Date Rape is a Myth
Personally, I have always known date rape victims and drug rape victims are lying whores. Of course “personally” is the worst way to be right about anything. “Personally” is subjective and emotional. It is prone to error and bias. “Personally” is womanly.
Unless you’re a man.
Men have magic black boxes of objectification in our brains that turn all life experience into laws you could wear as ship shaped shoes and walk across water. Men and their mighty, manly opinions on things are air tight. Fuck yea.
Scientifically, all date rape victims are lying whores.
According to a new study brought to us by the Manzillas at Wrexham Maelor Hospital, being a victim of “date rape” is like being a victim of getting a flat tire when you drive off a cliff. You did it, it’s your fault, you’re lying about how it happened because who the fuck drives off a cliff, and you’ve probably got a lot more wrong with your car than a flat tire.
Let me explain.
Recently, it was stated that in the UK, Rohypnol has never ever been used in a case of sexual misconduct. I say sexual misconduct because “date rape” is a crass and manipulative word. I refused to use it from now on. It rapes the true meaning of the word “rape”.
Well no shit. I’ve been to the UK tons of times and I’ve never seen Rohypnol being used. I could have told anyone that and they didn’t need to perform some study about it. Date rape drugs are hard to come by. And if they’re not that hard, they’re still harder than feeding a woman apple martinis by the gallon and reciting retarded lines about her hopes and dreams — all of which are asinine. If date rape drugs are illegal, then why isn’t Bryan Adams? Both work just as well.
Someone performed a study anyway, and here are the results of that study in the form of a boot straight up the ass of every woman who is culturally prejudiced against the way women are treated in the Middle East.
Over 12 months, and out of 75 patients who claimed to be victims of sexual misconduct and drink tampering with Rohypnol, GHB, or ketamine, 0% were found to have it in their system.
Zero fucking percent.
In an unsurprising twist, 100% of these women were found to be drunk as fuck.
65% of “rape victims” had a blood alcohol content of twice the legal driving limit.
25% of “rape victims” were three times over the limit.
20% of “rape victims” tested positive for amphetamines.
In the case of women, besides the flat tire, you’ve also got a 20% chance of being on amphetamines. I’m no vagina doctor, but I’m pretty sure they don’t put amphetamines in the birth control pills that none of these whores were taking when they hit Ladies Night like a drunken tornado of abandonment issues.
After reading through the research article below, which I suggest to anyone who’s first instinct is still to listen when a woman starts talking, I realized the horrible truth of what’s going on in the UK. Apparently some asshole is running around spiking women’s drinks with booze.
Holy shit! Someone call the Special Victims Unit! Bring in the swab kit! Or better yet, fire up the laugh track and call that village where Peter and the Wolf is set. What’s that village called?
It’s called Fantasy Land.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 16 15 14 [13] 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 … 1 » Show All
Yer welcome!
… pssssst… for what? 0.o
Thanks, e v i l e d d y.
So next time I’m out on a date.. I’ll wait till my date is half finished her meal and then yell out “THEIF!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Yes I know real rape is no joking matter… unless yer raping a clown.
It is also entrapment.
*consent, not “intent”
Changing yer mind midway though coitus is down right rude.
Female summed up the only situation I would consider that rape; where one party clearly understood intent was withdrawn and ignored the victim’s objections beyond a reasonable amount of time (minutes). I understand that that’s hard to prove, and the situations are somewhat different, so I think labeling it as “sexual assault” as you described would be appropriate.
So I could have sex with a woman tonight and moan out a little “no” during the festivities and then call the police tomorrow and have her arrested for rape?
That’s awesome!!!
“Have sex with me right now or you will never see your children again”
Not all weapons are physical. ;)
Rape is not really about intent, it is about consent. And if someone removes consent, then it’s rape.
Your definition of what constitutes rape seems to be whether or not there existed an intent to cause harm to another.
In my opinion, whether or not the person had a premeditated intention to harm the other person is irrelevant, in making a choice to engage in non-consensual sex (after consent was removed), a choice is made to not care whether one’s actions would have a harmful effect on another person and thus there exists intentional failure to consider harm of another, aka intent to harm is chosen through the means of neglectful inconsideration. So even according to your definition, intent to harm still exists.
Unless she used a weapon, it is unlikely that she wouldn’t have been able to force him to have sex with her if he chose not to, therefore, choice is still available to him, and as he chose to still have unprotected sex, no, I don’t think you can call this rape. She also doesn’t mention using physical force or a weapon to coerce him, so we can only assume he voluntarily engaged in unprotected, consensual sex - that’s not rape.
This is something written by Liz (who’s cheated on her husband) over at womensinfidelity.com.
Assuming he only wished to have protected sex, and did not wish to conceive a child, would it be fair to say, under your guidelines, that she raped him?
She engaged in sexual intercourse with him, stopping him from getting a condom despite clearly expressed wishes. She conceived a child (perhaps through her affair, perhaps via that sex).
Is this literally (not figuratively) rape?
-wolfe
No. Those scenarios aren’t out of the ordinary at all. As I said, there have already been cases — including one I think in Australia — where men have gone to jail over how fast is fast enough? Five or ten seconds wasn’t, according to the jury.
You may not be. But draft a law the way you and Alex propose, and men will go to jail. (In a gender-blind society, so would women, but that will never happen. Men and women are different.)
Fair enough, though I seriously question whether you can present such a perspective in this particular instance, given what you’ve said, and given the fact that you don’t seem to grasp I’m not talking theoretically; this has already happened. (Unfortunately I’ve only a dead tree reference to the case… buried somewhere in piles of magazines).
Maybe. I personally am not sure I would not define it as rape, because I’m not convinced the not-stopping party would have formed the requisite intent.
I do think it’s contemptible behavior, and utterly wrong. I think it’s a profound betrayal of trust.
If I were the woman (and I were the party saying stop), I would certainly feel violated, because of the breach of trust. Would I feel raped? Possibly. Would that make it rape? No. My feelings would be important to the matter but not absolutely determinative.
Thinking carefully about it, here is my response.
It is sexual assault.
If you insisted on defining it as rape, I’d not argue the point other than to note I’m not entirely in agreement. The keys in my classifying it:
(1) The other individual CHOSE (as you capitalized it) to continue, i.e. this was a conscious decision;
(2) the time frame of minutes.
The effect on the injured party. Victim, if you will.
I continue to maintain there is a vital distinction between a situation where a woman is willing to have sex with a man but then wishes it to stop and a woman who does not wish to have sex being raped by a man she does not wish to have sex with.
-wolfe
wolfe, you have bought in scenerios which are out of the ordinary and to which I was not referring. I was not referring to kinky sex, nor considering hearing problems, nor was I referring to a situation where the man or woman stops a few seconds after being told to, rather than immediately. I am sorry to have to return to this disturbing discussion but I think you should consider this from a normative perspective. What if a couple were having non-kinky sex, could clearly hear each other and there were no issues with miscommunication or failure to understand or hear the other person, AND, the woman or man asked the other to stop (perhaps it was painful, it doesn’t really matter why and they did not explain the reasoning behind their communication) and the other person clearly heard them and CHOSE not to stop until they decided to, and that was not a few seconds later, but perhaps a few minutes later. Is that not rape? The intent to disregard the other person’s wishes is clearly there, so why shouldn’t this be classified as rape?
I see you two are very much in favour of entrapment.
Yep, I lean to the view that (certainly in the US) sentences should be generally similar for rape and false accusations of rape. That said, most false accusers (if female) would likely be found not guilty on grounds of mental defect.
Why? This example. Those investigating concluded — rightly or wrongly — that the improbably named Crystal Gail Mangum (the Duke false rape accuser) believed her stories.
Personally, I’d prefer rapists to face the death penalty, but for the unfortunate problem that it would then make them much more likely to kill their victims since they’d have nothing to lose.
I hope I can now be forgiven a little levity after thinking and writing about this disturbing topic.
The only time women should be permitted to cry out ‘wolf’ is when they’re having really good sex with me.
-wolfe
There are many ways to answer what you’ve said. The first, and simplest is to say yes. It should be. It might be prudent to be careful about whom you choose to start having sex with.
That is, however, a not very serious response.
The serious response is this. You confuse the fact that I do not equate rape with one partner failing to instantly stop having sex when the other partner says “no”. You seem to think, simply because I do not equate this to rape, that I must approve, condone, or otherwise accept such behavior. Not so.
I simply say the two cases are, in general, different.
Rape is a crime. In general, in order to commit a crime, there must either be intent or extreme willful negligence.
(This is certainly true from a moral perspective. Many have worked hard to change this from a legal perspective, and I find that a profoundly anti-liberal assault on the legal system. Hypocritically, leftists who protest the execution of mentally retarded killers on the basis of an alleged lack of ability to form intent turn right around and cheerfully applaud hard-line feminist legal theory that ignores the issue of intent).
If you are lying down dead drunk on the road at 2am and I run over you and you die, it is not correct to say I have murdered you. No intent existed on my part. If you are (sober or drunk) crossing the street and I see you, I accelerate and hit you, thereby killing you, then yes, I have murdered you. Intent has been formed, demonstrably so.
There are endless circumstances (indeed, virtually all that I can think of) where failure to instantly stop when one partner says no in the midst of sexual activity does not equate to an intent to commit rape.
One either is capable of seeing this, or one isn’t.
Most feminists are incapable.
If you are in their number that is very unfortunate for your ability to perceive the world and judge accordingly. Sadly for this island Earth, you are not alone.
Now, in many jurisdictions, there are laws which equate failure to instantly stop to rape. The existence (or absence) of such laws does not in any way change the moral nature of such acts.
Laws existed that forbade interracial marriage. That did not make those laws right, nor did it morally invalidate marriages contracted elsewhere.
In case you think I’m exaggerating about the “instantly stop”, there have been cases where men have gone to jail where both agreed that he did stop “almost immediately”. That wasn’t enough for at least one feminist jury.
Treating that as rape is… well, dangerous and vindictive as you say. It’s happened before. It will happen again.
No. I don’t believe so. A man freely serving in the military does not have the ‘right’ to protect his body by refusing an order charge an enemy position. I don’t believe a woman who is 9 months pregnant has the ‘right’ to a partial-birth abortion, even though it is indeed her body in question.
I don’t believe that this is a hugely anti-libertarian position. In both cases, the individuals had choice previously: the woman could have chosen not to get pregnant, or, if birth control failed, she could in most countries have chosen to have an abortion previously. The man did not need to choose to serve in the military (I speak obviously of a man freely serving, not a draftee).
You may feel otherwise, but I suspect you’re in a minority in either case.
No, she isn’t, for the reasons I’ve outlined above. You should find my comment — indeed the discussion — disturbing. It’s a disturbing subject.
And what if the partner, in the throes of passion, doesn’t hear the “no”? What if the two of them are into kinky sex games and she regularly says “no” because it turns her on in some kinky way? What if she hears him saying no and stops within several seconds. Has she raped him?
In order for rape to occur there must be a formed intent. Failing to hear is not forming intent. Failure to instantly stop (but stopping in a matter of seconds) is not forming intent. Genuinely misunderstanding is not forming intent.
Vindictive women do and will abuse these laws. It’s happened before. It will happen again. It’s just a question of when. And when it does, not even Bruce Willis, nuclear weapons, and two space shuttles will save the sorry man in that mess.
Back to the beginning.
I find it profoundly disturbing that you both (or Female at least) seem to morally equate a hearing problem with a woman violently attacked, beaten and raped. One of these things is not like the other, and it is wrong to suggest that they are.
-wolfe
I think it is pretty clear how rape is defined. This site is fair. Rape is clearly something that is loathed upon. The issue here isnt how the “rape” is being formulated but whether or not it actually happens. We can go on and argue about numerous scenarios but what then is the point? Are you not a feminist - supporter of equality? Then lets talk sense.
At all counts, I will support the victim(regardless of gender) if he/she has genuinely being raped. However, I see no reason as to why some innocent men have to go to prison for the lies and deceit of a cunning bitch. In my opinion, that is THE message that this entire “post” wants to send though Dick might have several others (haha)..
Wolfe, I am glad we share the same thoughts. Women shouldnt be allowed scot free for crying wolf. Thats bullshit. 6 months in prison? What the fuck is that? Life imprisonment for them. The same goes for rapist. I think thats fair and thats equality but CAN YOU DIG IT? Hah.
You are 100% correct and I too find wolfe’s comment disturbing, and, wrong. If a man or woman says “no” and wants the sex to stop, but the other person ignores them and continues, then that is rape, and there shouldn’t be any doubt about that whatsoever.
Alex, you’re a moron.
-Dick