Buffett4ever wrote:And I am sure most men have been in, or can imagine being in, a position of being taken to the point and then having someone say no. Most men can feel how hard it would be at that point to control themselves. It is different for men. I feel for the women who have been brutally raped or even raped for that matter. I do not feel for the women who find themselves in the position I described above. Espescially if the case was financially motivated as this case could have been.
I am going to try to bail you out here. What you are trying to say is that you feel for the dudes because he seems to be quilty with no way to prove innocence. However, I dissagree that there is ever a situation where a girl says no, and it is not a gentleman's obligation to stop. RIGHT THERE.
But I don't think the "bait and switch" thing really holds water- I mean, if she agreed to vanilla, and he went for triple mocha almond crunch without her consent, and her reputation is already bad, don't you think she'd want to humilate the jerk? I know I would.
But I think the point was made that if vanilla is OK but triple mocha almond crunch is NOT ok and she said so, then it is still rape because she did not consent. It wouldn't be trying to humiliate Kobe, it would be following the law.
However, she could have agreed to vanilla but not into the triple mocha almond crunch with Kobe, but went out with a different friend the next day and decided to try the triple mocha almond crunch.
Hmmm. Perplexing. And somehow I want a scoop of mint chocolate chip.
with sprinkles on top
eaten with a spork...
My ship she has a rudder, but I don’t know where to steer
But I don't think the "bait and switch" thing really holds water- I mean, if she agreed to vanilla, and he went for triple mocha almond crunch without her consent, and her reputation is already bad, don't you think she'd want to humilate the jerk? I know I would.
But I think the point was made that if vanilla is OK but triple mocha almond crunch is NOT ok and she said so, then it is still rape because she did not consent. It wouldn't be trying to humiliate Kobe, it would be following the law.
However, she could have agreed to vanilla but not into the triple mocha almond crunch with Kobe, but went out with a different friend the next day and decided to try the triple mocha almond crunch.
Hmmm. Perplexing. And somehow I want a scoop of mint chocolate chip.
PHBeerman wrote:I am going to try to bail you out here. What you are trying to say is that you feel for the dudes because he seems to be quilty with no way to prove innocence.
Kobe doesn't have to prove anything. His lawyer doesn't even have to call any witnesses or put on any kind of defense if she doesn't want to. (And does anyone think he chose a female defense attorney by accident?) It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
PHBeerman wrote:
I am going to try to bail you out here. What you are trying to say is that you feel for the dudes because he seems to be quilty with no way to prove innocence.
Which takes us back to Burden Of Proof.
She's the accuser, she needs to prove he did it.
The system is set up so that he needs to prove he did not!
Conversely...a VERY experienced woman who has done EVERYTHING, or at least more than the average sexually active woman also has the right to say "No" at any point during the encounter. But, because she may be known in circles as not-so-innocent it could be hard to corroborate whether she would or would not have said no. I also think that women of these sorts could possible consent to some degree and then feel remorse afterward. Or feel they were taken advantage of or assaulted (physically or emotionally) but there's really nothing to hold on to as far as legal action. I don't think that is rape but it certainly is reluctant consent.
ph4ever wrote:I totally disagree No means NO no matter at what time the verbalization takes place.
Suppose you have an inexperienced teenager who has done nothing more than semi-heavy petting. Are you saying it's ok that she's raped because of her lack of inexperience she dosn't know at what point the man is "past the point of no return" And IMHO there isn't a "past the point of no return"
Buffett4ever wrote:And I am sure most men have been in, or can imagine being in, a position of being taken to the point and then having someone say no. Most men can feel how hard it would be at that point to control themselves. It is different for men. I feel for the women who have been brutally raped or even raped for that matter. I do not feel for the women who find themselves in the position I described above. Espescially if the case was financially motivated as this case could have been.
ph4ever wrote:
Buffett4ever wrote:Thanks all for a VERY interesting discussion. I will abstain as I have had this discussion many times, often becoming heated. I think you can almost draw the lines right down gender lines. I am going to continue to try to stay out of this discussion as entering will do me no good.
I think the reason you can draw a line down gender lines is because most woman can emphasize with the rape victum. I'm sure some of us women here are rape victums ourselves. It is rare that you hear of males being raped - not that it dosn't happen but it's rare that it is talked about. Over the years women have been able to talk about their rape experiences more openly and freely.
PHBeerman wrote:I am going to try to bail you out here. What you are trying to say is that you feel for the dudes because he seems to be quilty with no way to prove innocence.
Kobe doesn't have to prove anything. His lawyer doesn't even have to call any witnesses or put on any kind of defense if she doesn't want to. (And does anyone think he chose a female defense attorney by accident?) It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
But I don't think the "bait and switch" thing really holds water- I mean, if she agreed to vanilla, and he went for triple mocha almond crunch without her consent, and her reputation is already bad, don't you think she'd want to humilate the jerk? I know I would.
But I think the point was made that if vanilla is OK but triple mocha almond crunch is NOT ok and she said so, then it is still rape because she did not consent. It wouldn't be trying to humiliate Kobe, it would be following the law.
However, she could have agreed to vanilla but not into the triple mocha almond crunch with Kobe, but went out with a different friend the next day and decided to try the triple mocha almond crunch.
Hmmm. Perplexing. And somehow I want a scoop of mint chocolate chip.
Remorse after the fact is one thing and it is wrong for a woman to cry rape in that instance.
But even a crack whore has the right to say no.
buffettbride wrote:Conversely...a VERY experienced woman who has done EVERYTHING, or at least more than the average sexually active woman also has the right to say "No" at any point during the encounter. But, because she may be known in circles as not-so-innocent it could be hard to corroborate whether she would or would not have said no. I also think that women of these sorts could possible consent to some degree and then feel remorse afterward. Or feel they were taken advantage of or assaulted (physically or emotionally) but there's really nothing to hold on to as far as legal action. I don't think that is rape but it certainly is reluctant consent.
ph4ever wrote:I totally disagree No means NO no matter at what time the verbalization takes place.
Suppose you have an inexperienced teenager who has done nothing more than semi-heavy petting. Are you saying it's ok that she's raped because of her lack of inexperience she dosn't know at what point the man is "past the point of no return" And IMHO there isn't a "past the point of no return"
Buffett4ever wrote:And I am sure most men have been in, or can imagine being in, a position of being taken to the point and then having someone say no. Most men can feel how hard it would be at that point to control themselves. It is different for men. I feel for the women who have been brutally raped or even raped for that matter. I do not feel for the women who find themselves in the position I described above. Espescially if the case was financially motivated as this case could have been.
ph4ever wrote:
Buffett4ever wrote:Thanks all for a VERY interesting discussion. I will abstain as I have had this discussion many times, often becoming heated. I think you can almost draw the lines right down gender lines. I am going to continue to try to stay out of this discussion as entering will do me no good.
I think the reason you can draw a line down gender lines is because most woman can emphasize with the rape victum. I'm sure some of us women here are rape victums ourselves. It is rare that you hear of males being raped - not that it dosn't happen but it's rare that it is talked about. Over the years women have been able to talk about their rape experiences more openly and freely.
