physically overpowering him?
How many women do you know that could take you down physically?
The then what is if she didn't respect him and he had to fight her off. Then when the police come he gets questioned about how such a little thing could have tried such a tactic, or come on buddy, we are supposed to believe you didn't want to have sex, or again "well she claims you were pressuring her and those marks aren't from you resisting, but her resisting, so you're going to have to come downtown."
You are once again asking me to assume that the police would automatically suspect the man. There is just no reason for me to make that assumption.
Women underreport rape all the time and they are given full belief, full support, and even get to be sheltered as an accuser with regard to their name and prior history. Even with all this in place they underreport. You then have the gall to question why a man wouldn't report when he would have to go to jail accused himself?
Life is grand for a woman who reports rape!
Just look at Kobe's alleged victim. Offers from hitmen to kill her, national humiliation, guys breaking into her home... who WOULDN'T want that?
And then, if you get into court, you get to take the stand and have the defense attorneys call you a whore! YEAH!
Please don't twist this up on me. You brought up the hypothetical. I responded. You asked what would happen and I applied the law, societal conditioning and hypotheticals as I thought they would go. The hypothetical is made up (Joe and Jane) so of course my response to it is conjecture. I haven't looked up any statistics as for what percentage of false rape claims were used to cover aggressive females. You asked how I thought it would go and I told you.
We don't live in a world of hypotheticals. If you want to make an argument then do it.
Look back at some of those feminist quotes and definitions of date rape.
What the $$$$ do a handful of radical feminists matter? If I brought it a few radical mysoginists would that matter? No.
I'd still like to see the state definitions of rape that exclude women.
Palooka!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Abortion is a medical procedure... the privacy of the procedure is covered by dr/patient privilege.
Men are sodomized by force all the time in prison.
Also women can be raped and sodomized.
Concentual anal sex between adults is not sodomy.
Sodomy definition
Sodomy definition
Try again...
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
And with this you invalidate any further claims. You've just used the ultimate stereotype of feminism as the "hatred of men." That's just.....lazy.
Confrontation.
Radical feminists don't see liberal feminism as far-reaching enough to actually change society. That's why they are radicals. Duh. They generally advocate the following two proposals:
1. Androgynous culture
2. Replace male culture with female culture
But I would love to see how you think radical feminism is actually man-hating.
There you go again... Welcome to the Shawn-iverse...
Oh gee... I've been INVALIDATED by ShawnJ.
Oh the horrors....
You are perhaps the first person I have encountered who can take the words few and radical and associate them with generalization.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
It's a sexual act, not a social or legal structure. Marriage is defined by the government and they can choose to keep multiple spouses out of that definition. Sodomy is a private act between two individuals that has nothing to do with anything or anyone else. How is sodomy related to polygamy?
As for abortion, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Like sodomy, it's not even remotely related polygamy.
If marriage is defined by government, then they can also choose to define it as exclusively between a man and a woman.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Then provide a state's definition of rape that excludes females. I'm asking it again in very clear English. It's our shared language.
Yes and I want you to pretend for a second that I don't have the time of day to go through the penal codes for all 50 states. Of course the fact that 99+% of all rape arrests being men isn't convincing to you at all, so don't be convinced.
I can't go with a point you make if you can't prove the point in the first place. You're trying to get around the track and haven't even established enough to get off the blocks.
So don't assume, and don't believe. I don't have to convince the unconvincable Groverat. I don't believe the fallacy that if you knew what I kmew, you would do what I do. You are welcome to your opinions. I present mine, I discuss yours, I'm not going to argue or waste hours looking for something you would dismiss anyway. I know because I have wasted the time in the past with you just to watch you dismiss it. You're not worth the time.
So the few radical feminist groups have enough lobbying power to criminalize "a lot of sexual matters with men"?
Can you cite an example or two?
No I can't. If you are interested in it, write a book. This is a forum, not my doctoral thesis. These posts are already several pages long.
So do lots of things but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the topic.So do lots of things but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the topic.
You are literally carting in your outside baggage and throwing it all over the room.
Yeah, yeah. Grove doesn't believe any other group besides the ones he declares can be oppressed. Got it. Enjoy your ignorance.
You admit they are a radical fringe, so why even bring them up?
You've got letters to college newspapers from almost 3 decades ago. Not exactly convincing evidence of an effective, nation-wide anti-man conspiracy.
You can't read either. The quotes were dated from a while ago. The actions on the colleges were all within the last couple years. But again, it doesn't matter. You care to dismiss it and then wonder why I'm not going to waste my time with you. What's next... gee that's just a Google search again? Again enjoy your ignorance. I suppose I should be greatful you actually didn't spam the thread to death this time with your whining.
No, it's the "Nick is intellectually dishonest." card.
If you want to start discussion of socialization and how that affects these situations I would be more than happy to. We've discussed this before, however, and you dismissed it entirely. Now, when you think it may be convenient to you, you try to use it (in quite an ignorant way).
Grove questions, dismisses and doesn't like the views. So I'm dishonest. Again I know that this is read by more than you. You don't want to be convinced. Enjoy your ignorance.
No, she's not. She's weaker than Joe. Joe is stronger. Get it through your head.
Sorry I guess I don't imagine your hypothetical the way you do. Perhaps that is why I don't use them often. Again if you don't like the answers to your hypothetical, then so be it. You brought it up. I'm not going to argue the details of your imagination with you. Perhaps I pictured a 170 lb man with a 135 lb girl. I guess you pictured a 95 lb girl with a 225 lb man. Whatever... enjoy your imagination.
Men have little to fear physically from women. Women have more to fear physically from men. If you want muddy water then you can have your fill here. The psychology of this could fill a book.
Take a case from Texas a few years back. A man breaks into a woman's house and rapes her at knifepoint. The grand jury refuses to indict because.... she begged him to wear a condom.
You want muddled ideas of consent? How about that?
(This (pdf) opinion from Florida references the case. Also some nice bits of how rape victims are attacked in court, lovely stuff.)
Exception to prove the rule... what is the name of that fallacy again? There are men who have obviously been convicted and sentenced for rape who later have been cleared by DNA testing. How is that for muddled consent? The guy wasn't even there. This has happened for paternity cases as well.
I mentioned that my nieces boyfriend as arrested and held for a rape claim when he wasn't even in the state it was claimed it occured in. How is that for a muddle?
You are once again asking me to assume that the police would automatically suspect the man. There is just no reason for me to make that assumption.
You show it yourself. The man must be able to do X and the woman unable because of physical strength. You make this assumption in your statements and then don't allow me to say the police would follow the same line or reasoning. Classic!
Life is grand for a woman who reports rape!
Just look at Kobe's alleged victim. Offers from hitmen to kill her, national humiliation, guys breaking into her home... who WOULDN'T want that?
And then, if you get into court, you get to take the stand and have the defense attorneys call you a whore! YEAH!
Well that's what happens when you show up with the semen of two men in your pants. Again I suppose all women who claim rape are treated just like her.
We don't live in a world of hypotheticals. If you want to make an argument then do it.
That is what I did several times in here. I addressed one post directly to BRussell who asked how I thought it would work out. You asked about a hypothetical. I responded. If you don't like it, then oh well.
What the $$$$ do a handful of radical feminists matter? If I brought it a few radical mysoginists would that matter? No.
I'd still like to see the state definitions of rape that exclude women.
Palooka!
The state, do you mean the federal definition?
Either way it is neither here nor there. Any law that is applied 99%+ of the time to one group is not "neutral."
Again if you don't want to believe that, then enjoy.
Nick
Originally posted by LiquidR
Honestly, I come to AO and sometimes feel like you guys are beating the same dead horse with the same stick and then argue about whose stick is bigger and to what degree the horse is dead.
I think the stick is probably dead, as well.
But you have to admit that watching someone spend screens' worth of posts to tell someone he's not worth the time is pretty funny.
[QUOTE] But you have to admit that watching someone spend screens' worth of posts to tell someone he's not worth the time is pretty funny./QUOTE]
Well, i think you're wrong. And in a moment I'll post a link that will explain to you why Cheese Whiz is better on crackers than Peanut Butter. You scruffy looking Nerf herder.
originally posted by midwinter
Quote:
But you have to admit that watching someone spend screens' worth of posts to tell someone he's not worth the time is pretty funny./QUOTE]
Well, i think you're wrong. And in a moment I'll post a link that will explain to you why Cheese Whiz is better on crackers than Peanut Butter. You scruffy looking Nerf herder.
Nazi!
orinally posted by midwinter
Nazi!
Oh yeah, well, that still doesn't explain why grandmother leather fetish porn is more popular with eleven toed irish dwarf republicans than with 3 breasted latvian hermaphrodite democrats. Get a life and stop pretending that you know more than the collective corpses of lemmings that drank tequila before leaping to their abrupt end.