The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

reply to post by kiwifoot


Again you just want the logic to be flawed.
I'm sure the drunk didn't think he was doing anything wrong.
Neither did the people having sex, at the time....
But of course, if there is any unpleasantness, it should always fall on the woman right?
Please, I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation unless someone is agreeing with you.

However I am firmly of the opinion that if two adults meet up, have a few drinks and get drunk, end up in the sack and have sex. In no way can the woman decide she regrets her actions, maybe has cheated and then CRY RAPE.

Sorry if I confused things, by this I just visualized a university setting for some reason. But it doesn't matter where it happens.

You say at once that you are against rape but then state that a lot of girls lie about it, in the same post. I took the latter statement to mean that you were in favor of the bill. You can see why I was confused. Perhaps you were just expressing thoughts aloud?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Studying this in CJ classes. No means no. Period. Just because I let a guy buy me dinner does not mean he has permission to get into my pants, ever. Trust me, as a victim, it's not always easy to fight back. Who gets to define what "force" is? What about the 12 year old girl who's verbally threatened by an uncle? There's no physical force, but trust me, it's definitely implied. This bill, if passed will set back justice thirty years. Just goes to show you some things never ever change in the old guard.

Forgot to add, rape is the only crime for which the victim goes on trial.

Fundamentalist morons.

Even if in the future I disagree with everything the Dems do economically, there is no way in Hell I will vote for the GOP, the party of superstitious fools.

And by the way, you date rape my daughter, you will die horribly. I promise.

reply to post by Neurolanis


i have to agree with you on this. it sounds too much like the sharia law where a woman must have 5 men to have witnessed the rape since a woman is considered only half a person.

ATTENTION

Above Top Secret.com EXPECTS everyone here to discuss the issue at hand with civility and decorum. This thread will be moderated, from the point of this post forward, VERY strictly.

Repeated violations of the T & C will result in post removals and posting bans. There are no exceptions, this is not negotiable.

Do NOT respond to this post. If you have questions send me a private message or use the complaint feature under Tools+ tab at the top of your screen.

Originally posted by Neurolanis

However I am firmly of the opinion that if two adults meet up, have a few drinks and get drunk, end up in the sack and have sex. In no way can the woman decide she regrets her actions, maybe has cheated and then CRY RAPE.

Sorry if I confused things, by this I just visualized a university setting for some reason. But it doesn't matter where it happens.

You say at once that you are against rape but then state that a lot of girls lie about it, in the same post. I took the latter statement to mean that you were in favor of the bill. You can see why I was confused. Perhaps you were just expressing thoughts aloud?

Let me repeat, so you and I are clear

Rape is wrong.

Date rape is wrong.

Getting a girl wasted to sleep with her is wrong.

However, I beleive, that if a girl voluntarily has a few drinks, and then falls into bed with a man, all the while saying "yes". Well this is really unfair on the male, and I beleive truly not rape.

You just see it all the time (well in the Uk you do). A girl has a few drinks, sleeps with a man, regrets it the next day and blames the man (usually because her boyfriend was waiting at home for her all night!)

This is wrong my friend.

I'm not saying any sick twisted man who does get someone drunk and takes advantage isn't wrong, or in fact not a rapist.

But I am saying the law is flawed and open to abuse.

But I did say:

"it's a tricky one to legislate for, but to green light everything is a bit of a step too far."

By that I mean I don't agree with the bill.

Better to have a law that at over protects woman than one that doesn't protect them at all.

But IMO the law needs to be changed to protect men falsely accused too.

that's all I'm on about really

reply to post by SaturnFX


I am still surprised that none of this seems to strike a cord with libertarians and rightwing "small government" advocates on this board. Regardless of what people may claim, regulating or barring abortion requires more police oversight and in turn expanded government. Banning abortion will result in more police work and time and oversight, so in turn anybody who supports banning abortion completely supports the expansion of government as that is what will inevitably happen.

Me? I don't support abortion merely because having a child would be a "convenience" to somebody who decided to have sex either unprotected or what not. When you decide to have intimate relations, you should be well aware of the step you are taking. That being said, it is a joke to think that government can end the reality of abortion. We already see abortion through a form of a "pill" or a condom or whatever else, and yes, people attempt to create that boundary for when a baby is supposedly formed but the fact is, nobody can decide where life starts and where it ends, line is forever blurred. There is no doubt that the start of what would or could become a child can be instantly stopped by visiting the local drug store or pharmacy and I'm sorry, regardless of what laws you put forth making abortion illegal, it will happen and continue so at the rate it is now.

The best thing in my opinion is to educate kids about the consequences of having intimate relations at such a young age and teaching them about responsibility. We cannot regulate what goes into the bedroom or what occurs in a womans body. This will inevitably require force and it something that involves money, time, and more government.

As for the motherjones article saturn, I do not see where the GOP stated that date rape is not "force". Until we see an actual statement on this matter, I have to disagree with your OP. I do believe this move by the GOP is a joke, just the birther bill that AZ republicans have going on. These kinds of laws or ideas are not pratical in real government and the politicians behind them know this. They just push these "moral" and conspiracy bills to strike a cord with their constituents as they have been doing for years now. It's too bad their constituents fall for their games and take these moves seriously. Move right in line, the GOP is paying you political points for votes.

Although many may cite Mother Jones as gospel. I really would like a link to the actual bill. Reading the bill would help me eliminate the spin nonsense that usually occurs in partisan bickering.

Give us a link to the bill op.

reply to post by kiwifoot


To be honest what you described just sounded blatantly sexist to me. Of your friends or whoever you're referring to, I mean. I've known guys with that sort of attitude, one who raped two teenage girls and just thought they wanted it (he also had a reputation for liking rough sex and had also sexually harassed a female friend of mine.) Guys like these do not understand women or even seem to try. They just think they're for having sex with, raising babies, etc. Get them drunk, take advantage—it’s all good. That attitude disgusts me.

I'm not claiming that this is how you think. I do not know you or have heard enough from your thoughts to assume such a thing. But I can't help but relate to the attitude of guys to which you are referring to guys I have known.

Women don’t usually lie about being raped, as it is a serious accusation and also an embarrassing one. It leads to police visiting and family members outraged, probably a big legal trial, lots of emotions, etc. Children used to be considered liars when they accused adults of molesting them, as they were just children. The idea of assuming that young women are just lying is not one that I would subscribe to. I think you should question what these guys are telling you.

Glad you are against the bill.

Originally posted by Neurolanis
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Women don’t usually lie about being raped, as it is a serious accusation and also an embarrassing one. It leads to police visiting and family members outraged, probably a big legal trial, lots of emotions, etc. Children used to be considered liars when they accused adults of molesting them, as they were just children. The idea of assuming that young women are just lying is not one that I would subscribe to. I think you should question what these guys are telling you.

This is an area that, for some reason, lacks serious study.

I cand find reports that state 2% of accusations are flase all the way up to 60%.

Finding the actual studies these reports cite is the hard part.

I do think that this is an area that should be studied. In fact, if we were honestly trying to stop rape as a whole, we should be studying every single thing about rape we can...we seem to lack good studies across the board on this subject.

Edit to add:

Here is an excellent article that highlights just how wide ranged (IMHO poor) the studies into false rape are.

False Rape

Originally posted by Neurolanis
he also had a reputation for liking rough sex and had also sexually harassed a female friend of mine

So...I like it rough...fetish of mine,
Thats why god made safewords.

Lets not confuse sexual fun with non-consentual sex

Women don’t usually lie about being raped,

Actually, many do. I have personally known one that admitted she lied to get some real ----head locked up years earlier. It worked.

Now, I look very poorly at this girl and pretty much stopped associating with her, but its actually not as uncommon as your lead to believe.
The guy was indeed a real piece of work, but that doesn't justify anything.

if a woman says rape, the law dictates your innocent until proven guilty, but its such a kneejerk subject that a person is guilty until proven innocent.

Just sayin...

reply to post by peck420


Quoting from the site you shared...

A certain percentage of rape complaints are classified as "unfounded" by the police and excluded from the FBI's statistics. For example, in 1995, 8% of all forcible rape cases were closed as unfounded, as were 15% in 1996 (Greenfeld, 1997). According to the FBI, a report should only be considered unfounded when investigation revealed that the elements of the crime were not met or the report was "false" (which is not defined) (FBI, 2007).

Have to agree with the FBI here.

In most jurisdictions the accuser must admit that the accusation was false before the charges against the suspect will be dropped. Yet before the accuser decides to recant, the life of the falsely accused may have been disrupted, if not destroyed.

If this is true it of course makes no sense. No one is supposed to be assumed guilty before sentencing. Constant investigation or suspicion wouldn't make any sense either, as after a certain time without sufficient evidence it would be dropped.

This works both ways though: victims are often presumed liars before proven truth tellers. Victims of sexual abuse are forced to take the stand and have to take a lot of difficult questions, whereas the accused need not take the stand. Also, the abuser may represent himself in cross-examining his own victim on the stand (even if she is a small child (no age limit applies.) This has happened and this is why I am bringing this up. Is this fair or logical?

Obviously no one should be considered guilty or innocent, a liar or a truth teller, until the court has made a decision. I see no reason why the court system need presume anything before trial whatsoever. It should treat everyone fairly and equally (this meaning that if an accuser must take the stand, so must the accused.)

But this is slightly off-topic. The subject of letting guys off with less-violent rape (but with drugs not necessarily even that) has turned into a "boys will be boys" argument and me defending reason. Not saying that the law is always fair to anyone (presuming a guy is guilty of rape before a trial or without sufficient evidence.) But clearly this law is highly immoral and has come about due to old-fashioned sexism and a bias against abortion by the Republicans.

Obviously this bill has serious implications as this shift of perspective can lead to more serious changes in the favor of sex offenders.

reply to post by SaturnFX

So...I like it rough...fetish of mine,

I was explaining his character to explain how obviously guilty he was. By "rough" I meant bad bruises and forced activities on his girlfriend, which she tried hard to cover up and expressed to me not desiring any part of it (she was older than him and as he had a taste for teenage girls she was afraid that he would leave her if she didn’t please him in some sick ways.) She did leave him eventually.

if a woman says rape, the law dictates your innocent until proven guilty, but its such a kneejerk subject that a person is guilty until proven innocent.

I can understand this but how does it apply to the bill? Are you are implying that the law itself should be easier on accused males? Like I just said in my reply to peck420, victims are often presumed liars before truth tellers. This can be especially overwhelming for child victims.

reply to post by Neurolanis


Way to grab one reference out of the odd 30 presented.

As for the bill itself, as the actual bill (thank you for posting that beezer) only pertains to abortions, I don't really see how the rape topic is relevant to this thread at all.

The bill only cites "‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER." (from beezer's post)

It doesn't look to change the definition of rape or how rape charges are applied. It is trying to limit funds for abortions only...shameless money grab? yes. Relevant to rape in law? Not so much.

i feel both rape and abortion are horrible. i understand a female may seek abortion when the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if her health is in peril. but those circumstances make up a fraction of the abortions that take place daily in the USA. females that voluntarily have sex who then seek an abortion because they and/or their partner chose not to take preventive measures should have to have the child, that child should be adopted to capable and caring parents and the couple who created the unwanted baby should both be sterilized.
it doesn't make sense that people need a license to drive a car, cut hair or sell real estate while any irresponsible person can reproduce. that's why we have so much riff-raff in America. our government should have never abandoned the excellent eugenics program we once had in place.

reply to post by peck420


You'd rather me reply to every paragraph?

Like I said, it's gone a bit off-topic.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Hey! John McCain and 29 other Republicans think that gang rape is perfectly ok. Fact is they voted against an anti gang rape bill last year.

So is it me or does the GOP have a pro rape agenda?

something tells me there's more to that story...ear marks maybe?

What this comes down to is the definition of "forcible rape".

In Texas the offense is titled Sexual Assault, rather than rape, and is the same offense whether there is force, a threat of force or incapacitation of the victim.

Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally or knowingly:

(self censored the graphic description of the acts which constitute sexual assault)

(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:
(1) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force or violence;
(2) the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat;
(3) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist;
(4) the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it;
(5) the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is occurring;
(6) the actor has intentionally impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the other person's conduct by administering any substance without the other person's knowledge;

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...

Federally, the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines the offense of "Rape" to include force and the non-forceful incapacitation of the victim

Sec. 920. Art. 120. Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct
(a) Rape.--Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by--
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov.../2/3/0&WAISaction=retrieve

So, unless they decide to include a definition in the bill, the well established definition will apply.

Besides, due to the nature of incapacitation by drugs, the victim becomes in such a physical state that a "rape" or "sexual assault" would be pretty much impossible absent some level of force.