It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible'

page: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by chise61
My understanding of men and their biological make up is not limited at all. And yes I know all about the effects of testosterone, women have testosterone in their bodies too and it effects us the same way, we just don't have as much as men do.

It does not really affect you the same way because your oestrogen levels balance/compensate for the testosterone you do have. It is not an excuse for bad behaviour, but you would not understand how much it does affect how you think unless you were male.

Is it that uncommon for men that have been married 20+ years to cheat on their partners? The simple explanation is "they are pigs, their behaviour is disgusting, keep your man on a tight leash!" I don't know about you, but I do not think a decision to betray your partner's trust, break down your family, worsen your relationship with your own children "just to get laid" is a reasonable answer. There has to be a deeper reason for this. Perhaps there is a lack of communication between both people that has not been addressed and this is causing unhappiness and separation?


I'm not trying to make out that dealing with the effects of testosterone is only a problem for males as teenagers. What I mean is that for teenagers going through puberty it is very new to them and they haven't yet learned to deal with certain urges, etc. But full grown men have been dealing with the effects of testosterone for long enough to know how to control themselves. They should be way past the point of allowing themselves to lose control of themselves just because they see some cleavage, or thigh.

They should be able to control themselves. But why the need to trivialise testosterone build-up as something men should "just deal with" and be able to control. Again, I refer back to the "time of the month" idea. Do you think women do not have a right to react to their hormonal build-up at age 40 just because they have been experiencing it since puberty? And I'm talking about behaviour that negatively affects others. E.g. emotional abuse, taunting, argument-baiting etc.


If they can't control themselves maybe they have too much testosterone and should go to the doctor. And when it builds up so that they become so extremely horny, violent, and impulsive then hey maybe they should learn to use their hands instead of forcing something upon a woman that she doesn't want.

But what happens when they do this? They are told they are selfish pigs. Only wanting self-gratification and not wanting to please their women. (I do agree there are obviously some men with ridiculously high levels and this is not healthy for them or those around them.)


You know what I'm not even gonna argue this point with you because I wouldn't be truthful if I said you were wrong. This is something that I as a woman fully understand and will make sure that my grandaughter understands. But then again I'm 48 years old and was raised a certain way and it seems to me that many young women don't seem to understand certain things these days.

I understand. I am a little younger than you but I do see where you are coming from. I agree that women are not being educated adequately enough about the dangers of behaving in certain ways. I don't want any of the women in my life feeling vulnerable or living in a constant state of fear. I just want them to be cautious and weary that certain behaviour will get them attention that is best avoided.


Yes I mean that kind of woman, the kind of woman that I told my sons to stay away from. I see it quite often also, and honestly I don't go out with women like that because I don't want to be guilty by association. My youngest son and my daughter in law were over tonight and we were discussing this case, and this thread, he's a member here also. He said if they dress like that then they can't complain when they get hit on, or when men make vulgar comments to them, but no one should ever rape them because of how they dress, or act. No woman under any circumstances should ever be raped.

I couldn't agree more. Your sons, myself and MOST men agree and understand there are boundaries. We respect women and feel they should be treated with dignity. But we also know the types of men to stay away from. We know the kind of things they look for and will take advantage of if the opportunity presents itself.



And I believe that, but some men need to understand that if a woman is struggling to get away from you, or unresponsive then she isn't enthusiastic and in the mood.

Again, I fully agree. As long as the punishment isn't a "why do you need to think about other girls, why not me?" routine. This can lead to the woman feeling resent for the man, which can lead to serious relationship problems.


Even though you may have perceived what I said as meaning that I think men are evil, I think nothing of the kind, I'm not a member of the man haters club. I have been fortunate in my life to have known, been friends with, and even been involved with some very good, caring, respectful, decent, honorable men. And yes I know that men have emotions too.

It's not so much coming out and saying "MEN ARE EVIL!". It's more the disproportionate attention paid to women's rights and needs while (inadvertently) disregarding the existence of men's rights and needs. It is as though men are considered 2nd-class citizens in this regard. It gets kind of annoying when you view this sentiment on a daily basis.


I'm not labeling the men looking for love or companionship as anything, I'm talking about men that think it's ok to get a woman drunk, or high with the intention of taking advantage of her condition, men that that believe that because a woman dresses a certain way that she is asking for it and deserves to be raped, and men that assume a woman is a slut simply because of the clothing that she wears.

You are mixing the two. Believe it or not, how you dress DOES set an impression. (It certainly DOES NOT say rape me or harm me.) But the way you dress and act can effect the way you are treated by others. I have given examples already about how this can relate to business and other situations.


Clothes do not make a woman a slut, her actions do. Maybe some of those women out there that are dressing and acting in a certain way are not sluts, or teases, but just women that are also looking for love or companionship and just don't realize that they are going about it the wrong way.

I agree. And even genuine sluts do not deserve to have sex forced upon them against their will, and most of us get this. (That "slut" is still somebody's sister, cousin, aunt, daughter, mother etc. after all).

The thing to remember is that women are generally physically weaker than men. This by default puts them at a disadvantage in terms of being vulnerable. With this in mind, women have an added responsibility to be more careful and cautious about how they dress and act when amongst people they don't know.

I don't have much more to say on the issue, but I think this is important advice. If you use good looks and sex appeal to attract a potential partner, expect that person to be attracted to your sex appeal and good looks! Rather present yourself in a way that shows you have more than good looks and sex appeal to offer. (That goes for both sexes btw.)

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
I can't be the only person in this thread who understand this. Like I said a couple pages ago, I have personally been in a situation where a girl screamed and I stopped thrusting because I thought something was wrong. Through her gurgled attempts at speaking she managed to get out "No, don't stop!" which to my ears sounded like "No!" "Don't!" "Stop!" and totally killed the mood and left me holding and comforting her while she was shaking from aching, unfulfilled horniness.

Given that experience it is so easy for me to beleive that somebody in the world has had the reverse happen, with a woman shaking in terror and screaming "Don't! Stop!" and the guy thinking she was screaming "Don't stop!" and that all her convulsions were merely her being really into it.

Keep telling yourself that... but please stop telling us. We do not care.. it's not an argument to continue to raping someone. You apparently checked to make sure she wanted to continue and she said yes. You are not only trying to justify rape but aggrevated rape.

A man knows if he is being violent. This man would have known he was being violent.

When a woman is "SCREAMING AND SHAKING IN TERROR" (your own words..) she obviously does not want to have sex and is in pain. If someone continues having sex with her he would be a rapist. If YOU had of continued having sex with her and it turned out she was not enjoying it and she was saying stop that would make you a rapist.. but you apparently made sure it was consentual which is what you morally and legally should do.

..and "shaking from aching, unfulfilled horniness"? quite frankly we only have YOUR word for it that she said don't stop. You keep telling this same story yet it reads as though you are bragging and just wanting to turn this thread into somewhere you can post sex/borderline rape stories to read them over and over again. Please do not post your sex story again it is sickening and we have all read it before. If you really need to recount it go re-read you old posts.

Why he was charged:


Man acquitted in skinny-jean rape case loses appeal for costs


Bellinda Kontominas Courts
May 5, 2010

THE jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Nicholas Gonzalez raped a woman who had been wearing skinny jeans. But the District Court judge, Penelope Hock, yesterday described as ''compelling'', medical evidence suggesting the 24-year-old woman had been sexually assaulted. Mr Gonzalez, 23, was on Friday acquitted of having vaginal and anal intercourse without the consent of the woman on April 9, 2008.


..and why it made it to court:


Dr Rosemary Isaacs, who examined the complainant on April 10, 2008, had found ''evidence of trauma'' around her genital region. ''In my view Dr Isaacs's evidence was compelling, particularly in relation to (the allegation of anal intercourse),'' Judge Hock said, adding that such evidence had been available at the time the proceedings were started. Accordingly it was not unreasonable for the prosecution to have taken the matter to trial.

www.smh.com.au...


We all know why he was found not guilty.. because of a pair of jeans. Those jeans are not evidence.. and they certainly were not evidence enough that it would trump the medical evidence of trauma to her vagina and anus.

So she was probably bruised, torn and bleeding. I do not know why you would think that she "wanted it". I believe you are on this rapists side and are trying to spread the idea that aggrevated rape is okay in certain situations. You may take offense at that but I warned you not reply to me before. We both know I do not think you are telling your sex stories objectively. I am now even more convinced as you felt a need to post it yet again. :shk:

There is NO misunderstaning when a woman is screaming no or a man is brutalising her. He would have known the damage he was doing. When a woman had trauma to her genital region and anus she certainly was NOT screaming in pleasure.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Wow, so now getting permission, or even being encouraged, to continue pleasing her is not enough proof that it was consensual? That's a very slippery slope you are riding down there. Re-read his post and maybe you will see the message he is sending. It has nothing to do with justifying sexual assault or rape. It is a real-life example of how miscommunication can lead to undesirable consequences.

-----

Back to the topic. The fact that she does have damaged vaginal/anal tissue to the extent claimed to me suggests that she did in fact have sexual intercourse forced upon her against her will. Unless she went through the extreme action of self-inflicting those injuries to make it look like it was done by somebody else (very unlikely, but still possible) then there is enough evidence to convict him of rape.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by riley
 


Wow, so now getting permission, or even being encouraged, to continue pleasing her is not enough proof that it was consensual? That's a very slippery slope you riding down there. Re-read his post and maybe you will see the message he is sending. It has nothing to do with justifying sexual assault or rape.


I beg your pardon? You got all that from what I posted? Including where I mentioned the part where she had considerable trauma to her vagina and anus? The man left her torn and bleeding so I doubt very much that he was just continueing to please her..



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I beg your pardon? You got all that from what I posted? Including where I mentioned the part where she had considerable trauma to her vagina and anus? The man left her torn and bleeding so I doubt very much that he was just continueing to please her..


I finished editing my post before I got to read your reply. Please read over it as I do answer what you have just said. The first part of my response was directed at what you said to LordBucket, about LordBucket. Nothing about the case in question. The 2nd part of my reply deals with the case in question.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by riley
 


Wow, so now getting permission, or even being encouraged, to continue pleasing her is not enough proof that it was consensual? That's a very slippery slope you are riding down there. Re-read his post and maybe you will see the message he is sending. It has nothing to do with justifying sexual assault or rape.


I am treating this as a new post. I am not going to edit mine:

It is a real-life example of how miscommunication can lead to undesirable consequences.

-----

Back to the topic. The fact that she does have a damaged vaginal/anal tissue to the extent claimed to me suggests that she did in fact have sexual intercourse forced upon her against her will. Unless she went through the extreme action of self-inflicting those injuries to make it look like it was done by somebody else (very unlikely, but still possible) then there is enough evidence to convict him of rape.

Thankyou. I am going to assume you didn't read my post properly before. If a woman is torn and bleeding she was probably not consenting.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
riley, I took issue with what you said to another member and what you implied in your post. Remember Lordbucket's story about his sexual encounter? That's what the first paragraph is addressing.

While I do hope you see the merit in the objection I raised, I cannot speak for disagreements you and another member are having - not my beef.

/takes a step back into the shadows...

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by riley
I beg your pardon? You got all that from what I posted? Including where I mentioned the part where she had considerable trauma to her vagina and anus? The man left her torn and bleeding so I doubt very much that he was just continueing to please her..


I finished editing my post before I got to read your reply. Please read over it as I do answer what you have just said. The first part of my response was directed at what you said to LordBucket, about LordBucket. Nothing about the case in question. The 2nd part of my reply deals with the case in question.

Lordbucket was talking about the case in question. He was trying to argue that maybe her (alledged) rapist misunderstood. He even went as far as re-telling his own experience (yet again) in order to defend the alledged rapist.

Sorry but when a man is causing a woman actual injury he would be fully aware that she is not "into it". Imo this woman went through a frightening ordeal. I believe she was brutally raped and then brutally sodomized.

What happens when it's a mis-trial against the victim? Does she get compensation from the legal system?

[edit on 5-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
riley, I took issue with what you said to another member and what you implied in your post. Remember Lordbucket's story about his sexual encounter? That's what the first paragraph is addressing.

Again. He has been recounting that story in order to defend the (alledged) rapist in the court case. He is defending aggrevated rape.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Maybe he has not read yet the part you quoted about the damaged vaginal/anal tissue. That is rather damning evidence that sexual intercourse was forced upon her. I just think it is unfair how you have stated his views about his own experiences suggest that he is a supporter of aggravated rape.

(Noted, you did give him fair warning about debating you on this issue. It was when I reread that part of your reply that I realised it just isn't my beef.)

It is a sensitive topic, but deals with a issue that can affect us and those we care about. It is an important issue to discuss.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I don't think this verdict really has anything to do with blaming the victim, rather than the possibility of the act in itself. What the jury have said is that it is highly unlikely that this man could have removed these jeans, which casts dispersions on the possibility that he could have raped her. Because of this, they could not convict, as a conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt. The jury had a doubt, therefore, no conviction.

You can't convict someone because you think they might have done something.

No one said the victim was to blame, just that they could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's a shame, because he probably did it.

[Edit for spellnig]

[edit on 5-5-2010 by nik1halo]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by riley
 


Maybe he has not read yet the part you quoted about the damaged vaginal/anal tissue. That is rather damning evidence that sexual intercourse was forced upon her. I just think it is unfair how you have stated his views about his own experiences suggest that he is a supporter of aggravated rape.

(Noted, you did give him fair warning about debating you on this issue. It was when I reread that part of your reply that I realised it just isn't my beef.)

It is a sensitive topic, but deals with a issue that can affect us and those we care about. It is an important issue to discuss.

His point was that "no stop!" and screaming could be confused with "don't stop" and screaming. If you mean you based your reply to me on only parts of posts.. well thats been cleared up and doesn't matter now. Re-read both our postings and you will see my answers to him in context.. and you will also notice how he posts his sex story at every opportunity.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by nik1halo
 


That is the point and why there's been such an uproar. Reasonable doubt should not be based on how easily a woman's jeans could have come off.. especially on a woman who only weighs 42 kilograms.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


No, that's just the point. ANYTHING that causes the jury to doubt the validity of the accusation should be taken into account. The jury doubted that the jeans could be forcibly removed, which casts doubt on whether she consented.

I would take a guess that she probably initially consented, but changed her mind, due to the evidence of tissue damage. Some guys don't know how to take no for an answer.

The legal system is based on a system which states that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to punish the innocent. it ain't perfect, but it's the best we've got and the fairest there has ever been.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by nik1halo]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo
reply to post by riley
 


No, that's just the point. ANYTHING that causes the jury to doubt the validity of the accusation should be taken into account. The jury doubted that the jeans could be forcibly removed, which casts doubt on whether she consented.

Try re-reading the thread.. we have already discussed how he would be able to remove the jeans himself. Even if she did take off her own jeans it would STILL not be consent to sex.. and there is NOTHING in the orginal story that suggests she ever consented.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


I'm not talking about the actual possibility of the act, I'm simply stating why the jury came up with the verdict that they did.

They had doubts, therefore, it would have been illegal for them to convict.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by LordBucket
I can't be the only person in this thread who understand this. Like I said a couple pages ago, I have personally been in a situation where a girl screamed and I stopped thrusting because I thought something was wrong. Through her gurgled attempts at speaking she managed to get out "No, don't stop!" which to my ears sounded like "No!" "Don't!" "Stop!" and totally killed the mood and left me holding and comforting her while she was shaking from aching, unfulfilled horniness.

Given that experience it is so easy for me to beleive that somebody in the world has had the reverse happen, with a woman shaking in terror and screaming "Don't! Stop!" and the guy thinking she was screaming "Don't stop!" and that all her convulsions were merely her being really into it.

Keep telling yourself that... but please stop telling us. We do not care.. it's not an argument to continue to raping someone. You apparently checked to make sure she wanted to continue and she said yes. You are not only trying to justify rape but aggrevated rape.

A man knows if he is being violent. This man would have known he was being violent.

When a woman is "SCREAMING AND SHAKING IN TERROR" (your own words..) she obviously does not want to have sex and is in pain. If someone continues having sex with her he would be a rapist. If YOU had of continued having sex with her and it turned out she was not enjoying it and she was saying stop that would make you a rapist.. but you apparently made sure it was consentual which is what you morally and legally should do.

..and "shaking from aching, unfulfilled horniness"? quite frankly we only have YOUR word for it that she said don't stop. You keep telling this same story yet it reads as though you are bragging and just wanting to turn this thread into somewhere you can post sex/borderline rape stories to read them over and over again. Please do not post your sex story again it is sickening and we have all read it before. If you really need to recount it go re-read you old posts.




I can't believe that is what you got out of his story, LordBucket should go call the girl he was with and thank her for not pressing charges, if she did and someone like you was in the jury who cant seem to grasp the consept that if you hear a story, you stop to think that there is more then 2 sides to it. Infact there could be 20 sides to it none of us were there we don't know this girl, and we dont know this guy. So you assume that he is guilty because she had "evidence of trauma" around her private parts. So now she was raped but the evil jury and evil judge Penelope Hock said that ' Accordingly it was not unreasonable for the prosecution to have taken the matter to trial' So now it gets more crazy, not only pants were involved it seems that they had "evidence of trauma" but did not want to take it further to trial. This case makes no sense untill you read what was said word for word in the whole case and all evidence's there were and you go question, the guy, and girl, untill then it's speculation.

Let me tell you a story in my life I have heard this story of weird fettishes. Once with a coworker who was telling a story of a crazy girlfriend he had, and once on the radio were they were talking abouth weird relationships. Anyways acording to these 2 dudes they not only liked it rough but liked to be cut 'as in with a razor or knife' basically draw blood by cut's. Now both of these dudes were freaked out by it and dident stay long with them. Now my question is if these chicks would press charges make a story of rape how hard would it be for a judge and jury to find them quily of rape if she has cut's all over her body that they actually did do to her because she asked and wanted to be cut and god knows what alse turned her on? She would say that she got raped. who wouldn't believe her? she is a female after all they would never do anything bad, heaven forbid. I'm sick of this prejudice that all women are inocent angels. And all men are evil.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Police would usually be able to tell the difference between masochistic mutilation and injuries sustained in a sexual assault. I know you are trying to say "maybe she liked it" but.. well thats your own fantasy. Blaming a rape victim for her own injuries is sick.


edit. you are using what your co-worker said he heared two guys talking about on the radio as some sort of evidence? :shk:

[edit on 5-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Police would usually be able to tell the difference between masochistic mutilation and injuries sustained in a sexual assault. I know you are trying to say "maybe she liked it" but.. well thats your own fantasy. Blaming a rape victim for her own injuries is sick.


edit. you are using what your co-worker said he heared two guys talking about on the radio as some sort of evidence? :shk:

[edit on 5-5-2010 by riley]



I'm not saying maibe she liked it, all i'm saying is there are people out there who like a little blood with sex. And no im using a coworkers chit chat with me some years ago and a recent radio show's, talk soup were the question was something along the lines of ' what was the craziest relationship you have been in'. And no it's not my fanasy, I avoid chicks with razors, and rape/women are always right/inocent issues lke the plague. And it's obvious you have a issue with rape and men are evil I guess, I wish you luck with getting over it. You should re-read some of what was said by people in this thread, when you can hear the word rape with a clear ., and not go all emotionaly to dark places when you do.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
I'm not saying maibe she liked it, all i'm saying is there are people out there who like a little blood with sex.

Which would be only relevent to this subject if you were implying she liked it.

And no im using a coworkers chit chat with me some years ago and a recent radio show's, talk soup were the question was something along the lines of ' what was the craziest relationship you have been in'.

Thats not even hearsay. thats the bastard step cousin's son of hearsay.

And no it's not my fanasy, I avoid chicks with razors, and rape/women are always right/inocent issues lke the plague. And it's obvious you have a issue with rape and men are evil I guess, I wish you luck with getting over it. You should re-read some of what was said by people in this thread, when you can hear the word rape with a clear ., and not go all emotionaly to dark places when you do.

Of course I have an issue with rape.. most normal people do.. or do you means something else?

Yet again you have accused me of thinking/saying all men are evil. Not ONCE have I said that or implied that. The "you are a femnazi" bs doesn't work on me so take it elsewhere.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join