Did CO. "Girl" Placekicker Ask For It???

[Rouser2]

Coach Barnett says she was a "girl" who was "terrible." She simply couldn't kick the ball between the uprights. The Colorado U chancellor (also female) says the coach was out of line for his remarks and placed him on leave. Now, 4 years after the fact, she claims she was raped, but exactly what was she doing there in the first place? If a "girl" can try out for a men's football team, and make it just because she is a girl, then should not men also be allowed to play on the women's teams or do women now have more rights in America than men, all in the spirit of "equality"?


"All of the animals are now equal -- but some are more equal than others." -- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


-- Rouser

[WildCat]

This whole story is just suspect. She claims she didn't report the rape because she didn't want the negative publicity, but then 4 years later she makes the accusation to SI? And then still won't report it and name names? It's getting far more attention now than it would have then. I'm not saying she wasn't raped (who knows?), but her credibility now is far less than if she had reported it right away.

Even so, Barnett should have bit his tongue when those comments crossed his mind. His football program is obviously out of control.

He should have just stayed at Northwestern. :p

Edited to say that my screen name has nothing to do w/ the Northwestern Wildcats.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Coach Barnett says she was a "girl" who was "terrible." She simply couldn't kick the ball between the uprights. The Colorado U chancellor (also female) says the coach was out of line for his remarks and placed him on leave. Now, 4 years after the fact, she claims she was raped, but exactly what was she doing there in the first place? If a "girl" can try out for a men's football team, and make it just because she is a girl, then should not men also be allowed to play on the women's teams or do women now have more rights in America than men, all in the spirit of "equality"?


"All of the animals are now equal -- but some are more equal than others." -- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"


-- Rouser

So since she played football with men she deserves to get raped?

Is that your stance? It sounds like it but maybe you would choose to clarify if it isn't, because that is really stupid.

[Tmy]

Well there is no girls football team. So she has no other football option.

I think the coach is being scapegoated. This is just the latest in a few incidents with the team. But these guys are all adults, should we expect the coach to know whats going on with his players all the time???

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Now, 4 years after the fact, she claims she was raped, but exactly what was she doing there in the first place? Sorry, I don't get the connection. :confused:

[Tmy]

Arethere any details on the rape. Its one thing if it happend in the lockerroom, but if off campus by some aquaintance?? Is that the coaches fault?

A couple weeks ago there was a rape claim vs the St Johns team. It turned out to be false.

[DavidJames]

.Arethere any details on the rape. Its one thing if it happend in the lockerroom, but if off campus by some aquaintance?? Is that the coaches fault?
The alleged rape took place off campus. Nobody is claiming it's his fault. He choose to offer his personal opinion on her football talents during a discussion precipitated by the rape accusation. Did you hear it? It was pretty graphic in how he felt about her on the football team. Her talent as a football kicker is irrelevant to the charge and was deemed inappropriate by the college president.

It's absurd to think the coach would know all the bad things related to the football team. Considering all the stuff that's happened at CU, it's equally absurd to think he didn't know about any of them. While I'm still reserving judgment on his guilt or innocence what swayed me that the president made the correct decision last night was his initial comment about the action. He claimed his words (about the kicker) were "misinterpreted or taken, aired out of context". Hello, his comments were on TV and repeated frequently on the news shows. At least on this issue he is clearly in denial and disconnected from reality.

The final straw with the CU president about Barnett apparently was when she learned yesterday about another rape charge in a police report. A charge Barnett knew about and never shared with the Administration. It included some additional comments which, if true, do place him in a very good light.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So since she played football with men she deserves to get raped?
Well duh! You've obviously never played the game. Everybody on the football team gets raped. It's part of the pre-game warmup. She shouldn't expect a free ride just because she's a girl.

...um... maybe "free ride" wasn't the phrase I was looking for.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly


So since she played football with men she deserves to get raped?

Is that your stance? It sounds like it but maybe you would choose to clarify if it isn't, because that is really stupid.


Nobody should get raped. But neither should little blue-eyed blond girls presume to play football with grown men unless brain dead. Nor should affirmative action nonsense prevail on the gridiron.


-- Rouser

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Nobody should get raped. But neither should little blue-eyed blond girls presume to play football with grown men unless brain dead. Nor should affirmative action nonsense prevail on the gridiron.


-- Rouser

Football players may not be all that bright but brain-dead...that's going too far.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Nobody should get raped. But neither should little blue-eyed blond girls presume to play football with grown men unless brain dead. Nor should affirmative action nonsense prevail on the gridiron.
-- Rouser
She was invited to walk on by one coach (Neuheisel) and apparently made the team, though she didn't play. She was obviously not a great player, but many colleges carry players they never use.

Had Barnett not wanted her on the team, he should have simply cut her, rather than subjecting her to harassment by her teammates. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/rick_reilly/02/16/hnida/index.html) If a coach lets that kind of crap is going on, then he is either an incredibly dumb coach, or he approves of it.

Sometimes when the entire team was huddled up, Hnida says, players stuck their hands on her crotch or groped her breasts under her shoulder pads. "She endured more abuse than one person should have to bear," former teammate Justin Bates says. Even as she practiced, players called her vulgar names and one fired footballs at her head.

Yeah, Rouser. That sounds like the behavior of "grown men".

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tricky

She was invited to walk on by one coach (Neuheisel) and apparently made the team, though she didn't play. She was obviously not a great player, but many colleges carry players they never use.


Exactly. "She should have never been there in the first place" is not an excuse for anything. First, as you said, she was invited to try out, and Neuheisel left her on the team. It's not like she used legal action to force herself on the team. So if your problem is that "she shouldn't have been on the team" then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the coach.

Second, regardless of why she was there (publicity stunt or no), sexual harrassment by other players is inexcusable. In that case, the people to blame are the ones committing the acts, not her.

As for the question of whether she should have quit, why should she? She didn't do anything wrong. Even if she wasn't as good as the other players, that makes her no different from about 40 other players on the bench (college football teams will often suit up more than 100 players for home games, with a good chunk who will never play a down). No one ever says those guys should quit. Why should she? I think a lot people, if they got the chance to be on the football team, even if they never played, would be thrilled at the chance and would do it. But most of them won't be raped by their teammates...

[Crossbow]

I normally do not follow professional sports, but there was a good account of the action on NPR this morning.

They discussed how new team members would be recruited through parties that had alcohol, strippers, and promises of lots of willing female students (which is apparently a common practice througout the nation).
How the coach gets paid 1.6 million dollars per year (the highest paid public employee in the state) has been placed on paid suspension.
That four other female players have come forward with accusations of sexual abuse.
And so on.

Colorado Football Sex Scandal
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=20-Feb-2004&prgId=3

[Michael Redman]

Yes. A woman who tries to do something that men don't want her to do is asking to be raped. How could anyone argue with that? :rolleyes:

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Yes. A woman who tries to do something that men don't want her to do is asking to be raped. How could anyone argue with that? :rolleyes:

What is the relevance of her rape to the football program? Its nott like the players through her down in the endzone and attacked her. From what I can tell it was off campus and the alleged perp was another player.

Did she know him? Did they meet at football practice? Date him? Was this date rape situation?

The Coachs comments are dumb but what happens off campus is not really under his control. If hes expected to know everything, shoudlnt the school administrators also be exected to know. Why does the buck stop at the coach?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I normally do not follow professional sports, but there was a good account of the action on NPR this morning.

They discussed how new team members would be recruited through parties that had alcohol, strippers, and promises of lots of willing female students (which is apparently a common practice througout the nation).


However, while all may be considered "sleazy," the only thing that can really be regulated are 1) the use of university funds for the activities, and 2) illegal activities.

If the other players on the team take an 18 year old prospect to a strip club, it is not illegal. Heck, it's not even obvious to me that it would be a violation of any rule if the coach told them to do it (would depend on NCAA regs). It would be illegal if it were a 17 year old, but 18 is the age in Colorado.

Similarly, it would be illegal to give any under 21 alcohol. Thus, this is a legitimate charge. In either situation, I'm pretty sure that it is a violation to use university funds for such activities, so if that happened, then there is also an issue. I don't know any laws about privately hired strippers, so won't address that.

However, the thing about promises of female companionship is not a violation of any rule as far as I know, provided that it is not forced. I mean, if the other players tell the guy that, "Hey, CU football is great because there are a lot of football groupies and they put out, let me introduce you to a few," what can you say? That is not all that different from certain fraternaties, if you think about it. Of course, if the activities with the women are not consentual, then it is a different issue.

Now, the university can ask whether it wants to be associated with a coach/team that uses such activities for recruiting purposes, but CU is not special in this regard.

To pretend that CU is some awful case is misguided. It may be pretty ugly, but I think if you look, you will find it not uncommon. Doesn't make it right, but it does make the current focus on CU too narrow.

From a national standpoint, it is reasonable to examine illegal and even "less classy" recruiting activities of college athletics. While CU is the program de jour, I think an investigation would find these things go on all over. We need to handle the big problem, not just the current whipping dog.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy


What is the relevance of her rape to the football program? Its nott like the players through her down in the endzone and attacked her. From what I can tell it was off campus and the alleged perp was another player.

Did she know him? Did they meet at football practice? Date him? Was this date rape situation?

The Coachs comments are dumb but what happens off campus is not really under his control. If hes expected to know everything, shoudlnt the school administrators also be exected to know. Why does the buck stop at the coach?

Apparently he did know of at least one rape accusation and did not tell the administration.

So at that level, it is not what he should know, but what he did know.

As far as the alleged rape, I somewhat agree. It is not the coach's responsibility. Yeah, sometimes football players commit date rape. But you know what? So do non-football players. They should be treated the same.

In this case, I think the bigger issue is the harrassment and rape of a teammate. In that case, it becomes an issue for the football team in addition to the normal societal issue. We hear of football players charged with sexual assault and rape on occasion, especially when they are in big programs. However, it usually is not the sexual assault of a teammate.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Nobody should get raped. But neither should little blue-eyed blond girls presume to play football with grown men unless brain dead. Nor should affirmative action nonsense prevail on the gridiron.

I'll bet $100 she's a far better athlete than you.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Evidently the coach wasn't only chastised for his off the cuff remarks, but there was some background involved along the lines of " You bring this up and I will back my players 100%" Not sure of quote , but this is not the first time at this school with this coach where allegations of rape and other less heinous conduct went on.

Make the victim your sister... now how do you feel.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


I'll bet $100 she's a far better athlete than you.

How is this relevant?

[crackmonkey]

Like my sister shouldn't be pretending to be a placekicker on a football team.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
How is this relevant?

It's relevant because Rouser2's a big fat know-nothing who criticizes a talented athelete based on nothing more than her sex and then uses her relative skill at a game to justify sexual assault and rape.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy


What is the relevance of her rape to the football program? Its nott like the players through her down in the endzone and attacked her. From what I can tell it was off campus and the alleged perp was another player.

Did she know him? Did they meet at football practice? Date him? Was this date rape situation?

The Coachs comments are dumb but what happens off campus is not really under his control. If hes expected to know everything, shoudlnt the school administrators also be exected to know. Why does the buck stop at the coach? What does this have to do with what I said? Rouser asks if "she asked for it", not whether the coach was to blame.

[Ælfgifu]

Like my sister shouldn't be pretending to be a placekicker on a football team.

She wasn't pretending to be a placekicker on a football team. She actually was a placekicker on a football team.

Have a nice day,
Kelly :)

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Like my sister shouldn't be pretending to be a placekicker on a football team.

Well, so your sister is raped and You believe thats its because she should have known her place and not tried to play football.

That is about the stupidist freeking thing I have ever witnessed in my life.
You are a true ******* and I nominate You for the SGDMF award ( or whatever it's called) early for the month of March

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tricky [/i]

>>She was invited to walk on by one coach (Neuheisel) and apparently made the team, though she didn't play. She was obviously not a great player, but many colleges carry players they never use.
Had Barnett not wanted her on the team, he should have simply cut her, rather than subjecting her to harassment by her teammates. If a coach lets that kind of crap is going on, then he is either an incredibly dumb coach, or he approves of it.

Comment: We don't know that Barnett was allowed to cut her. Surely, he would have if he could, even if she could place-kick well, which she couldn't. If you were the coach of a perennial football power, attemping to win your conference and perhaps a national championship, and then a "girl" shows up and wants to play on your team, would you be elated at the potential postiive impact she would have on the team? Of course not. You'd be outraged at the prospect. He apparently kept her because of forces, including perhaps Title IX forces to say nothing of having an apparent "feminazi" for a university president. And suspect that former coach in inviting a "girl" to try out for the team, knowingly planted a time-bomb in the lap of his successor.

>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes when the entire team was huddled up, Hnida says, players stuck their hands on her crotch or groped her breasts under her shoulder pads. "She endured more abuse than one person should have to bear," former teammate Justin Bates says. Even as she practiced, players called her vulgar names and one fired footballs at her head.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Yeah, Rouser. That sounds like the behavior of "grown men".

We don't know the truth of all this yet. I've heard and seen other players on the tube claim they observed no such behavior. But if a male player became physically attracted to her, would that be abnormal? Or would it, in fact, be absolutely predictable?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by pgwenthold [/i]


>>Second, regardless of why she was there (publicity stunt or no), sexual harrassment by other players is inexcusable. In that case, the people to blame are the ones committing the acts, not her.


Regardless as to whether she was sexaully harrassed or not, attempting to force herself on a tradiitionally male sport was inexcusable but in that case she is not the only one to blame, but all those on the staff and the school administration who allowed it.

-- Rouser

[kittynh]

grabbing her boobs during the huddle is the way they show they are attracted to her?

Sorry, men have to work with women all the time, and grabbing boobs isn't allowed. It's called sexual harrassment. If they have a woman for a lab partner they are expected to control themselves. Our local high school has 3 women that play, 2 on JV and one on the regular team. They are all place kickers. It's not as uncommon as it sounds.

Plus, this coach just sounds like an Ahole. What if it was a guy who had been raped? What homosexuals should not play on teams....duh...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


It's relevant because Rouser2's a big fat know-nothing who criticizes a talented athelete based on nothing more than her sex and then uses her relative skill at a game to justify sexual assault and rape.


Her football skills, or lack thereof, have little to do with the fact that she was a female interloper on a male sport. She should have stuck to mixed tennis doubles or some such. She was looking for controversy and she got it. In that sense, she asked for it.

-- Rouser

[Bentspoon]

This is why he is suspended. I did hear the press conference and his attitude and demeanor in his voice said it all.


One could expect that people put in charge of this much responsibility with this much at stake and being paid millions would at least be able to speak eloquently and fairly on any point regarding his team. Instead we have an idiot portraying himself as mysoginistic muscle head.

I also heard about the "back my male player 100% if you bring this up" - another brilliant move by this excuse for a mature human being.

We could debate endlessly about rape, women in athletics, the nature of men and the ubiquitous integrity displayed by the country's athletes but that has little bearing on why this guy is supended.

He doesn't know how to conduct himself civilly. If it were a real corporation and a real job he would most likely be swinging on his golden parachute by now. Ahhh but this the world if athletes.

Bentspoon

[Tmy]

not to excuse anyones behavior but in football there is quite a bit of hazing going on. Actions that normally may be considered assault is really good natured ribbing.. Yeahthats a stretch but its somthing to consider.

There was a girl kicker on University Of New Mexicos team. I think she attempted an extra point in a game, but it was blocked.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kittynh [/i]

<<Our local high school has 3 women that play, 2 on JV and one on the regular team. They are all place kickers. It's not as uncommon as it sounds.

And your school also has boys on the girls field hockey or basketball squad as well, eh? And if a boy did show up and demand to be included, I'm sure all the young ladies would welcome him on board with open arms.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Bentspoon [/i]


>>This is why he is suspended. I did hear the press conference and his attitude and demeanor in his voice said it all.

Barnet said "She was a "girl" and she was terrible. She couldn't kick the ball through the uprights."

Translation: The young lady was looking for trouble, looking to disrupt our team and she succeded, even four years after the fact.


I personally found it refreshing to hear someone speak the truth about all this male/female egalitarian nonsense for once. But just imagine if she had tried to play basketball for Bobby Knight!

-- Rouser

[Tmy]

In Mass. there was this guy who joined the High School girls field hockey team. (theres no boys team so they couldnt stop him). They made him wear the uniform (skirt) in an attempt to get rid of him. He just sewed them into shorts. Soem schools refused to play against him.

The nastyness can go both ways

[Bentspoon]

I think you missed my point

It was not what he said but the stupid crude way he said it. If he weren't stupid he could have said the same thing without appearing mysoginist

The issue here is not whether women should be on these teams or who was raped, the issue is that this highly paid responsible individual cannot conduct himself civilly nor does he set an example for his team.

It makes no difference that she was a girl. He simply had to say her performance was awful - if it indeed was. By saying what he did with the vidictive tone that he did it is easily interpreted as "she's a woman - what did you expect"

and this when his boss is a woman - it is the sheer idiocy of a mysoginistic meathead who cannot control his mouth.

therefore suspension.

I expect much more from people in these positions

Bentspoon

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2
She was looking for controversy and she got it. In that sense, she asked for it.

-- Rouser Are you talking about rape and/or sexual harassment here when you're saying 'she got it'? :confused:

I hope you're not, but then on the other hand you wrote in your first post:

she claims she was raped, but exactly what was she doing there in the first place? Are you really thinking this girl was asking to be raped just by being there?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tmy
There was a girl kicker on University Of New Mexicos team. I think she attempted an extra point in a game, but it was blocked.
That was the same girl, Tmy. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/rick_reilly/02/16/hnida/index.html)
Katie went into therapy, enrolled at a junior college and then had the guts to walk on at New Mexico in 2002. Last August she became the first woman to score in Division I football history when she kicked two PATs in the Lobos' 72-8 rout of Texas State-San Marcos.
No, she wasn't a good college-level football player. Good enough to make it on two different teams, though.

Originally posted by Rouser
Comment: We don't know that Barnett was allowed to cut her. Surely, he would have if he could, even if she could place-kick well, which she couldn't. If you were the coach of a perennial football power, attemping to win your conference and perhaps a national championship, and then a "girl" shows up and wants to play on your team, would you be elated at the potential postiive impact she would have on the team? Of course not. You'd be outraged at the prospect. He apparently kept her because of forces, including perhaps Title IX forces to say nothing of having an apparent "feminazi" for a university president. And suspect that former coach in inviting a "girl" to try out for the team, knowingly planted a time-bomb in the lap of his successor.

Of course, none of us know what was going through Barnett's mind, but his comments the other day show the depth of his comassion for the girl.

And she didn't "show up". She was already on the team the previous year. If Barnett didn't want her, he should have told her so, instead allowing the harassment in hopes she'd quit, thereby keeping his hands clean. That would have been an "up front" thing to do. She was a walk-on. She was not "planted".

(And your use of the term "feminazi" is noted. I think we can tell where you're coming from now.)
Originally posted by Rouser
Barnet said "She was a "girl" and she was terrible. She couldn't kick the ball through the uprights."

Translation: The young lady was looking for trouble, looking to disrupt our team and she succeded, even four years after the fact.

Then he should have cut her. That simple. He might have been afraid to take the heat then, but he's paying for it now, and deservedly so. If this were the only incident of Barnett winking at "boys will be boys" behavior, it might be explained away, but this is just the latest in a series of revelations. I don't think we would be off the mark to label him a misogynist.

Oh, and by the way. Golf is a traditionally male sport. So is tennis. In fact most sports are traditionally male. The original Olympics only allowed males. Times have changed. Try to keep up.

[kittynh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by kittynh [/i]

<<Our local high school has 3 women that play, 2 on JV and one on the regular team. They are all place kickers. It's not as uncommon as it sounds.

And your school also has boys on the girls field hockey or basketball squad as well, eh? And if a boy did show up and demand to be included, I'm sure all the young ladies would welcome him on board with open arms.


-- Rouser

well yes, for teams where there is only a girls team, and not a balancing boys team, boys are allowed to try out. There are now boy cheerleaders (the squad was all female for years, and they did not increase the number of slots) and there are girls on the boys golf team., since there was onlly one golf team. Oddly enough, it's required.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Rouser2
She was looking for controversy and she got it. In that sense, she asked for it.


Okay, welcome to my ignore list.

[waitew]

Yes,men should be allowed to play on women's teams...if they suck & can't play with the big boys & woman should be allowed to play on the men's teams ..if they make the grade.It should be based on ability Not gender.Fair is fair.
It's also true that male reporters should be allowed in woman team's locker rooms if woman reporters are allowed into men team's locker rooms.After all,fair is fair.I hate double standards..what applies to one should apply to others.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Her football skills, or lack thereof, have little to do with the fact that she was a female interloper on a male sport. She should have stuck to mixed tennis doubles or some such. She was looking for controversy and she got it. In that sense, she asked for it.Jackie Robinson's baseball skills, or lack thereof, have little to do with the fact that he was a black interloper on a white sport. He should have stuck to the negro leagues or some such. He was looking for controversy and he got it. In that sense, he asked for it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]

>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
She was looking for controversy and she got it. In that sense, she asked for it.

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Are you talking about rape and/or sexual harassment here when you're saying 'she got it'?

I hope you're not, but then on the other hand you wrote in your first post:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
she claims she was raped, but exactly what was she doing there in the first place?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Are you really thinking this girl was asking to be raped just by being there?

By being where? On the football team? The rape, if it happened, happened off the gridiron. I saw the alleged rapist on TV -- a 280 lb man of Afro-American persuasion -- with his white, female attorney. He claims innocence. But the story goes, this blond, blue-eyed slip of a girl just happend to be alone with him at his place watching TV when the incident "happened". Just like Kobe Bryant's accuser just happend to be alone in Kobe's hotel room at 2 am when that incident "happened". And the young lady bears no responsibility? Give me a break!

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Jackie Robinson's baseball skills, or lack thereof, have little to do with the fact that he was a black interloper on a white sport. He should have stuck to the negro leagues or some such. He was looking for controversy and he got it. In that sense, he asked for it.

Typical knee-jerk liberal nonsense -- equating racial discrimination with male/female separation. They didin't have to build separate locker room, shower and bathroom facilities for Robinson. And he never cried "rape" 4 years after the fact.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tricky [/i]


>>Then he should have cut her. That simple. He might have been afraid to take the heat then, but he's paying for it now, and deservedly so. If this were the only incident of Barnett winking at "boys will be boys" behavior, it might be explained away, but this is just the latest in a series of revelations. I don't think we would be off the mark to label him a misogynist.


Should have cut her? Easy for you to say. Title IX pressures and possible lawsuits might make any thinking person think twice. Instead of working on football, Coach Barnett might have to face inquiries, depositions and even a trial. He'd have to prove a negative -- that he did not cut her just because she was a girl, which would have been a very good common sense reason to cut her, but not in this "equal opportunity gone mad" day and age.

>>Oh, and by the way. Golf is a traditionally male sport. So is tennis. In fact most sports are traditionally male. The original Olympics only allowed males. Times have changed. Try to keep up.

Times have indeed changed, but nature rules unchanged. Women remain women, and men remain men (except in places like San Francisco). I say vive la difference.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kittynh [/i]


>>well yes, for teams where there is only a girls team, and not a balancing boys team, boys are allowed to try out. There are now boy cheerleaders (the squad was all female for years, and they did not increase the number of slots) and there are girls on the boys golf team., since there was onlly one golf team. Oddly enough, it's required


It's odd alright, and indeed required. But that phrase "balancing boys team"? That's right out of Title IX. Fact is, girls are not that interested in sporting activities, and do not go out for them in the same number percentages as boys. As a consequence of that, many male sports have been eliminated from colleges in order to "balance" the fact that so few women want to participate in any "balancing" sport. I think if you go back far enough, cheerleading was a male activity. When they allowed girls into it, it became less leading of cheers, and more of something else.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by waitew
Yes,men should be allowed to play on women's teams...if they suck & can't play with the big boys & woman should be allowed to play on the men's teams ..if they make the grade.It should be based on ability Not gender.Fair is fair.
It's also true that male reporters should be allowed in woman team's locker rooms if woman reporters are allowed into men team's locker rooms.After all,fair is fair.I hate double standards..what applies to one should apply to others.

But in the interest of fairness, let's not stop there. Make all restroom facilities "coed". And let's not forget pregnancy leave for males, and Dutch Treat the rule of law on all male/female dates.

-- Rouser

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Nobody should get raped. But neither should little blue-eyed blond girls presume to play football with grown men unless brain dead. Nor should affirmative action nonsense prevail on the gridiron.


-- Rouser So you are saying it was ok for her to get raped, because she dared to play football?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Zero
So you are saying it was ok for her to get raped, because she dared to play football?

It also seems that if she was brown haired and brown eyed none of this would happen, at least according to Rouser.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


It also seems that if she was brown haired and brown eyed none of this would happen, at least according to Rouser. And she is "little" too...if she was chunkier, she wouldn't have deserved anything more than sexual harassment, right?

[DavidJames]

Rouser2

By being where? On the football team? The rape, if it happened, happened off the gridiron. I saw the alleged rapist on TV -- a 280 lb man of Afro-American persuasion -- with his white, female attorney
Living 15 miles from the CU campus it's hard to miss the constant coverage. Is this the man (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2672599,00.html) and his lawyer you are refering to?

This had nothing to do with the Hnida claim, nothing. To the best of my knowledge the scenario in your quote has not happened. If you saw a different " 280 lb man of Afro-American persuasion -- with his white, female attorney" that was related, please provide a reference.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2
But the story goes, this blond, blue-eyed slip of a girl just happend to be alone with him at his place watching TV when the incident "happened". Just like Kobe Bryant's accuser just happend to be alone in Kobe's hotel room at 2 am when that incident "happened". And the young lady bears no responsibility? Give me a break!

-- Rouser Does anybody know if Jedi Knight has a younger brother? :(

[Tricky]

There has been a legitimate question raised as to why they should let women play on men's teams but not let men play on women's teams. I freely admit to a little hypocrisy and a little chauvinism in my feelings about this, but I think I have a fair reason for this.

No one here denies that most women do not have the physique to play on most men's teams, or even to compete with them one-on-one. Women cannot (generally) run as fast or jump as high, and they are not as musclebound. That's basic biology. But really, very few people at all are able to compete at the top levels in sport. That is why they have minor leagues and local teams and all of the levels of competition for the overwhelmingly vast majority of us who will never be pro or even college athletes.

Occasionally, though, a woman comes along who can compete at the upper levels in a sport, even if it is doing a physically less demanding task (like place kicking in football). Just as if you found a promising player in the minor leagues who you gave a shot to compete with the "big boys", you might find a woman who could compete with the men at the higher levels of a sport. To tell this person "no, you must stick to the minor leages, not because of your talent, but because you are a minor league player" would outrage us if the person were male.

This doesn't happen a lot in real life (although it happens in the movies all the time). But on the rare occasions when it does, we all cheer for the "underdog". For the same reason, we should cheer when a person overcomes a genetic handicap (meaning women are not as strong as men) to compete at the upper levels. It strikes me that the people who would oppose a player coming up from the "minors" are those who fear that that player might be better than them.

So why doesn't this work in reverse? Because for most traditionally male sports, the abundance of male teams at lower levels far exceeds the number of female teams. A man who can't make the college basketball team can usually find a "city league" team to play on. He needn't be forced to find a women's team to play on. Indeed, I would wonder about the ego of a person who only wanted to play against weaker players so he could dominate.

Then, there is the rare situation where a certain sport is offered to women, but not to men, like field hockey. In such a situation, the courts have reluctantly allowed men (or one man) to play on the women's team. Perhaps this person really does love field hockey so much that he must play that sport and not any others. But such a man would probably be, in my opinion, one of those whose ego demands that he prove himself better than women. Most men would be ashamed to publicly show such insecurity about their own abilities. That is biology too.

[kittynh]

OK....if there were a female football team then it would have been ok to exclude the girl from trying out. Like I said, at the local high school the rule is no opposite sex team, you can try out. If you make it fine, if not too bad.

True story here. Kitten races a boat known as a C-1. She was at the junior Olympics to race her kayak, and was upset as she had qualified for the C-1 too, only there were no other junior women racers. So, she asked if she could race with the men, rather than just take a given first. They said sure, she came in 4th in quite a large field. They were worried as if she had come in 3rd or higher they didn't know what they were going to do. They just couldn't imagine a woman coming in anywhere near the top.

Caused quite a stir, and made the press...even got mentioned in her schools annual report! And no, she isn't an Amazon. She can't race stronger, so she races smarter.

It happens!

[Zero]

Originally posted by kittynh
OK....if there were a female football team then it would have been ok to exclude the girl from trying out. Like I said, at the local high school the rule is no opposite sex team, you can try out. If you make it fine, if not too bad.

True story here. Kitten races a boat known as a C-1. She was at the junior Olympics to race her kayak, and was upset as she had qualified for the C-1 too, only there were no other junior women racers. So, she asked if she could race with the men, rather than just take a given first. They said sure, she came in 4th in quite a large field. They were worried as if she had come in 3rd or higher they didn't know what they were going to do. They just couldn't imagine a woman coming in anywhere near the top.

Caused quite a stir, and made the press...even got mentioned in her schools annual report! And no, she isn't an Amazon. She can't race stronger, so she races smarter.

It happens! Is this another case where a girl deserves to be raped for doing "guy stuff"? If she placed higher, would she have deserved a gang rape?

Come on, Rouser, enlighten us on where kayaking girls get placed on the Rape Earnings Scale!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zero
So you are saying it was ok for her to get raped, because she dared to play football?


I think it's time for women to take responsibility for their actions and stop crying "rape" after placing themselves in vulnerable situations. It takes two to tango, and most cases of so-called "date rape" are bogus. If you don't want to get raped, then don't hang around low-life athletes at their pad at 2 am in the morning. Nuff said.


-- Rouser

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2



I think it's time for women to take responsibility for their actions and stop crying "rape" after placing themselves in vulnerable situations. It takes two to tango, and most cases of so-called "date rape" are bogus. If you don't want to get raped, then don't hang around low-life athletes at their pad at 2 am in the morning. Nuff said.


-- Rouser Uh huh...and if you don't want your car stolen, don't own a nice car. Nice of you to blame the victim, though.

[kittynh]

OK, so all athletes are criminals? I'm sure there are a lot of really nice football players out there that just find the behavior of these guys intolerable. My husband played football, I dated a professional athlete (well two, though not at the same time!). None of them would have behaved like that. None of them would have expected their behavior excused because they were athletes. This is stereotyping women as well as athletes.

Also, sorry Kobe, but really just having a woman not your wife in your room late at night....he at least should be charged with stupidity.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Living 15 miles from the CU campus it's hard to miss the constant coverage. Is this the man (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2672599,00.html) and his lawyer you are refering to?

This had nothing to do with the Hnida claim, nothing. To the best of my knowledge the scenario in your quote has not happened. If you saw a different " 280 lb man of Afro-American persuasion -- with his white, female attorney" that was related, please provide a reference.

ABC's Good Morning America, My recollection is that the man was described as the accused rapist.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...and if you don't want your car stolen, don't own a nice car. Nice of you to blame the victim, though.

A young man seduced by a young woman who then cries "rape" is just as much, perhaps even more the victim.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kittynh [/i]


>>]OK, so all athletes are criminals?

No, but a lot of criminals are athletes.

>> I'm sure there are a lot of really nice football players out there that just find the behavior of these guys intolerable.

True.

>> My husband played football, I dated a professional athlete (well two, though not at the same time!). None of them would have behaved like that. None of them would have expected their behavior excused because they were athletes. This is stereotyping women as well as athletes.

Nonetheless, there are an increasing nubmer of low-life athletes as there are low-life athlete groupies of the feminine gender.


>>Also, sorry Kobe, but really just having a woman not your wife in your room late at night....he at least should be charged with stupidity.


All alone at night, on tour, beautiful women throwing themselves at you? It's not easy being young, rich and the object of beautiful women on a mission of their own.

-- Rouser

[kittynh]

All alone at night, on tour, beautiful women throwing themselves at you? It's not easy being young, rich and the object of beautiful women on a mission of their own.

-- Rouser [/B][/QUOTE]

oh gosh, I feel so sorry for Kobe! It isn't easy being young, rich, on your own....hey, his wife is pretty hot, and she was on her own! Maybe she should have cheated on him! I've been told by my athlete friends that coaches warn and warn and warn against women with an agenda. I'm not saying Kobe is guilty, because I'm not on the jury, but I'm not going to feel sorry for him because he's young and rich. He is indeed one lucky hardworking athlete who has been rewarded for his talents.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2


A young man seduced by a young woman who then cries "rape" is just as much, perhaps even more the victim.

-- Rouser Hmmm...so are you claiming that rape doesn't exist?

[DavidJames]

ABC's Good Morning America, My recollection is that the man was described as the accused rapist.
Your recollection is wrong. Hnida has never named the person. You have your facts wrong. Considering how you have abused and ignore facts with the moon landing and Kennedy assassination, I'm not surprised you again failed to "recall" the facts correctly.

[Clancie]

Just fyi, Katie Hnida was a star on her high school football team and the school homecoming queen.

Colorado had her play (though she never got in a game) with the Buffaloes because she was a good place kicker. Barnett's claim that he was doing her a big favor to even let her be on a team with "real" (i.e. male) players rings very very false. College football is a big business and competitive. Its not a charitable organization.

She was a female who has continued to be successful in college football in New Mexico. How could she possibly have "asked for" being raped or sexually harrassed just because she enjoyed football and was good enough as a placekicker to be there?

Reading Rouser's comments, its hard to believe we're all living in 2004, not 1904.

[Clancie]

Hnida today....

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Katie Hnida was looking for a fresh start when she left the "horrors" of the Colorado football team.

She found it with the New Mexico Lobos, who treated the kicker with the respect all players expect from each other.

"I have been able to play a game I love so much and also be part of a team that is like a family," Hnida said.

...Hnida, who played only the 1999 season in Colorado, joined New Mexico in 2002 as a walk-on. As a Lobo last season, she became the first female player to score in a Division I game — kicking two extra points.

New Mexico backup quarterback Tali Ena said Thursday that Hnida fit in with the Lobos and "did everything we did" in getting ready for games. The only difference was that she used a separate locker room to change.

Not only did Hnida prove to be mentally tough and a hard worker in the training room, she even baked banana bread to share with teammates, Ena said.

"She brings that touch to the football atmosphere and it's kind of a nice change," Ena said. "She's a great addition to have on our team."

New Mexico coach Rocky Long refused to talk about Hnida and her allegations about the Colorado football team. But he, too, has consistently been supportive.

"She has to dress different places, she has to join the team after everyone else is dressed," Long said during the 2002 season. "She has handled it better than I could have imagined."

...She had played a mostly low-key role on the Lobos until December 2002, when she got her first chance to make history — as the first woman to compete in a major college game. Her extra point against UCLA in the Las Vegas Bowl, however, failed — the kick was blocked.

At the time, Long said Hnida had earned the chance.

"Katie is a valuable member of our team," Long said. "I think it's a very unusual situation, and she's put in a position a lot of times that's very uncomfortable."

When Hnida got her second opportunity, in September in New Mexico's season-opening 72-8 blowout of Texas State-San Marcos, she came through. With her long blond hair hanging from the back of her helmet, Hnida kicked a pair of extra points.
Good for her! :) More Hnida today (http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0309/01/s06.html)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Your recollection is wrong. Hnida has never named the person. You have your facts wrong. Considering how you have abused and ignore facts with the moon landing and Kennedy assassination, I'm not surprised you again failed to "recall" the facts correctly.

Moon landing? Kennedy assassination? It is you who is guilty of ignoring facts but rather accept the nonsense put out a single regular nitwit loitering on this board, obviously without a brain in his head. I'll stand corrected on the accused portrayed on ABC, if true. But next time, why don't you get your facts straight?

-- Rouser

[TillEulenspiegel]

Reading Rouser's comments, its hard to believe we're all living in 2004, not 1904

Ahh! But Clancie , some of us don't live in the 21 century.
Sides look at the fools nom d' K-board.........

[kittynh]

Thanks for sharing that Clancie! I would say a team is lead by its coach. Sounds like New Mexico has a coach who knows winning isn't the most important thing these young men and women are learning at college.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Clancie [/i]


>>She was a female who has continued to be successful in college football in New Mexico.


Oh, please. She kicks two extra points, and only allowed to even try when the score is 78 to 8???? Learn something about football. The kicking of an extra point is child's play which any 12 year old could do with just a little bit of practice. But the real job of a place kicker is kicking field goals from 30,40, 50 yards out.

>> How could she possibly have "asked for" being raped or sexually harrassed just because she enjoyed football and was good enough as a placekicker to be there?

From Sports Illustrated:
"One summer night Hnida was watching TV at the house of a teammate. "He just starts to kiss me," she recalls. "I told him, 'That's not O.K.' Next thing I know he's on top of me."

Comment: Just watching TV at the house of a teammate? Yeah, right.

>>Reading Rouser's comments, its hard to believe we're all living in 2004, not 1904.

Or just like decadent ancient Rome.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Clancie [/i]


>>"Katie is a valuable member of our team," Long said.

Politically correct nonsense.


-- Rouser

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Clancie
Reading Rouser's comments, its hard to believe we're all living in 2004, not 1904.
Maybe he can't get newspapers delivered to his cave.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kittynh
Thanks for sharing that Clancie! I would say a team is lead by its coach. Sounds like New Mexico has a coach who knows winning isn't the most important thing these young men and women are learning at college.


As they down their 3rd string place-kicker's banana cake, perhaps they learn that a women's proper place is in the home and the kitchen, not the gridiron.

-- Rouser

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Rouser2

As they down their 3rd string place-kicker's banana cake, perhaps they learn that a women's proper place is in the home and the kitchen, not the gridiron.


(thick accent of indeterminate origin)
Ah! This must be what you Americans call "joke."

[Clancie]

Posted by kittynh

I would say a team is lead by its coach. Sounds like New Mexico has a coach who knows winning isn't the most important thing these young men and women are learning at college.
Well said, kittynh! True for NM...and, just...true! :)

And, Rouser2....rouser2....well, others already have said it so much better, but...but....well, I guess you know what I'm thinking about your pov!~....:confused:

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2



As they down their 3rd string place-kicker's banana cake, perhaps they learn that a women's proper place is in the home and the kitchen, not the gridiron.

-- Rouser Oh, so you are retarded...since when did they allow "special" people to have unsupervised internet access?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cleon


(thick accent of indeterminate origin)
Ah! This must be what you Americans call "joke."
Yes. Is very funny. Next, Rouser hit in face with pie.

[Bjorn]

"One summer night Hnida was watching TV at the house of a teammate. "He just starts to kiss me," she recalls. "I told him, 'That's not O.K.' Next thing I know he's on top of me.".

Comment from Jedi ... ooops, Rouser:

Just watching TV at the house of a teammate? Yeah, right.Rouser, you're stupid.

Do you know that some places a girl can watch TV with someone they know (it's a teammate, for heaven's sake) without being raped? Or is it mandatory where you come from? :(

[Mercutio]

I do not know which is more depressing, the idea that Rouser honestly believes the silage he is writing, or (as I suspect) that he says this stuff only for the reaction. Either way...

[kittynh]

"that's not ok"

hmmm, that means "sure go ahead, I like it!" where I come from!

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes. Is very funny. Next, Rouser hit in face with pie.

I take pride in fact that girlfriend would beat Holy Living Hell out of Rouser.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Comment: Just watching TV at the house of a teammate? Yeah, right.

I'd like you to imagine that you, Rouser, were watching TV at 2am with a male friend when the male friend raped you. Would it be your fault?

Or is it only your fault if the guy is an athlete, because all athletes are rapists?

Or would you have to have tried out for a football team to deserve being raped? Inquiring minds want to know.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Does anybody know if Jedi Knight has a younger brother? :(

More like Jedi's drooling idiot inbred cousin.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2



As they down their 3rd string place-kicker's banana cake, perhaps they learn that a women's proper place is in the home and the kitchen, not the gridiron.

-- Rouser

And a Neaderthal's place is off the internet. When will you learn?

[kittynh]

I wonder if he has a girlfriend????



well, thinking of it, you can mail order one from the Phillipines...

nah, even the Phillipines would be better than a cave.:D

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


I'd like you to imagine that you, Rouser, were watching TV at 2am with a male friend when the male friend raped you. Would it be your fault?

Or is it only your fault if the guy is an athlete, because all athletes are rapists?

Or would you have to have tried out for a football team to deserve being raped? Inquiring minds want to know.

If you are a female, and you think you are good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys, then why can't you even defend yourself when a team mate makes a pass at you as you are watching TV???? Inquiring minds want to know.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Cleon


I take pride in fact that girlfriend would beat Holy Living Hell out of Rouser.


Unless Rouser tried to rape her. Then she would cry,

"No, no, that's not OK..... Ohhhhhhhhhh, yes, yes yes!!!Harder, faster, ohhhh...and here I thought we were only going to watch TV."

And four years later, she would blame Coach Barnett. Your witness.

--Rouser

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Typical knee-jerk liberal nonsense -- equating racial discrimination with male/female separation. They didin't have to build separate locker room, shower and bathroom facilities for Robinson. And he never cried "rape" 4 years after the fact.Naturally, you missed the point.

That's okay. Whatever makes you comfy-cozy in your irrationality.

[Clancie]

Posted by Rouser2

....why can't you even defend yourself when a team mate makes a pass at you as you are watching TV????
Wow, Rouser2!!!!

You equate a man "making a pass" with a man who's attempting rape? :eek:

What an...ususual...date you must be! :eek:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Unless Rouser tried to rape her. Then she would cry,

"No, no, that's not OK..... Ohhhhhhhhhh, yes, yes yes!!!Harder, faster, ohhhh...and here I thought we were only going to watch TV."

--Rouser Seriously, Rouser, seek some help. You're sick. :(

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
If you are a female, and you think you are good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys, then why can't you even defend yourself when a team mate makes a pass at you as you are watching TV???? Inquiring minds want to know.

I see. The criterion is that if try out for a football team and you cannot defend yourself from rape you deserve to be raped. Nice.

I repeat the question, however. I would like you to imagine that you, Rouser, are on a football team and that you were watching TV at 2am with a teammate when the teammate raped you. You were too weak to defend yourself, even though you thought you were good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys. Would you have deserved it?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I repeat the question, however. I would like you to imagine that you, Rouser, are on a football team and that you were watching TV at 2am with a teammate when the teammate raped you. You were too weak to defend yourself, even though you thought you were good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys. Would you have deserved it?
Nice try, Kevin, but it simply won't work on Rouser. In order for Kevin to consider such a scenario, he would have to posess that human trait known as "empathy". It is increasingly obvious that he does not. It is amazing that such creatures still exist in the twenty-first century, but apparantly such atavism does occur.

Or perhaps, on reflection, I am being too hard on Rouser. Perhaps he does indeed feel empathy with the poor horny football player who hasn't had sex in ages. Considering Rouser's probable situation, I can understand why his empathy might lie in such a direction.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe [/i]


>>I repeat the question, however. I would like you to imagine that you, Rouser, are on a football team and that you were watching TV at 2am with a teammate when the teammate raped you. You were too weak to defend yourself, even though you thought you were good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys. Would you have deserved it?

It's not a question of "deserving" it. Nobody "deserves" to be raped. It's a question of inviting it. Women who do not want to be raped, do not hang around alone with potential rapists.


-- Rouser

[kittynh]

how can you tell if someone is a potential rapist? If they are an athlete, or just male? Should men and women work together? Study together? Almost all dorms in the US are co ed. Men and women living in rooms next to each other...sharing a kitchen, hallways...

How about homosexuals? Some homosexuals are rapists. Can you tell just by looking at someone that they are a potential homosexual rapist? Heck, I work in Vermont, and I can't tell if someone is homosexual or not just by looking a lot of the time.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe [/i]
It's not a question of "deserving" it. Nobody "deserves" to be raped. It's a question of inviting it. Women who do not want to be raped, do not hang around alone with potential rapists.

You think that "inviting" and "deserving" didn't deserve it, but she invited it? What distinction do you make? If anything, inviting is worse than deserving. That would imply that she wanted to be raped.

And I have a hot flash for you. Everybody is a "potential" rapist. Unless you can show that she had some reason to believe that this person was likely to be a rapist, your argument is invalid. What evidence do you have for that? Was it because he was large? Because he was an athlete? Why would any of his characteristics lead you to believe that he was any more of a "potential rapist" than anyone else?

It would be nice if people wore warning labels about what dangers they might pose, but they don't. Often you can get clues from their behavior, but not always. I think any woman who would consider dating you should see a copy of this thread before she accepts such a date. Truth in advertising, ya know.

[Jocko]

Every time I wonder if feminism has gone too far, along comes someone like Rouser to remind me why it even exists. Thanks, d-bag.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Unless Rouser tried to rape her. Then she would cry,

"No, no, that's not OK..... Ohhhhhhhhhh, yes, yes yes!!!Harder, faster, ohhhh...and here I thought we were only going to watch TV."

And four years later, she would blame Coach Barnett. Your witness.

--Rouser

Actually, I'm pretty sure if you tried to rape her, you would be speaking several octaves higher for the rest of your life. Which would only be as long as it took for me to get to you.

Get help.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Bold text Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I would like you to imagine that you, Rouser, are on a football team and that you were watching TV at 2am with a teammate when the teammate raped you. You were too weak to defend yourself, even though you thought you were good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys. Would you have deserved it?

It's not a question of "deserving" it. Nobody "deserves" to be raped. It's a question of inviting it. Women who do not want to be raped, do not hang around alone with potential rapists.

Very well, let me rephrase the question.

Would you have invited it, if you had been raped under the circumstances outlined earlier?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2


If you are a female, and you think you are good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys, then why can't you even defend yourself when a team mate makes a pass at you as you are watching TV???? Inquiring minds want to know.

-- Rouser

Anybody can go down to a sucker punch, rouser.

But back to this TV thing, are you saying that women should expect to be raped when they are alone with a man? Isn't that like saying that all men are potential rapists?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe [/i]


>>I repeat the question, however. I would like you to imagine that you, Rouser, are on a football team and that you were watching TV at 2am with a teammate when the teammate raped you. You were too weak to defend yourself, even though you thought you were good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys. Would you have deserved it?

It's not a question of "deserving" it. Nobody "deserves" to be raped. It's a question of inviting it. Women who do not want to be raped, do not hang around alone with potential rapists.


-- Rouser

I want you to go to this site and look at that picture of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and tell me what about them seems to make them serial killers.

Oh, by the way, Bernardo was a rapist until he met Karla, he only started killing after they got together, starting with Karla's baby sister.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not a question of "deserving" it. Nobody "deserves" to be raped. It's a question of inviting it. Women who do not want to be raped, do not hang around alone with potential rapists.


I guess all football players are potential rapists and should be restricted from access to women then.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Rouser2


If you are a female, and you think you are good enough and tough enough to play football with the guys, then why can't you even defend yourself when a team mate makes a pass at you as you are watching TV???? Inquiring minds want to know.

-- Rouser

If you think football equates to ability to defend one's self, you are ignorant of reality. If you are a male kicker and get beat up then raped by the nose-tackle, does that mean you asked for it? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kittynh [/i]


>>how can you tell if someone is a potential rapist? If they are an athlete, or just male?


If a normal, heterosexual male says, "Hey, why don't we go over to my place and watch TV???? That would be a clue.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tricky [/i]

>>And I have a hot flash for you. Everybody is a "potential" rapist.

Funny this former beauty queen didin't think so.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tricky [/i]


>>If anything, inviting is worse than deserving. That would imply that she wanted to be raped.


Indeed it would.



-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


If you think football equates to ability to defend one's self, you are ignorant of reality. If you are a male kicker and get beat up then raped by the nose-tackle, does that mean you asked for it? Inquiring minds want to know.


In this particular case, perhaps the female kicker should have worn her kicking shoes.


-- Rouser

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Bold text Originally posted by Tricky [/i]

If anything, inviting is worse than deserving. That would imply that she wanted to be raped.


Indeed it would.

-- Rouser

So I repeat my question.

Imagine, Rouser, that you have been raped in the situation outlined in my previous two questions. Would it be fair to say that in that situation you must have wanted to be raped?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2



If a normal, heterosexual male says, "Hey, why don't we go over to my place and watch TV???? That would be a clue.


-- Rouser

Just when I thought this was getting as stupid as it can get...

I guess then in Rouser2land all "normal hetrosexual males" commit rape at every opportunity.

I guess I'm not normal (I'm pretty sure I'm hetrosexual, but I have to admit Rouser's bravado is turning me on). All those times I would hang out with female friends and managed somehow not to rape them. I guess I am a deeply flawed person in Rouser's eyes.

I feel shame.

I curious if this expectation of rape continues after marriage though. Shouldn't it? I mean, if she married you then she should know what that means, right Rouser? Are you a "normal hetrosexual male" or do you restrict yourself to consensual sex like us flawed whimpy Alan Alda types?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


So I repeat my question.

Imagine, Rouser, that you have been raped in the situation outlined in my previous two questions. Would it be fair to say that in that situation you must have wanted to be raped?


If an adult person "wants" to be raped, then that is not a rape, but your silly semantic games beg the question. Any person who acts irresponsibly by actions, dress, situations, is at least partially responsibe for any adverse actions that are invited by such actions, dress or situations. None of us really knows what happened in this alleged situation, but I'll certainly go on record as asserting that in my view, many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".

-- Rouser

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Unless Rouser tried to rape her. Then she would cry,

"No, no, that's not OK..... Ohhhhhhhhhh, yes, yes yes!!!Harder, faster, ohhhh...and here I thought we were only going to watch TV."

Further proof that Rouser cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Edit to add: Notice that Rouser's comment is that she would do this if Rouser raped her? This is a Fruedian fall-down-the-stairs. Rouser admits that he couldn't keep a basic modicom of human self-control.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2

If an adult person "wants" to be raped, then that is not a rape, but your silly semantic games beg the question. Any person who acts irresponsibly by actions, dress, situations, is at least partially responsibe for any adverse actions that are invited by such actions, dress or situations. None of us really knows what happened in this alleged situation, but I'll certainly go on record as asserting that in my view, many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".

-- Rouser

Putting a bunch of gangbangers in a room full of loaded guns does not excuse any shootings that happen. Showing money does not excuse the mugger from attacking you.

Its funny how you have accused others of runaway liberalism, given that you are so soft and forgiving of criminals that a defense attorney would wince.

Or does your double-standard only apply to femal rape victims?

[thaiboxerken]

I'm wondering if Rouser has given any of his dates "what they deserve" or "what they asked for". I guess if a woman dresses attractive, she's asking to get raped. If a woman comes to your house, she'as asking to get raped. If a woman smiles in your direction, she's asking to get raped. If a woman giggles, she's asking to get raped.

Rousers arguments are non-arguments, they are circular. He assumes that a woman wants to be raped because she got raped. Rapists might agree with Rouser, but reasonable people can see right through the fallacy.

[Tmy]

His name is Rouser. He just wants to get a rise out of you.



I just want to say that there is no proof that this guy rape/assaulted this lady. No charges have been filed either. ( I dont think the statute of limitations is up).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'm wondering if Rouser has given any of his dates "what they deserve" or "what they asked for".
I'm guessing that would be a strictly hypothetical situation.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rouser2



As they down their 3rd string place-kicker's banana cake, perhaps they learn that a women's proper place is in the home and the kitchen, not the gridiron.

-- Rouser


s-s-s-s-sss

S-S-S-S-S

SOCKPUPPET!

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/image/2003/20030812.jpg

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

Its funny how you have accused others of runaway liberalism, given that you are so soft and forgiving of criminals that a defense attorney would wince.



Not so much wince as much as recognize the attitude. I've seen it before, it is just that usually the person expressing it is wearing either a tan or orange jumpsuit.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2



If an adult person "wants" to be raped, then that is not a rape, but your silly semantic games beg the question. Any person who acts irresponsibly by actions, dress, situations, is at least partially responsibe for any adverse actions that are invited by such actions, dress or situations. None of us really knows what happened in this alleged situation, but I'll certainly go on record as asserting that in my view, many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".

-- Rouser

Hey Rouser, don't ever walk by my house wearing a shirt with your name on it!
Becasue if you do I will kill you and then use this stupid ass defense.

Thanks numb nut why don't you just wear a shirt that says,

I Support Rape!

You are such a crap head, you just go and condemn every victim because you can't hold MEN accountable for thier actions!

So Rouser watch out for me! Because when I hurt you it will be your fault!

I suppose the 13 million victims of the Holocaust were partly responsible for the Holocaust!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2

If a normal, heterosexual male says, "Hey, why don't we go over to my place and watch TV???? That would be a clue.


-- Rouser [/B]

So you are misandrous as well as misogynist. Why don't you just **** yourself and then blame me.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Hey Rouser, don't ever walk by my house wearing a shirt with your name on it!
Becasue if you do I will kill you and then use this stupid ass defense.

Thanks numb nut why don't you just wear a shirt that says,

I Support Rape!

You are such a crap head, you just go and condemn every victim because you can't hold MEN accountable for thier actions!

So Rouser watch out for me! Because when I hurt you it will be your fault!

I suppose the 13 million victims of the Holocaust were partly responsible for the Holocaust!
This post has been reported for threats. While strong feelings are certainly understandable, threats are in violation of Forum rules. I'm issuing a first warning on this. Another such threat will result in a three-day suspension from the Forum.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>Its funny how you have accused others of runaway liberalism, given that you are so soft and forgiving of criminals that a defense attorney would wince.


Oh, contraire. I'm fair and balanced. If I could be judge and jury in date rape cases, I'd usually send both parties to jail. And that's just what I'd do to Kobe and his 2-am-in-the-morning white trash floozie. Takes two to tango, Kookbreaker.

-- Rouser

[Renfield]

Girls do suck at football. However, after a lot of thought, I have to say that raping a female player is going a little too far, even if she was just put on the team for publicity purposes. :(

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]
Oh, contraire. I'm fair and balanced.


Once again, proof that you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality


If I could be judge and jury in date rape cases, I'd usually send both parties to jail.
-- Rouser

You're basicly saying that rape is not punishment enough. You give the woman some more trauma.

You obviously have never, ever talked to a rape victim. In fact I have serious doubts that you talk to women much at all.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
If an adult person "wants" to be raped, then that is not a rape, but your silly semantic games beg the question. Any person who acts irresponsibly by actions, dress, situations, is at least partially responsibe for any adverse actions that are invited by such actions, dress or situations. None of us really knows what happened in this alleged situation, but I'll certainly go on record as asserting that in my view, many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".

-- Rouser

I'll rephrase it again.

If you had been forced to have sexual intercourse in the situation outlined in my previous posts, would it be correct to say that you must have wanted it? Also, would it be correct to say that you would be partially responsible for being raped?

(Please imagine that "being raped" is in scare quotes if you answer Yes to the first question, since in that case it was not really rape by your definition).

[Dancing David]

Pyrrho, thanks for the warning! I will tone down my rhetoric.
(I stand admonsihed but will hold my line.)

Rouser, why don't you tell your mother and grandmother and any sisters you have that you support rape.

I am sure that it will make you reall proud to be known as someone who aids and abbets rapists. I am sure every woman and male victim of rape you meet would be so proud that you blame women for rape.


Paedophiles, now you support them too! Did you know that they use the EXACT SAME EXCUSE all the time. "That six year old she flireted with me", "that little boy he wanted me to do it", that "girl dressed provocatively and she wanted me to do it".

Rouser you are one sick puppy, almost as sick as Jedi Knight. Maybe someday you will have a loved one raped and then you will regret all this crap you say.

Until then be sure to wear your shirt that says
"I am proud to support rape and child molesters".

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>Rouser you are one sick puppy, almost as sick as Jedi Knight. Maybe someday you will have a loved one raped and then you will regret all this crap you say.
Until then be sure to wear your shirt that says
"I am proud to support rape and child molesters".


I just asserted that both parties should be punished -- sent to jail and you assert that means I support rape and child molestation? And you call me a "sick puppy"??? What the heck ever happened to rational discourse on this board of alleged intellectuals and "skeptics"????

Hey, Dancing David -- go get your shine box!!


-- Rouser

[Clancie]

Posted by Rouser2

I'll certainly go on record as asserting that in my view, many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".
Just wanted to highlight this statement.

I know no further comment is needed.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


I just asserted that both parties should be punished -- sent to jail and you assert that means I support rape and child molestation? And you call me a "sick puppy"??? What the heck ever happened to rational discourse on this board of alleged intellectuals and "skeptics"????

Hey, Dancing David -- go get your shine box!!


-- Rouser

And tell me Rouser why in this crime of all crimes (and only this crime) do you punish the victim, because you feel that men have uncontolable sex drives?

Why not send all victims to prison? What is your alleged rationale for why the victim of a rape should have to go to jail?

Do you have a rationale at all, should burglary victims be charged as well?

How about when an aquaintence rtobs you?

Date rape is a serious crime, let us see you rational and sceptical debate!

What reason is there that a date rape victim should be arrested and charged with a crime?

Just because it is a crime of violence that involves sex?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2



If an adult person "wants" to be raped, then that is not a rape, but your silly semantic games beg the question. Any person who acts irresponsibly by actions, dress, situations, is at least partially responsibe for any adverse actions that are invited by such actions, dress or situations. None of us really knows what happened in this alleged situation, but I'll certainly go on record as asserting that in my view, many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".

-- Rouser

So if you don't have a security alarm on your house then you should be arrested and sent to jail when someone breals into your house?
If you go to your bank and get cash, then it is your fault if someone mugs you and takes the cash right?
You buy a nice car and someone steals it, that is your fault for buying a nice car right?


many, if not most date rapes, male on female, are at least partially due to the actions of the female "victim".


And what actions would those be ? Guilty of being female?
If you go to a male friend's house and you are a male and then that friend rapes you what excuse will you use then? Are you going to say that because you wore athletic shorts that your male firend had the right to rape you?

Gee I can hardly wait to read what blaming of the victim you will do then.

Only the crime of rape? Isn't that right? Only date rape? Only one crime makes it something you should be sceptical of.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>And tell me Rouser why in this crime of all crimes (and only this crime) do you punish the victim, because you feel that men have uncontolable sex drives?

In the case of so-called "date rape" the guy may be just as much of a "victim' as the girl -- perhaps, even more so.

>>Date rape is a serious crime, let us see you rational and sceptical debate!

There are date rapes, and then there are date rapes. The true circumstances are only known to the parties involved. If the couple involved had been "doing" it 3 times a week, and this time after leading him on, she says "no," is that date rape? If the girl just happens by an NBA zilliionaire super-star's hotel room at 2 am, and he does what he presumes she came up for, is that "date rape"???If Monica Lewinsky had fled from the Oval Office crying "rape" after her own oral activities on the President, would that have been "date rape"??? If it is, then in all these cases then both are responsible. Ever hear of taking personal responsiblity for your actions? It cuts both ways, Dancing David.

-- Rouser

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]



There are date rapes, and then there are date rapes. The true circumstances are only known to the parties involved. If the couple involved had been "doing" it 3 times a week, and this time after leading him on, she says "no," is that date rape? Yes. What part of "no" is unclear to you?If the girl just happens by an NBA zilliionaire super-star's hotel room at 2 am, and he does what he presumes she came up for, is that "date rape"??? If she communicates non-consent, then it is rape, no matter why she came up to his room. If Monica Lewinsky had fled from the Oval Office crying "rape" after her own oral activities on the President, would that have been "date rape"??? If she were forced, yes.If it is, then in all these cases then both are responsible. They are not both responsible. Either she is lying, in which case she is responsible for a false allegation, or she is telling the truth, and then he is responsible for a crime of violence. It is that simple. Ever hear of taking personal responsiblity for your actions? It cuts both ways, Dancing David.

-- Rouser

You are blaming the victim for the paucity of available evidence. You do realize that makes you just as full of crap as those that claim "all sex is rape" don't you? You are using the same exact lack of positive knowledge to reach the opposite conclusion. They say since we can't really understand consent all sex is rape. You use the same inference to decide no sex is rape. They assume no consent, you assume consent.

The reasoning behind your position is on par with seriously radical feminism. Think about that for a second.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yes. What part of "no" is unclear to you?Well, Suddenly beat me to it.

R2:

Imagine you're lousy with $20 bills to the point they're falling out your pockets. Furthermore, say that due to some unexplainable benevolence you have no problem with people taking as much as they like from the dead presidential detrius you so blithely discard. But one day you decide differently. Doesn't matter what you did before. It's your money to distribute or withhold as you like and no amount of whining or rationalization will change that fact.

You may consider another example from the world of investing, Past performance does not guarantee future results.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2


In the case of so-called "date rape" the guy may be just as much of a "victim' as the girl -- perhaps, even more so.

False reports are an issue with any crime, why is this crime different? the evidence in a rape case generaly is not verbal testimony. That is why some small fraction of rapre cases ever come to trail.

There are date rapes, and then there are date rapes. The true circumstances are only known to the parties involved. If the couple involved had been "doing" it 3 times a week, and this time after leading him on, she says "no," is that date rape?

If she says no and he forces himself on her then yes, that is rape.

If the girl just happens by an NBA zilliionaire super-star's hotel room at 2 am, and he does what he presumes she came up for, is that "date rape"???

If she said no then yes it is.

If Monica Lewinsky had fled from the Oval Office crying "rape" after her own oral activities on the President, would that have been "date rape"???

If she consented to the act then that is not rape.

If it is, then in all these cases then both are responsible. Ever hear of taking personal responsiblity for your actions? It cuts both ways, Dancing David.

-- Rouser

I believe in personal accountability, why is it that in rape suddenly everybody blames the victim Rouser?

Do you feel this way about robbery too?

Why not?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>> What part of "no" is unclear to you?

The words "no" are very unclear when her actions communicate "yes". You dig? I didn't think so.

>>You are blaming the victim for the paucity of available evidence.

Use of the word "victim" is asserting the very thing that has yet to be proved. If the lady invites sex, she is not a victim. Even if she screams "no" till the cows come home.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>I believe in personal accountability, why is it that in rape suddenly everybody blames the victim Rouser?

Because in many if not most cases of so-called "date rape" the woman is not a victim, but a willing participant.

>>Do you feel this way about robbery too?

No. Because a victim in a robbery does not usually issue an invitation to rob. Get it???


Nah.


-- Rouser

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>> What part of "no" is unclear to you?

The words "no" are very unclear when her actions communicate "yes". You dig? I didn't think so.

>>You are blaming the victim for the paucity of available evidence.

Use of the word "victim" is asserting the very thing that has yet to be proved. If the lady invites sex, she is not a victim. Even if she screams "no" till the cows come home.

-- Rouser

No is no
No is always no
If they say no, it means a thousand times no

No plus no equals no
All nos lead to no no no

Finger pointing, eyebrows low
Mouth in the shape of the letter O

Pardon me -- No!
Excuse me -- No!
May I stay?
Can I go?
No, no, no

Do this -- No!
Don't do that -- No!
Sit, stay, roll over
No, no, no

Finger pointing, eyebrows low
Mouth in the shape of the letter O
Red means stop. Do not go.
No, no, no

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
No is no
No is always no
If they say no, it means a thousand times no
(etc)

This post confirms my belief that if i ever actually meet Mr. Manifesto, i will say YES.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by bug_girl


This post confirms my belief that if i ever actually meet Mr. Manifesto, i will say YES.

Just thought I'd quote this before anyone goes hitting any 'edit' buttons. :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hey! Rouser! Why are you answering everyone but me?

If you had been forced to have sexual intercourse in the situation outlined in my previous posts, would it be correct to say that you must have wanted it?

Also, would it be correct to say that you would be partially responsible for being raped? (Please imagine that "being raped" is in scare quotes if you have answered Yes to the first question, since in that case it was not really rape by your definition).

Please respond.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The words "no" are very unclear when her actions communicate "yes". You dig? I didn't think so.Nice spin. However, you are wrong.

An action, as a method of communcation, can be open to interpretation. Certainly words--even those as generally unambiguous as "no"--might be as well. Therefore, we next move to context. You would pretend that the little phrase "Her lips said no-no, but her eyes said yes-yes" carries more than a playful, teasing meaning. This is simplistic.

Is she wrong to tease, cajole, or lead-on? The question is entirely beside the point. It is always more wrong to take that which she would not give.

To repeat: the word "no" is a trump card. Regardless of whether you think its use in any game is fair or not.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2

If the lady invites sex, she is not a victim. Even if she screams "no" till the cows come home.

-- Rouser

How PRECISELY did she invite sex?

Do you "invite sex" every time you are alone in a room with somebody?

Is it because it was at night? If so what time is the curfew when two people can't sit in a room together without "inviting sex"?

Is it only if the other person is famous that you are assumed to "invite sex" if you are alone with them?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>How PRECISELY did she invite sex?

>>Do you "invite sex" every time you are alone in a room with somebody?

If that somebody is a Mike Tyson, or a Bill Clinton type, the answer is yes.

>>Is it because it was at night? If so what time is the curfew when two people can't sit in a room together without "inviting sex"?

All depends. With Bill Clinton or Mike Tyson, the "curfew"
would be 24/7.

-- Rouser

[The Don]

Can't everyone tell this is just Rouser2's pre-date psych-up routine....

- Remember if we're in the same room, we're on a date together
- If she's not running away screaming, she is attracted to me
- If I somehow manage to overpower her, subconsiously she's hot for me

Admit it, for you chloroform is foreplay

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>How PRECISELY did she invite sex?

>>Do you "invite sex" every time you are alone in a room with somebody?

If that somebody is a Mike Tyson, or a Bill Clinton type, the answer is yes.

>>Is it because it was at night? If so what time is the curfew when two people can't sit in a room together without "inviting sex"?

All depends. With Bill Clinton or Mike Tyson, the "curfew"
would be 24/7.

-- Rouser

The $20,000 question (or maybe the 10-35 question) is.....

What is the curfew with Rouser? When you get a lady alone is it only to get down to business or are you one of those whimps that can spend time with a woman without becoming a snarling ball of forceful lust refusing to take no for an answer?

I would speculate about what exactly your fascination with male sexual domination really means, but that would be very insensitive of me, so I won't do that...

Edited to add: So are you going to answer Kevin Lowe's question or what?

Edited again but I ain't tellin why..

[Dancing David]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rouser2
The words "no" are very unclear when her actions communicate "yes". You dig? I didn't think so.

geez you Duufus, that could excuse all sorts of criminal behavior! "They were enticing me to rob them!", the actions that matter are the words coming out of thier mouth. Clothing is not an invitation, entering the room is not an invitation. By statute in Illinois consent can be withdrawn at any time. So she can rub your pants and take her clothes off and then say NO , and guess what no means no. Is a jury likely to convict in that case, very unlikely.

Stay away from my daughter Rouser, you are one bezerk guy. Do you think men should be allowed to rape men who give them signals it is okay?


Use of the word "victim" is asserting the very thing that has yet to be proved. If the lady invites sex, she is not a victim. Even if she screams "no" till the cows come home.

You are just soo wrong, hope it doesn't happen to those you love, because then you will be in the wrong. And like I said before this is the exact same defense used by child molesters.
[QUOTE]

What the matter Rouser , do your gonads rule your life?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Because in many if not most cases of so-called "date rape" the woman is not a victim, but a willing participant.

And where did you get that amazing statistic, the military rape intructors handbook? Now who si not being a sceptic? You just think that guys should be able to force sex on whoever they want!

You are a ******* Rouser, be sure to tell your grandmother that, and to the little old lady who is date raped.

No. Because a victim in a robbery does not usually issue an invitation to rob. Get it???

How did she say "Rape me .", exactly , was it her perfume?
[/B]

How exactly did she say it?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2

If that somebody is a Mike Tyson, or a Bill Clinton type, the answer is yes.

All depends. With Bill Clinton or Mike Tyson, the "curfew"
would be 24/7.

[/B]

So if Bill Clinton rapes you and Mike Tyson helps then it is okay with you?

[Skeptic]

People, you should remember that, according to Rouser2, Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, the moon landings never happened, and income tax is a vast, illegal government conspiracy.

Just so you'll have an idea about the chance of a reasonable discussion with him.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Skeptic
People, you should remember that, according to Rouser2, Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, the moon landings never happened, and income tax is a vast, illegal government conspiracy.

And don't forget the "Clinton murder list", he drools over that one.

[Dancing David]

Are you sure that isn't the Clinton rape list?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>Is it because it was at night? If so what time is the curfew when two people can't sit in a room together without "inviting sex"?

All depends. With Bill Clinton or Mike Tyson, the "curfew"
would be 24/7.

-- Rouser [/B]

And for Rouser? After what time does a woman lose her right to say no to you if she has the misfortune to be in the same room as you?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
All depends. With Bill Clinton or Mike Tyson, the "curfew"
would be 24/7.Oh joy, more fun 'n games.

Nice insinuation about Mr. Clinton regarding the supposed danger that would come with being alone in a room with him. Now, care to back it up with facts?

You can add your response to those you've yet to provide to my other recent posts. (Oh, and Kevin_Lowe is waiting to hear from you as well.)

[Regnad Kcin]

By the way, Rouser2, rather than respond here to the above request for proof re: BC, please start a new thread on the topic.

Thanks so much!

[Skeptic]

(yawn)

People, you're getting all excited about nothing.

From his confident assertions about what women "really want" and are "really like", it's pretty clear "Rouser"'s only experience with women is watching porn videos.

Rouser, a "potential rapist" who might have "raped his dates"? Bull! He's a virgin who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse if he was made of money. He never HAD any dates.

[Skeptic]

And for Rouser? After what time does a woman lose her right to say no to you if she has the misfortune to be in the same room as you?

How the hell would he know? It never happened before!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

Originally posted by Rouser2 [/i][b]
>>>>The words "no" are very unclear when her actions communicate "yes". You dig? I didn't think so.

>>geez you Duufus, that could excuse all sorts of criminal behavior! "They were enticing me to rob them!", the actions that matter are the words coming out of thier mouth. Clothing is not an invitation, entering the room is not an invitation. By statute in Illinois consent can be withdrawn at any time. So she can rub your pants and take her clothes off and then say NO , and guess what no means no. Is a jury likely to convict in that case, very unlikely.

Yeah, well that just goes to show how influential on our laws is the feminist movement. But a reasonable jury is not likely to go along with a Monica Lewinsky type, who first applies oral service, and then later says "no" to further advances.


>>Stay away from my daughter Rouser, you are one bezerk guy. Do you think men should be allowed to rape men who give them signals it is okay?

Your daughter could do a lot worse. But I don't rape women
-- even if they ask for it.

>>>>Use of the word "victim" is asserting the very thing that has yet to be proved. If the lady invites sex, she is not a victim. Even if she screams "no" till the cows come home.

>>You are just soo wrong, hope it doesn't happen to those you love, because then you will be in the wrong. And like I said before this is the exact same defense used by child molesters.

Another smear. Child molesters have no defense since the person involved is a child.

-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Yeah, well that just goes to show how influential on our laws is the feminist movement. But a reasonable jury is not likely to go along with a Monica Lewinsky type, who first applies oral service, and then later says "no" to further advances.

You just make your weak argument weaker dude. When did Monica charge rape. You are soo dumb, do you have a bag of rocks? Does your mommy trust you with sharp *******.

As I told your mentor, Jedi K., the laws are written by men for men and to benefit men. What feminist agenda is it to say that non-consensual sex is illegal.

If a women drinks until she passes out, that is stupid. But it does not give men the right to rape her!

You are just a genetic throw back, do you know any women? Have you told them that you support rape?

Your daughter could do a lot worse. But I don't rape women
-- even if they ask for it.

Excuse me **** ****, but you still haven't answered that question either.
How does a woman ask to be raped?

(Come near my daughter and I will kneecap you, and then use the lame as excuse that you asked for it)

Another smear. Child molesters have no defense since the person involved is a child.

Oh, so you are saying it is okay to rape soemone because they are an adult!


[/B]

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>You just make your weak argument weaker dude. When did Monica charge rape.

That's not the point. A whole lot of so called "date rapes" happen after just the kind of stuff Monica performed Clinton.

>>Excuse me **** ****, but you still haven't answered that question either.
How does a woman ask to be raped?

>>By her actions.


>>(Come near my daughter and I will kneecap you, and then use the lame as excuse that you asked for it)


Your daughter won't always have her nitwit father around to "kneecap" a potential date rapist. With a father like you, I'd suggest your daughter get some counseling before it's too late, beginning with a frank discussion on the subject of the birds and the bees.

>>>>Another smear. Child molesters have no defense since the person involved is a child.

>>Oh, so you are saying it is okay to rape soemone because they are an adult!

No, but I do not put a limit on the nitwittery you are capable of concluding from one who merely points out, that when it comes to so-called date rape, it takes two to tango, and women should be held responsible for their own irresponsible actions, as should men, Nuff said.

-- Rouser

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

Originally posted by Rouser2 [/i][b]
>>>>The words "no" are very unclear when her actions communicate "yes". You dig? I didn't think so.

>>geez you Duufus, that could excuse all sorts of criminal behavior! "They were enticing me to rob them!", the actions that matter are the words coming out of thier mouth. Clothing is not an invitation, entering the room is not an invitation. By statute in Illinois consent can be withdrawn at any time. So she can rub your pants and take her clothes off and then say NO , and guess what no means no. Is a jury likely to convict in that case, very unlikely.

Yeah, well that just goes to show how influential on our laws is the feminist movement. But a reasonable jury is not likely to go along with a Monica Lewinsky type, who first applies oral service, and then later says "no" to further advances.


>>Stay away from my daughter Rouser, you are one bezerk guy. Do you think men should be allowed to rape men who give them signals it is okay?

Your daughter could do a lot worse. But I don't rape women
-- even if they ask for it.

>>>>Use of the word "victim" is asserting the very thing that has yet to be proved. If the lady invites sex, she is not a victim. Even if she screams "no" till the cows come home.

>>You are just soo wrong, hope it doesn't happen to those you love, because then you will be in the wrong. And like I said before this is the exact same defense used by child molesters.

Another smear. Child molesters have no defense since the person involved is a child.

-- Rouser

Let's address a couple of points, Rouser.

First, what actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"? Be specific so everybody can recognize them. Don't try to weasel out of this by saying "everybody knows what they are" for I find that that phrase really means, "The actions are whatever I want them to be"

As for having sex and then saying "no", how long after the first sex act must a woman be available for future sex acts? A minute? A hour? A day? A week? A month? A year? A decade? Forever? Does this "implied consent" also apply to men?

Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by dmarker
Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?
Absolutely, dmarker. All women are either virgins or sluts. Once you have had sex, you are to make yourself available to any man who wants you, especially if you are wearing anything more revealing than a burkha. Rouser has decreed it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2


That's not the point. A whole lot of so called "date rapes" happen after just the kind of stuff Monica performed Clinton.

Just more assertion, if there is evidence that a crime occured then the chrages will be pressed, in most cases of rape there is not enough evidence to warrant pressing charges. If the only evidence of a crime is the verbal testimony of the two individuals, then it is very unlikely charges will be pressed.

And the point is that rape is forcing sex on someone, there are cases where a person files false chages. But that is true of all crimes. You just think that rape is okay because guys can't control themselves.

By her actions.

And what actions are thsoe Rouser, you are a wind bag that supports rape. What actions can a woman make that allows a man to rape her?

Your daughter won't always have her nitwit father around to "kneecap" a potential date rapist. With a father like you, I'd suggest your daughter get some counseling before it's too late, beginning with a frank discussion on the subject of the birds and the bees.

It is still wrong for any person to force sex upon another, it is not a matter of the birds and bees, it is a matter of VIOLENCE. rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of violence. It is not a crime of passion it is a crime of terror.

No, but I do not put a limit on the nitwittery you are capable of concluding from one who merely points out, that when it comes to so-called date rape, it takes two to tango,

Ands why should a women be held accountable for the crime of another? Just because you think that it is okay to rape someone?

and women should be held responsible for their own irresponsible actions, as should men, Nuff said.

It is not irresponsible to go to someone's house is it?

[/B]

Rouser,
what actions make it okay for any person to rape any other person?
List them out weak stick and we can examine them one by one.
They will all come down to you just saying that men can not be held accountable for raping women.

So lets see your list of actions that say a woman wants to be raped.

And then we will insert a man into the same situation and then you can judge if a man has the right to rape you for those actions.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>It is still wrong for any person to force sex upon another, it is not a matter of the birds and bees, it is a matter of VIOLENCE. rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of violence. It is not a crime of passion it is a crime of terror.


Yeah, that's an old liberal/psycho/feminist canard that cetainly has been around the track a few times. Certainly makes no sense if you think about it. Rape is a crime of passion, otherwise it would not be possible to commit.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Rouser,
what actions make it okay for any person to rape any other person?


If your reading comprehesion were up to 3rd grade level, you would note that nowhere in this thread have I ever said it would be okay under any circumstances for one person to rape another. On the other hand, women can, and do invite rape when they are loose in their actions, dress, words, deeds and compromising situations. You cannot expect to visit Kobe Bryant, or Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton at 2 am in the morning wearing a negligee, expecting to maybe just fool around for a while, and then take no responsibility when something more extreme takes place. It's called taking some responsibility for your own actions. Women are not always just a victim. Sometimes, in fact, they are the perps.

-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Yeah, that's an old liberal/psycho/feminist canard that cetainly has been around the track a few times. Certainly makes no sense if you think about it. Rape is a crime of passion, otherwise it would not be possible to commit.


That is because your are thinking that rape is consensual, which it is not. Let see , someone beats you, chokes you, tells you that they are going to kill you and then rapes you. I suppose that anger is a passion but how is it something other than a crime of violence.

You still haven't answered the question:

What actions show someone wants to be raped.

The only musty old chestnut I see is the one you are eating, it is much older by far.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Rouser,
what actions make it okay for any person to rape any other person?


If your reading comprehesion were up to 3rd grade level, you would note that nowhere in this thread have I ever said it would be okay under any circumstances for one person to rape another. On the other hand, women can, and do invite rape when they are loose in their actions, dress, words, deeds and compromising situations. You cannot expect to visit Kobe Bryant, or Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton at 2 am in the morning wearing a negligee, expecting to maybe just fool around for a while, and then take no responsibility when something more extreme takes place. It's called taking some responsibility for your own actions. Women are not always just a victim. Sometimes, in fact, they are the perps.

-- Rouser


At what point does no become yes, because you think that men have the right to force sex on someone? So if a woman is raped by her husband you do think it is Okay?

If you were out of the third grade you would know that morals are more complex than this simple equations:
women wears negligee: she is inviting rape
women with Bill Clinton: she is inviting rape
woman with Kobe :she is inviting rape
woman with Mike T.: she is inviting rape
woman kisses man: she is inviting rape

Where is the accountability of the man?

BTW:They were trying to present evidence of bruising on the Bryant victim, but I suppose that you think it is normal to beat the crap out of someone before you force sex on them.

So if Kobe,Bill or Mike rapes you, you think that you should be punished as well.

Oh well Rouser, have you told any women this? Do you know any women? Remember to tell them that you are a proud supporter of Rapists and that you think rape is cool, as long as the woman is provicative in any way a man can rape her at will.

Obviously they haven't gotten to logic in your third grade class.
You do give rapists that permission, that is the problem, you do say it is Okay to Rape As Long As the Woman Does Not Run Away!

[DavidJames]

Rouser2
A very simple straightforward question.

Is a woman who invites a man to her house/apartment to watch TV, inviting rape?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Dancing David
You still haven't answered the question...He/she/it still hasn't answered a bunch o' questions. Amusing, isn't it?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Rouser,
what actions make it okay for any person to rape any other person?


If your reading comprehesion were up to 3rd grade level, you would note that nowhere in this thread have I ever said it would be okay under any circumstances for one person to rape another. On the other hand, women can, and do invite rape when they are loose in their actions, dress, words, deeds and compromising situations. You cannot expect to visit Kobe Bryant, or Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton at 2 am in the morning wearing a negligee, expecting to maybe just fool around for a while, and then take no responsibility when something more extreme takes place. It's called taking some responsibility for your own actions. Women are not always just a victim. Sometimes, in fact, they are the perps.

-- Rouser


If women "invite" a rape by these nebulous actions, then rape is OK, that's what you are saying.

Here's another one. What point does the woman have to go through with sex? When she enters the appartment or hotel room? After she sits down next to the guy? After she kisses him? After she allows him to fondle her? After she fondles him? After they undress? What is the point where she can no longer withdraw consent and go home?

Answer the questions.

First, what actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"? Be specific so everybody can recognize them. Don't try to weasel out of this by saying "everybody knows what they are" for I find that that phrase really means, "The actions are whatever I want them to be" Also, "loose" doesn't apply here, because it is a vague concept. Many cultures would view me as loose because I let my hair show. Be specific.

As for having sex and then saying "no", how long after the first sex act must a woman be available for future sex acts? A minute? A hour? A day? A week? A month? A year? A decade? Forever? Does this "implied consent" also apply to men?

Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
On the other hand, women can, and do invite rape when they are loose in their actions, dress, words, deeds and compromising situations. You cannot expect to visit Kobe Bryant, or Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton at 2 am in the morning wearing a negligee, expecting to maybe just fool around for a while, and then take no responsibility when something more extreme takes place. It's called taking some responsibility for your own actions. Women are not always just a victim. Sometimes, in fact, they are the perps.Setting aside the repeat of the Bill Clinton allegation (which, despite my request, you haven't taken to another thread), I see you are as stuck as stuck can be. Let me review the lesson for you:

It would not matter if your local bank left the doors to the vault open, cash and contents of every safety deposit box strewn about the floor in piles so deep walking on it would cause you to brush your head against the ceiling, and furthermore, placed a 50' tall neon sign outside the entrance, emblazoned with the blinking legend: "Wow! C'mere and Look at All The $$$! Riches So Plentiful We Might Even Let You Have Some!"

If, however, once you were inside--mouth watering and preparing to place as little as one thin cent in your pocket--Mr. Banker decided to say, "Nope. Sorry. I've changed my mind," guess what? That's correct, you'd have to put...the penny...back.

Cry all you like. Call the media and issue a press release proclaiming the everlasting unfairness of it all. You might even get a few sympathetic shakes of the head. But in the end, too bad. It wasn't your money to take. Not even for a moment.

A woman (or man, for that matter) may choose to change her mind regarding the surrender of her body at any time. Once decided, it's not your body to take. This is so clear as to be embarrassing. C'mon now.

Time to abandon the thread, ol' boy. Life's often unfair. Moreover, life's not the way you would have it be. And that's just the way it is.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Life's often unfair.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes life is very fair. Maybe it is because life has given him what he deserves that Rouser is so bitter.

Excellent post, Mr... Danger.

[Regnad Kcin]

;)

[Rouser2]

It's really poinless to argue with people who are so fixed in their dogma, that no matter what you say, they do not hear -- so fixed in their dogma, that if a woman claims date rape, the woman always carries no blame whatever, and the man is the sole guilty party. If that is your dogma, then you are impervious to reason.

But I'll relate a personal story. I once attended a party where a very famous person was present -- a big time opera star and TV personality who also was a frequent, regular guest on the Johnny Carson "Tonight" show. To me, she was a total stranger except for her celebrity. Somehow, at the end of the party it was left to me to drive her back to her hotel. As we arrived, she casually invited me up to her room for a cup of coffee or "something". Now then, was that really an invitation for "coffee"? If I had gone up there and "coffee" led to one thing, then another, then another, and then later she would claim "rape", do you think an honest jury would or should convict????

I know you're dying to know who it was and what really happened, but you can forget it. That's not the point.

-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Well, that is a great 'might have been story' but what purpose is there to it? It might have been that you just had coffee, it might have been that you has coffee and sex and she gave you a big check.

Lets put it the other way:

(Inspired by Train Spotting)
You meet a really nice looking woman in a bar, you are both totaly crocked and giving each other the flirt signal. You take her out to your car, you start kissing and fondling her very nice breasts. One thing leads to another and the next thing you know your pants are off and she is preforming fellatio on you?

Question one: as you are very close to orgasm you slide your hand into her genital area and find that she really is a he with breast implants. You being totaly hetero ask him to stop what they are doing. Do they have the right to force you to let them finish?

Question two: same scenarion except as you touch there gental area you fing the goolden triange and enjoy that. But she tries to analy penetrate you with her finger while she preforms fellatio on you. This is a total turn off to you, you ask her to not do that. Does she have the right to force nal penetration on you because she is preforming fellatio?

[Dancing David]

Rouser2:
On the date rape thing, why do you think that women would lie about it and what percentage of women would lie about it. I understand your point completely but it also shows that you know little about the psychology of rape. I am sure that there are boderline individuals who would call rape after consensual sex. But I am also certain that they are in the minority of rape charges.

Most people who are raped do not even report the crime, they are too ashamed of what happened to them because they already blame themselves. Even when it is a stranger rape. Most rapes are never even reported , including when a man forces himself on a woman after a date.

Just like when people report a stolen wallet, there are a minority of people who haven't had a stolen wallet.

What you are syaing is the equivalent of saying that "Any one who gets mugged in Central Park should go to jail for being foolish enough to go to Central Park."

So why do you think that date rape is different from any other reported crime?

Do you think that a husband has the right to force sex on his wife?

Why do you feel that date rape is likely to be a false charge?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


Regarding your question "one" and "two" ( too much of a gross- out to re-copy here) how many times does it take for me to reiterate to you and your dimwitted "Amen" chorus of "Don't blame the victim" sloganeers that NOBODY DESERVES TO BE RAPED???? Nor should those who are seduced and entrapped be prosecuted.


-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


Regarding your question "one" and "two" ( too much of a gross- out to re-copy here) how many times does it take for me to reiterate to you and your dimwitted "Amen" chorus of "Don't blame the victim" sloganeers that NOBODY DESERVES TO BE RAPED???? Nor should those who are seduced and entrapped be prosecuted.


-- Rouser

So what is the problem with date rape? Why should a person who is raped be punished?

What is different between the situation that grossed you out and date rape? Where are the differences?

[Hand waving! ]
THERE ARE ALREADY PROVISIONS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH FALSE ARREST AND REPORTS!
[/Hand waving!]

And what actions should they punished for?

(Remember you asked the girl/boy into your car with the intention of having sex with her, whats the difference? And I didn't mean to gross you out, it is just a sympathy building ploy. I am sorry.)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Dancing David
(Remember you asked the girl/boy into your car with the intention of having sex with her, whats the difference? And I didn't mean to gross you out, it is just a sympathy building ploy. I am sorry.)

Don’t apologize, those are thought provoking analogies. Too often the discussion on consensual versus non-consensual sex is only involved in the decision to participate or not. It’s very worth mentioning that a person can agree to sex, but not agree to specific sexual activities, and that rarely are these activities discussed before hand.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It's really poinless to argue with people who are so fixed in their dogma, that no matter what you say, they do not hear -- so fixed in their dogma, that if a woman claims date rape, the woman always carries no blame whatever, and the man is the sole guilty party. If that is your dogma, then you are impervious to reason.

But I'll relate a personal story. I once attended a party where a very famous person was present -- a big time opera star and TV personality who also was a frequent, regular guest on the Johnny Carson "Tonight" show. To me, she was a total stranger except for her celebrity. Somehow, at the end of the party it was left to me to drive her back to her hotel. As we arrived, she casually invited me up to her room for a cup of coffee or "something". Now then, was that really an invitation for "coffee"? If I had gone up there and "coffee" led to one thing, then another, then another, and then later she would claim "rape", do you think an honest jury would or should convict????

I know you're dying to know who it was and what really happened, but you can forget it. That's not the point.

-- Rouser

Never mind about your little story. You haven't answered my questions. Why are you avoiding them, Rouser?

Here's another one. What point does the woman have to go through with sex? When she enters the appartment or hotel room? After she sits down next to the guy? After she kisses him? After she allows him to fondle her? After she fondles him? After they undress? What is the point where she can no longer withdraw consent and go home?

What actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"? Be specific so everybody can recognize them. Don't try to weasel out of this by saying "everybody knows what they are" for I find that that phrase really means, "The actions are whatever I want them to be" Also, "loose" doesn't apply here, because it is a vague concept. Many cultures would view me as loose because I let my hair show. Be specific.

As for having sex and then saying "no", how long after the first sex act must a woman be available for future sex acts? A minute? A hour? A day? A week? A month? A year? A decade? Forever? Does this "implied consent" also apply to men?

Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It's really poinless to argue with people who are so fixed in their dogma, that no matter what you say, they do not hear -- so fixed in their dogma, that if a woman claims date rape, the woman always carries no blame whatever, and the man is the sole guilty party. If that is your dogma, then you are impervious to reason.Okay, now you're moving the goalposts. Here, again, is the portion of your argument that I am in disagreement with (edited slightly for emphasis):On the other hand, women can, and do invite rape when they are loose in their actions, dress, words, deeds and compromising situations. You cannot expect to visit Kobe Bryant, or Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton at 2 am in the morning wearing a negligee, expecting to maybe just fool around for a while, and then take no responsibility when something more extreme takes place. It's called taking some responsibility for your own actions.That last sentence presents quite an irony considering you begin the passage by saying, effectively, "She made me do it!" What is this, third grade? You're correct, people should take responsibility. So when a woman says, "Stop, I've changed my mind," even if you're in the middle of the act, it's your signal to, y'know, stop.

In any event, you've leaped from an argument about how women who dress or behave provocatively (quoted above) to one of questioning the veracity of every date rape claim (quoted at the top) and then cried that others (me? us?) are "impervious to reason." I don't know about anyone else, but I assure you, I'm perhaps the most reasonable person you're likely to meet. May I suggest that the reason you feel I'm being unreasonable is that there are flaws in your reasoning? (Phew!)

Now, I think your tale about the opera singer is interesting, only because it gives me further insight into how you're considering this whole thing. Let me explain.

It would be a rare instance that I would ever find myself in the private company of a woman not known to me. It's a gamble I'd not be eager to take, and not just for the reason we're talking about. See, before I place myself in a, er, "position of intimacy," I get to know a person. It's a little thing I call "dating." Maybe I'm old-fashioned, or square, or my screen name should be Fred Flintstone, but in the days back when we respected the conventions of courtship it was partially because it afforded people a trial period during which they either built up a trust or determined that the fella or gal was a high risk. And, not altogether coincidentally, time was we didn't hear much in the way of claims of date rape (or even rape for that matter, but I sure don't want to digress too far from the central topic).

Now, I'm not so naive to think that if only everyone would keep their pants on the world would be a lovely place filled with flowers and birds and pretty songs tra-la. However, you, I, and maybe a handful of others can spread the word that when it comes to foolin' around, quite often cheap thrills end up costing.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin [/i]


>>That last sentence presents quite an irony considering you begin the passage by saying, effectively, "She made me do it!" What is this, third grade? You're correct, people should take responsibility. So when a woman says, "Stop, I've changed my mind," even if you're in the middle of the act, it's your signal to, y'know, stop.


It's a moral question versus a legal question. If she says "stop", of course he should stop. But if after making out with a Tyson, a Clinton or a Bryant at 2 am in the morning in a hotel room, and she suddenly says "stop" and he doesn't and it came to trial, I for one would not convict unless both were on trial. Yes, he should have stopped. But she should have never gotten herself in that situation in the first place.

-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Regnad Kcin [/i]


>>That last sentence presents quite an irony considering you begin the passage by saying, effectively, "She made me do it!" What is this, third grade? You're correct, people should take responsibility. So when a woman says, "Stop, I've changed my mind," even if you're in the middle of the act, it's your signal to, y'know, stop.


It's a moral question versus a legal question. If she says "stop", of course he should stop. But if after making out with a Tyson, a Clinton or a Bryant at 2 am in the morning in a hotel room, and she suddenly says "stop" and he doesn't and it came to trial, I for one would not convict unless both were on trial. Yes, he should have stopped. But she should have never gotten herself in that situation in the first place.

-- Rouser

What crime do you want to try her for?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


What crime do you want to try her for?


For filing a false police report for one, lewd, immoral conduct for another (there still must be a few states that have that one on the books), or aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime of rape.

-- Rouser

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2



For filing a false police report for one, lewd, immoral conduct for another (there still must be a few states that have that one on the books), or aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime of rape.

-- Rouser


The police would have to prove that (a) the police report was false (b) her behavior was lewd, if she were in a state that adknowledged it (c) that she aided in her own rape.

How would you prove the police report was false? Remember that she is innocent til proven guilty. And she can bring in witness after witness to testify that the person she made the complaint about was a guy who could take no for an answer.

Define lewd behavior. None of the women were wearing anything too revealing for public. From the placekicker's story, she was just sitting there watching TV when it went down.

As for aiding her own rape, how do you prove that?

Of course, if someone gets drunk and they get rolled, does that mean that they aided in their own robbery?

By the way, rouser, you forgot something:

You haven't answered my questions. Why are you avoiding them, Rouser?

Here's another one. What point does the woman have to go through with sex? When she enters the appartment or hotel room? After she sits down next to the guy? After she kisses him? After she allows him to fondle her? After she fondles him? After they undress? What is the point where she can no longer withdraw consent and go home?

What actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"? Be specific so everybody can recognize them. Don't try to weasel out of this by saying "everybody knows what they are" for I find that that phrase really means, "The actions are whatever I want them to be" Also, "loose" doesn't apply here, because it is a vague concept. Many cultures would view me as loose because I let my hair show. Be specific.

As for having sex and then saying "no", how long after the first sex act must a woman be available for future sex acts? A minute? A hour? A day? A week? A month? A year? A decade? Forever? Does this "implied consent" also apply to men?

Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2



For filing a false police report for one, lewd, immoral conduct for another (there still must be a few states that have that one on the books), or aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime of rape.

-- Rouser

Your original scenario:

"If she says "stop", of course he should stop. But if after making out with a Tyson, a Clinton or a Bryant at 2 am in the morning in a hotel room, and she suddenly says "stop" and he doesn't and it came to trial, I for one would not convict unless both were on trial. Yes, he should have stopped. But she should have never gotten herself in that situation in the first place."

There is nothing false about the report - she has been raped and even you seem to admit that when you say you would convict if both were on trial (so you must be convicting him of something).

Are you going to charge people out at night who get mugged with aiding and abetting? What about banks who aid and abet robbery by having all that money sitting there tempting people?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by dmarker [/i]

>>The police would have to prove that (a) the police report was false

If the rape were determined to be consenual, then there was no rape, hence a false police report.

>> her behavior was lewd, if she were in a state that adknowledged it

"Lewd," is a subjective term, to be determined by a jury.

>> that she aided in her own rape.

If by her actions, she issue an invitation to rape, then...

>>Here's another one. What point does the woman have to go through with sex?

At no point.

>>What actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"?

Already answered that one -- another subjective consideration for a jury to decide. If she slithers into Kobe's room at 2 am in the morning and says "come and get me Kobe," then for some reason changes her mind....

>>Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

More sophomoric questions. Nobody can demand sex from anybody.


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by dmarker [/i]

If the rape were determined to be consenual, then there was no rape, hence a false police report.

If by her actions, she issue an invitation to rape, then...

Make your mind up - has she been raped or not. You want to charge her with falsely reporting a rape that didn't happen and aiding an abetting the same rape!

Could you also specify EXACTLY what you think "an invitation to rape" is?

>>Here's another one. What point does the woman have to go through with sex?

At no point.

>>What actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"?

Already answered that one -- another subjective consideration for a jury to decide. If she slithers into Kobe's room at 2 am in the morning and says "come and get me Kobe," then for some reason changes her mind....

>>Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

More sophomoric questions. Nobody can demand sex from anybody.


-- Rouser

So if nobody can demand sex, why does it matter what time she went to Kobe's room? You say that there is no point at which the woman has to go through with sex so it can't be enough that she went into his room, no matter what time it was.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]


>>So if nobody can demand sex, why does it matter what time she went to Kobe's room? You say that there is no point at which the woman has to go through with sex so it can't be enough that she went into his room, no matter what time it was.

Again you are mixing legal as versus moral questions. Alleged "date rape" or rape amongst "friends" is such an ambiguous call that it should never even come before the courts. In the days of old, "nice" girls avoided such problems with an institution known as "chaperones." That way, if a guy did get out of hand, at least there was a witness! Women's liberation (and the pill) has changed all that. Progress! Like that old ad for Virginia Slims (another deadly consequence of "liberation)" -- the ad that read, "You've come a long way baby!" Indeed. But if I'm on that Kobe Bryant jury, he walks.


-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

But if I'm on that Kobe Bryant jury, he walks.


-- Rouser

Thankfully you wouldn't be, I suspect that there's be a pre-emptive on the grounds that you've aready made up your mind before any evidence is provided

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don


Thankfully you wouldn't be, I suspect that there's be a pre-emptive on the grounds that you've aready made up your mind before any evidence is provided


Oh, there's already plenty of evidence provided. -- 2 am in the morning, panties adorned with other men's semen, etc., etc., etc.


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by The Don


Thankfully you wouldn't be, I suspect that there's be a pre-emptive on the grounds that you've aready made up your mind before any evidence is provided

Just to be clear, that quote is Rouser's, not mine.

Rouser - you are the one mixing legal and moral questions. The legal question is quite simple: Has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped her? You are confusing this by adding in your moral position about her "inviting rape" as grounds not to convict.

I think you would be excluded from jury duty on many grounds, not least that you are incapable of following evidence.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Oh, there's already plenty of evidence provided. -- 2 am in the morning, panties adorned with other men's semen, etc., etc., etc.


-- Rouser

Of course ...

"encountering a woman who has recently had sex with another man (or men) entitles any man to have sex with that woman provided that it's between midnight and 4 a.m. regardless of whether that woman actively consents. Because she has, by her actions, proved that she is a "dirty little slut" all her legal rights in this area are waived"

Which Amendment to the Constitution covered this ?

[Dancing David]

posted by Rouser2
Again you are mixing legal as versus moral questions. Alleged "date rape" or rape amongst "friends" is such an ambiguous call that it should never even come before the courts.


Uh, what about the evidentiary stage of the trial, as I stated before a trial almost never occurs when the evidence is solely based upon the testimony of the man or the woman. there will sualy need to be some other evidence such as bruising, or an admission by the rapist to forcing non-consensual sex.

What is ambigous about rape?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]


>>I think you would be excluded from jury duty on many grounds, not least that you are incapable of following evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant in the face of bad law and jurors have the right to disgregard both the law and the judge's instructions on it. I could be excluded for admitting knowledge of my true rights as a juror and for instructing other jurors as to their rights. But such an exclusion would be a denial of Trial by Jury and of Due Process of Law.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>Rouser - you are the one mixing legal and moral questions. The legal question is quite simple: Has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped her?

All depends on the meaning of the word "rape". When is a "rape" a "rape" and when is a "rape" not a rape? If consent is given, then withdrawn, what you have is a very ambiguous situation.


-- Rouser

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2
If consent is given, then withdrawn, what you have is a very ambiguous situation.
-- Rouser No. And no again.

I hope you don't do as you speak - you might find yourself in jail one day (and I wouldn't feel sorry for you). :(

[bug_girl]

i just wanted to give big hugs to all the guys fighting with rouser over this issue.
it's way too close to home for me to contribute to this thread, and it makes me very, very happy to see so many men that not only understand the issue but are willing to stand up for womens' right to say no. if we meet, i owe you a beverage of your choice. :halo:

rouser, you git, hope you never meet me. i have a machete (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35150), you know.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]


>>I think you would be excluded from jury duty on many grounds, not least that you are incapable of following evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant in the face of bad law and jurors have the right to disgregard both the law and the judge's instructions on it. I could be excluded for admitting knowledge of my true rights as a juror and for instructing other jurors as to their rights. But such an exclusion would be a denial of Trial by Jury and of Due Process of Law.


-- Rouser

So in other words "I Rouser2 an going to decide what the law SHOULD have been and then apply it accordingly to the case in point"

I hope that you manage to do a lot of growing up before you reach an age at which you can serve on a jury. You also of course realise that the verdict would be succesfully appealed.

[The Don]

So Rouser2. I'm serving on the jury in the trial of the person who attacked you. The evidence (and it is conclusive) clearly indicates that the person did it. I am entirely within my rights to find that person not guilty because you "are an ********* and had it coming".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by bug_girl
if we meet, i owe you a beverage of your choice. :halo:

Careful, Bugbabe. Buy a man a drink and you are just asking to be molested.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]


>>So in other words "I Rouser2 an going to decide what the law SHOULD have been and then apply it accordingly to the case in point"

Not exactly. I Rouser2, a clear thinking sovereign citizen, endowed with all the rights secured by our Constitution, and by our Creator as well as the Common law, including the right to preserve one's conscience in a jury deliberation, cannot "make" law by a jury vote, but certainly can and should nullify bad or unconstitutional law by simply refusing to convict.

>>I hope that you manage to do a lot of growing up before you reach an age at which you can serve on a jury. You also of course realise that the verdict would be succesfully appealed.


In a criminal case, a "not guilty" verdict cannot be appealed. I hope you manage to do some growing up yourself and learn just what Trial by Jury means, and is, before you participate in one or have to face one as an accused.

-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In a criminal case, a "not guilty" verdict cannot be appealed. I hope you manage to do some growing up yourself and learn just what Trial by Jury means, and is, before you participate in one or have to face one as an accused.

-- Rouser [/B]

Sorry, my misunderstanding of the U.S. system.

Not exactly. I Rouser2, a clear thinking sovereign citizen, endowed with all the rights secured by our Constitution, and by our Creator as well as the Common law, including the right to preserve one's conscience in a jury deliberation, cannot "make" law by a jury vote, but certainly can and should nullify bad or unconstitutional law by simply refusing to convict.

clear thinking - I would have categorised you as neither
our Creator - not applicable

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[

All depends on the meaning of the word "rape". When is a "rape" a "rape" and when is a "rape" not a rape? If consent is given, then withdrawn, what you have is a very ambiguous situation.


-- Rouser [/B]

Uh, what is ambigous about that at all Rouser2? If consent is given and then withdrawn it is rape in Illinois. (Say that the women consents to vaginal sex but then is forcibly penetrated analy?)

Say that she consents to sex the first time but doesn't want to a second time and is beaten and then raped. Where is the ambiguity there?

How do you feel about marital rape? Does a man have the right to rape his wife because she is sleeping in thier bed?

Why is date rape any different?

Because you think that a man is an uncontrolable beast who is entitled to have sex?

Where is the ambiguity Rouser2? Throw it out there , give us an example of the ambiguity. No one here has said that making false charges of rape is a good thing. Why are you saying that any victim of rape should be punished because it was a date rape?

Throw it out there , give us an example of the ambiguity.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by bug_girl
i just wanted to give big hugs to all the guys fighting with rouser over this issue.
it's way too close to home for me to contribute to this thread, and it makes me very, very happy to see so many men that not only understand the issue but are willing to stand up for womens' right to say no. if we meet, i owe you a beverage of your choice. :halo:

rouser, you git, hope you never meet me. i have a machete (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35150), you know.

Freedom is freedom, for one person to loose that freedom means that we all loose that freedom!

Be careful! I got a warning!

(This too is very hard for me to discuss without wanting to assault Rouser for his bigoted and stupid support of sexual terror. Rape is not 'sexual assault' it is assault using sex. It is an act of terror and violence.)

Peace BugGirl, may you find the love at journeys end and all that good stuff!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>give us an example of the ambiguity.

Example: She consents, then after he enters, without a condom, screams, "no, no, no". Rape???

Example: A prostitute agrees to perform the "illegal"act. He pays her; she gives what she promised in return. But after the alloted time period, he wants more and forces the issue. Is the government to enforce the terms of an illegal contract???


The examples are legion, but are to be considered in legal, not moral context.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
In a criminal case, a "not guilty" verdict cannot be appealed. I hope you manage to do some growing up yourself and learn just what Trial by Jury means, and is, before you participate in one or have to face one as an accused.

-- Rouser [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Sorry, my misunderstanding of the U.S. system.

It's the same "system" as in the UK, from whence America's Common Law is derived.


-- Rouser

[curious]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Example: She consents, then after he enters, without a condom, screams, "no, no, no". Rape???

Once consent has been clearly given I think the situation can get more tricky but this example appears quite simple. If she wants the guy to use a condom she had every right to demand it.

Example: A prostitute agrees to perform the "illegal"act. He pays her; she gives what she promised in return. But after the alloted time period, he wants more and forces the issue. Is the government to enforce the terms of an illegal contract???

If I buy groceries from my corner store can I go and get some more fo free just because I already paid for some? Anyways, it's lame to use a prostituion example when that clearly isn't what is being discussed but do you think it's ok to do whatever one wants to a prostitute once they've been given some money?

Where is your sense of justice? If you wanted to just point out that society has oversimplified what sexual assualt is about I would agree with you but you have taken this offensive, and idiotic stance that anytime a women is alone with a man the situation is so ambiguos that you would never convict if you were on a jury out of principle. WTF?

Your solution just shows how out of touch with reality you are: Women should never be alone with men unless they want to have sex so they should have chaperones. If you want to go the traditional route why not also advocate stoning Kobe Bryant for adultry, and really, we should blame rock'n'roll for putting the devil into todays youth.
:hit:

:tr:
At least I hope so . . .

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by dmarker [/i]

>>The police would have to prove that (a) the police report was false

If the rape were determined to be consenual, then there was no rape, hence a false police report.




How do you determine that the sex was consensual?

Take the murder of Bob Crane, for example, his head was bashed in whilst he was sleeping. They tried his buddy John Carpenter for the crime. Carpenter was acquitted. Does that mean that Crame wasn't murdered?

Just because there might not be sufficient evidence to convict does not mean that the crime didn't happen.

So now when you charge her with filing a false police report, she gets to defend herself. She trots out everything about the guy that was suppressed in his trial. The jury in her trial believe her and she's acquitted. So, in this case, did the crime happen?






>> her behavior was lewd, if she were in a state that adknowledged it

"Lewd," is a subjective term, to be determined by a jury.



So is sitting there watching TV, is that lewd? Accepting an invitation to watch TV, is that lewd? Being alone with a man, is that lewd?




>> that she aided in her own rape.

If by her actions, she issue an invitation to rape, then...



What actions are an invitation to rape? You mentioned going up to a man's room. This could be construed as a sexual invitation, depending on the circumstances. But either party could recind the sexual invitation at any time for any reason.

Or are you saying that once the sexual invitation is issued, no one has the right to change their minds?




>>Here's another one. What point does the woman have to go through with sex?

At no point.



So you are saying that she can be naked, on the bed, legs open, then change her mind and go home? Any physical attempts to restrain her movements is a crime? The guy can beg and also defend himself if she attacks him, of course. But if she dresses and leaves, you are saying that it is illegal to stop her. So what you are saying is that Kobe, if he had forced her, had committed a crime.




>>What actions constitute a "yes" while the person is saying "no"?

Already answered that one -- another subjective consideration for a jury to decide. If she slithers into Kobe's room at 2 am in the morning and says "come and get me Kobe," then for some reason changes her mind....




Then she changes her mind. She might have been saying "yes", but when she said "no", then he should stopped and let her leave. Better yet, he should have sent her packing with instructions to his crew to never let her close to him again.





>>Can I guy I had sex with at age 16 come back and demand sex from me even though I'm now 34 and have been married for over ten years?

More sophomoric questions. Nobody can demand sex from anybody.


-- Rouser

What makes this question sophomoric? If you are saying that previous sexual encounters entitles a man to assume he can have sex with a woman later, what is the statute of limitations?

How long can a man assume that he is entitled to sex from a woman after a sexual act?

How many sexual acts must take place before the man can make this assumption? One, ten, hundred, thousand?

[Rouser2]

All of the above utterances continue to mix and confuse moral as versus legal issues.


--- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2


It's the same "system" as in the UK, from whence America's Common Law is derived.


-- Rouser

The UK legal system?

If you know so much about the UK legal system, perhaps you could explain it to me. You may of course find this difficult as there is NO SUCH THING but it could be fun watching you try!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


The UK legal system?

If you know so much about the UK legal system, perhaps you could explain it to me. You may of course find this difficult as there is NO SUCH THING but it could be fun watching you try!


Normally, I do not respond to posts consisting of either blatant or pretended nitwittery, but in your particular case... perhaps an example that Americans do not necessarily hold a monopoly on ignorance of their legal system nor of ignorance in general. For your edification:

The UK Legal System

Background and Constitution

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries forming three distinct jurisdictions each having its own court system and legal profession: England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom was established in 1801 with the union of Great Britain and Ireland, but only achieved its present form in 1922 with the partition of Ireland and the establishment of the independent Irish Free State (later the Republic of Ireland)...." (etc., etc., etc.)

http://www.llrx.com/features/uk2.htm

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by curious [/i]

>>Once consent has been clearly given I think the situation can get more tricky but this example appears quite simple. If she wants the guy to use a condom she had every right to demand it.


And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the alleged "victim" says she was perfectly willing to have sexual intercourse with her friend, but when presented with an un-adorned appendage, she now asks that you convict her friend of "rape"??? (An uproar of laughter heard in the courtroom).


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by curious [/i]


>>If I buy groceries from my corner store can I go and get some more fo free just because I already paid for some?

The purchase of groceries is a legal transation; the purchase of sex, is not, at least in most jurisdictions. You cannot expect the government to enforce the terms of an illegal transaction. Get it?


-- Rouser

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
All of the above utterances continue to mix and confuse moral as versus legal issues.


--- Rouser

How? If you force someone to have sex, no matter what the circumstances, it is rape.

You are trying to confuse moral issues with legal ones by saying the woman "asked for it" and "invited rape"

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by curious [/i]

>>Once consent has been clearly given I think the situation can get more tricky but this example appears quite simple. If she wants the guy to use a condom she had every right to demand it.


And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the alleged "victim" says she was perfectly willing to have sexual intercourse with her friend, but when presented with an un-adorned appendage, she now asks that you convict her friend of "rape"??? (An uproar of laughter heard in the courtroom).


-- Rouser

If she told the guy, "no rubber, no sex" and he forced her to have sex anyway, then he should be convicted.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>give us an example of the ambiguity.

Example: She consents, then after he enters, without a condom, screams, "no, no, no". Rape???

Example: A prostitute agrees to perform the "illegal"act. He pays her; she gives what she promised in return. But after the alloted time period, he wants more and forces the issue. Is the government to enforce the terms of an illegal contract???


The examples are legion, but are to be considered in legal, not moral context.


-- Rouser

The issue in both cases involcves the lack of ambiguity in therefusal to have sex,
in the second case, it is not a matter of a legal contract at all, it is a matter that consent was given in the first and then not given for the second, although since you state it as the meter running, that does raise a legal question. But duh dude, if she agreed to one act and then he forces another upon her then there is no consent to the second act of sex and it is rape. You are stupid if you think a protitute can not be raped.
You state that he forces sex upon the prostitue after a certain time, that would imply rape. But again this is not date rape. Funny how you changed the parameter. Is date rape akin to protitution?

The first statement is left ambious by you, did they discuss the issue of birth control? Did she agree to sex with a condom?

Very rarely si rape or date rape an issue involving the withdraw of consent after the sex has begun but that is included in rape.

That is why I asked, if a woman consents to vaginal sex, does she have to submit to anal sex?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
All of the above utterances continue to mix and confuse moral as versus legal issues.


--- Rouser

That is the lamest defense of a poor argument yet, are you a sceptic or a non-sceptic.

That is just so sad, take that statement out and shoot it.

Rape is a crime. BAM BAM BAM

Morals are what a person bases thier life on they are not law. BAM BAM BAM

You are confused because you are confused . BAM BAM BAM

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by curious [/i]


>>If I buy groceries from my corner store can I go and get some more fo free just because I already paid for some?

The purchase of groceries is a legal transation; the purchase of sex, is not, at least in most jurisdictions. You cannot expect the government to enforce the terms of an illegal transaction. Get it?


-- Rouser

Rape: loosely defined is the act of non-consensual sex. So you can force sex, that is rape. You can have sex with someone who is passed out, that is rape.

The legality of the act of protitution is not the question, the question is if the act is consensual. In the first act the pro(male or female) consented to the act in the recpetion of money or in saying "Yes, I will do it for money". In the second the pro(male or female) did not consent to the act and therefore it is non-consensual and therefore rape.

So how do you equate date rape with prostitution?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by curious [/i]

>>Once consent has been clearly given I think the situation can get more tricky but this example appears quite simple. If she wants the guy to use a condom she had every right to demand it.


And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the alleged "victim" says she was perfectly willing to have sexual intercourse with her friend, but when presented with an un-adorned appendage, she now asks that you convict her friend of "rape"??? (An uproar of laughter heard in the courtroom).


-- Rouser

If she said no, I agreed to sex with a condom-yes it is rape.

If he hits her , chokes her, beats her a little more and then forces his penis(that is what they are called you coward) into her vagina, that is rape.

If he hold her down and tears her labia as he forces his penis into her vagina, that is rape.

If he blocks the door and tears the phone off the wall, then forces his penis into her that is rape.

Do you get it now *******.

On this day Rouser said that a man can force a woman to have unprotected sex because she agreed to sex that was protected!

You are a rapist Rouser, be sure to tell every one how proud you are that you support rape!

Be sure to get your t-shirt that says "I support Rape!"

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by curious [/i]

>>Once consent has been clearly given I think the situation can get more tricky but this example appears quite simple. If she wants the guy to use a condom she had every right to demand it.


And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the alleged "victim" says she was perfectly willing to have sexual intercourse with her friend, but when presented with an un-adorned appendage, she now asks that you convict her friend of "rape"??? (An uproar of laughter heard in the courtroom).


-- Rouser

This is a sexual assault by any definition. If a woman agrees to have sex using a condom, and then a man enters her without a condom over her objections, he has exceeded the scope of consent and is guilty of sexual assault, period. Anytime a contact exceeds the scope of consent it is an illegal act.

I'd get a conviction on this in a heartbeat. You can make the silly statment above and then I'll talk about fear of AIDS and other STDs. Not to mention the bottom line, that she said "no" and he did it anyway. The jury would be out just long enough to elect a foreperson and check "guilty" on the verdict sheet...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by curious [/i]


>>If I buy groceries from my corner store can I go and get some more fo free just because I already paid for some?

The purchase of groceries is a legal transation; the purchase of sex, is not, at least in most jurisdictions. You cannot expect the government to enforce the terms of an illegal transaction. Get it?


-- Rouser

The legality of the contract is a red herring. Rape is a criminal matter, and the relevant question is scope of consent, not breach of contract.

Actually, if the court completely disregarded the illegal contract in the inane manner you suggest the result would be that all sex with prostitutes would be rape, as the illegal contract would not be available to establish the sex as consensual.

In short, the contract isn't being enforced. If someone entering such a contract was unsatisfied with the services rendered he/she could not sue for damages or return of purchase, as courts will not enforce a contract for an illegal act. However, there is nothing preventing that contract from being evidence of consent or lack thereof. Quite simple, actually.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>>. However, there is nothing preventing that contract from being evidence of consent...


Exactly my point. Evidence of consent. As to time and duration -- the fine points of an illegal contract which juries are not about to respect. Fact is, so-called "date rape" is so difficult to prove, and worldly wise jurors know so well the likelyhood of the female, aiding, abetting and encouraging what she later claims is "rape," that most juries refuse to convict.


-- Rouser

[Skeptic]

i just wanted to give big hugs to all the guys fighting with rouser over this issue.
it's way too close to home for me to contribute to this thread, and it makes me very, very happy to see so many men that not only understand the issue but are willing to stand up for womens' right to say no.

Thanks, but I think you're getting excited over nothing if you think Rouser's a danger to any woman.

Rouser's descriptions of the sex act in this thread make it quite clear that his only knowledge of same is from porn videos. How much do you want to bet that he's a geeky virgin who's deathly afraid of women and "talks tough" about rape to cover it up?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>>. However, there is nothing preventing that contract from being evidence of consent...


Exactly my point. Evidence of consent. As to time and duration -- the fine points of an illegal contract which juries are not about to respect. Fact is, so-called "date rape" is so difficult to prove, and worldly wise jurors know so well the likelyhood of the female, aiding, abetting and encouraging what she later claims is "rape," that most juries refuse to convict.


-- Rouser

Even if the woman consented to sex, if the man continued after she had said no - it's rape.

The reason why it is often difficult to get a conviction is that the standard defence would be to portray the woman as a slut or tart and attempt to convince the jury into thinking that if she had consented to sex at some point in her life (or that evening) then she would consent to sex at any time, with any person.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Normally, I do not respond to posts consisting of either blatant or pretended nitwittery, but in your particular case... perhaps an example that Americans do not necessarily hold a monopoly on ignorance of their legal system nor of ignorance in general. For your edification:

The UK Legal System

Background and Constitution

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries forming three distinct jurisdictions each having its own court system and legal profession: England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom was established in 1801 with the union of Great Britain and Ireland, but only achieved its present form in 1922 with the partition of Ireland and the establishment of the independent Irish Free State (later the Republic of Ireland)...." (etc., etc., etc.)

http://www.llrx.com/features/uk2.htm

-- Rouser

Did you even read this before you posted it?

Can you not see the part about "three distinct jurisdictions each having its own court system and legal profession"?

There is no UK legal system as your posting simply confirms - there are three legal systems operating within the UK, none of which covers the whole UK. That you don't know this but still claim that the American system is derived from this non existent system shows exactly who is ignorant about the legal system.

Is your imaginary "UK legal system" based on common law or Roman law?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>Did you even read this before you posted it?

>>Can you not see the part about "three distinct jurisdictions each having its own court system and legal profession"?


More nitwittery. Did you even read the title of the linked article? You said the UK had "no legal system". An absurd statement. The very title of the article is "A Guide To The UK Legal System". Apparently there is one. What the three countries comprising the UK have separate are jurisdictions, just as in the United States, each state has its own jurisdiction. But all questions of law are appealable to the US Supreme Court as are all questions of law in the UK (even Scotland) appealable to the House of Lords. The common law in the US is based on the very same common law of the UK, meaning English common law. This includes the notion that juries have the right and the power to act as judges of both fact and law.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>Even if the woman consented to sex, if the man continued after she had said no - it's rape.

Moral questions aside, if a jury concludes the act was not rape, then legally it was not "rape".

>>The reason why it is often difficult to get a conviction is that the standard defence would be to portray the woman as a slut or tart and attempt to convince the jury into thinking that if she had consented to sex at some point in her life (or that evening) then she would consent to sex at any time, with any person.

A reasonable conclusion if the "lady" in question had another man's DNA in her pants.

-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>The reason why it is often difficult to get a conviction is that the standard defence would be to portray the woman as a slut or tart and attempt to convince the jury into thinking that if she had consented to sex at some point in her life (or that evening) then she would consent to sex at any time, with any person.

A reasonable conclusion if the "lady" in question had another man's DNA in her pants.

-- Rouser [/B]

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. Any woman who has sex is a whore and should be treated as such.

I hope that one day - In the unlikely event that you do one day end up with a significant other apart from your right hand - your significant other manages to change your reprehensible attitude to women.

In the meantime keep buying the porn mags in the hope that one day maybe you'll get to have sex with a real girl - who wants to have sex with you.(Of course, as I've already suggested, in your case you probably consider consent to have been given if she doesn't run away screaming).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>Did you even read this before you posted it?

>>Can you not see the part about "three distinct jurisdictions each having its own court system and legal profession"?


More nitwittery. Did you even read the title of the linked article? You said the UK had "no legal system". An absurd statement. The very title of the article is "A Guide To The UK Legal System". Apparently there is one. What the three countries comprising the UK have separate are jurisdictions, just as in the United States, each state has its own jurisdiction. But all questions of law are appealable to the US Supreme Court as are all questions of law in the UK (even Scotland) appealable to the House of Lords. The common law in the US is based on the very same common law of the UK, meaning English common law. This includes the notion that juries have the right and the power to act as judges of both fact and law.

-- Rouser

You can call an article whatever you want - doesn't mean it exists.

To insist that there is a "UK legal system" and that it is a common law system is simply demonstrating your ignorance of what you are talking about.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


You can call an article whatever you want - doesn't mean it exists.

To insist that there is a "UK legal system" and that it is a common law system is simply demonstrating your ignorance of what you are talking about.


Well, if there is no UK legal system, then it follows that it could hardly be based on the Common Law. Excellent reasoning.
Are all the schools in Scotland like the one you attended?

-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Well, if there is no UK legal system, then it follows that it could hardly be based on the Common Law. Excellent reasoning.
Are all the schools in Scotland like the one you attended?

-- Rouser

So you are now admitting that you were talking nonsense when you referred to a UK legal system?

Maybe you should do so for every other post you have made in this thread as well as you clearly have no clue what you are talking about in any of those either.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]


>>So you are now admitting that you were talking nonsense when you referred to a UK legal system?

Oh, quite the contrary. I merely point out that when you say your non-existent legal system is not based on Common Law, you are admitting that there is indeed a UK legal system.


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]


>>So you are now admitting that you were talking nonsense when you referred to a UK legal system?

Oh, quite the contrary. I merely point out that when you say your non-existent legal system is not based on Common Law, you are admitting that there is indeed a UK legal system.


-- Rouser

I made no claims for the existence of a UK legal system - you did.

I explained that there is no such thing, just separate legal systems existing within the UK.

You claim that these separate systems are somehow part of the the same system and that the larger system is a common law system. As Scots law is based on Roman law, how can it possibly be part of a common law system?

The quote in my signature seems more appropriate withevery post you make.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>You claim that these separate systems are somehow part of the the same system and that the larger system is a common law system.


Not at all. I merely said that the legal system in the US, just like the UK has its roots in the English Common Law. That doesn't say that the Scottish legal system is just like England and Wales, but that all carry the heritage of the Common Law tradition.

>> As Scots law is based on Roman law, how can it possibly be part of a common law system?

It is just as fallacious to say that Scots law is based entirely on Roman Law as it is to say it is based entirely on English Common law. The Scots system is a mixed system which is derived from both. English Common Law itself has derivations and influence from Roman Law.

"Another important source of Scots law is English law, also known as "the Common Law", which of all Western legal systems is the least influenced by Roman law."

-- Univ of Glasgow

http://www.law.gla.ac.uk/scot_guide/SOURCES.HTMLhttp://www.law.gla.ac.uk/scot_guide/SOURCES.HTML

* * *

"In 1707, the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created as a result of the Union of the Parliaments of Scotland and England. Gradually, English law began to replace Roman law as the main external source of Scots law, since the majority of Scots students now studied in England. The House of Lords became the final court of appeal for Scots civil cases, and the English principle of judicial precedent (known also as stare decisis) came to be more strictly applied. The reform of the Court of Session in the early 19th century further contributed to the move towards adapting English legal methods."
http://www.law.gla.ac.uk/scot_guide/HISTORY.HTML


This all relates to the original point made in regard to Juries and to the right of Juries to judge the law. That is/was the point and that heritage is to be found in the English Common Law.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. Any woman who has sex is a whore and should be treated as such.

>>I hope that one day - In the unlikely event that you do one day end up with a significant other apart from your right hand - your significant other manages to change your reprehensible attitude to women.


So there you have it -- another empty headed sewer slithering ad hominem attacker betraying any thought process of real argument with mindless hyperbole, substituting rational thought with the hurling of verbal excrement. Well, why don't you save some of that slop you trade and slither in for the judge in the Kobe Bryant case who just ruled that the sexual history of the accusor is indeed fair game for her to be questioned about? Then you have my leave to sllther back into the cesspool sewer along with your fellow slugs from whence you came.

DENVER (Reuters) - "Colorado's highest court ruled on Thursday that the woman who accuses basketball star Kobe Bryant (news) of rape must testify about her sexual history..."

"The defense in court filings has said it is relevant to ask the accuser about her having sex 15 hours after the time she said Bryant raped her last year because prosecutors want to present evidence she suffered from trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder after the incident.
The defense said it is also appropriate to ask about the woman's sexual partners just before and just after the time she said Bryant raped her to help determine the source of injuries to her genital area. "

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040311/us_nm/nba_crime_bryant_dc_6&printer=1

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It is just as fallacious to say that Scots law is based entirely on Roman Law [/B]

Or it would be if anyone had actually claimed that.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. Any woman who has sex is a whore and should be treated as such.

>>I hope that one day - In the unlikely event that you do one day end up with a significant other apart from your right hand - your significant other manages to change your reprehensible attitude to women.


So there you have it -- another empty headed sewer slithering ad hominem attacker betraying any thought process of real argument with mindless hyperbole, substituting rational thought with the hurling of verbal excrement. Well, why don't you save some of that slop you trade and slither in for the judge in the Kobe Bryant case who just ruled that the sexual history of the accusor is indeed fair game for her to be questioned about? Then you have my leave to sllther back into the cesspool sewer along with your fellow slugs from whence you came.

DENVER (Reuters) - "Colorado's highest court ruled on Thursday that the woman who accuses basketball star Kobe Bryant (news) of rape must testify about her sexual history..."

"The defense in court filings has said it is relevant to ask the accuser about her having sex 15 hours after the time she said Bryant raped her last year because prosecutors want to present evidence she suffered from trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder after the incident.
The defense said it is also appropriate to ask about the woman's sexual partners just before and just after the time she said Bryant raped her to help determine the source of injuries to her genital area. "

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040311/us_nm/nba_crime_bryant_dc_6&printer=1

Nice to see your poor understanding of legal issues continues. The judge is not allowing an open-ended examination of her sexual history to question her "moral character" or whatever, rather the judge is allowing evidence of particular episodes as they relate to other specific issues.

Rape-shield law is complicated. Her sexual history is not "fair game." Rather the judge is correctly applying the law that past sexual history is not admissible to paint the alleged victim as being unchaste, but can be admissible when its relevance to other issues exceeds its prejudical effect. Bryant's lawyers have identified other issues. Nothing really groundbreaking here.

[Dancing David]

Rouser2:
So forcing a woman to have unprotected sex is date rape? Or is sex with a prostitue date rape? You still havent't really clarified the issue of why you feel a woman/man who makes a charge of date rape should be charged with a crime.

So far what you have said is vauge, how is a woman crimanly liable if a date rape ocurs, isn't that like saying a homeowner is criminaly liable if a guest at a party takes cash for their house?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Or it would be if anyone had actually claimed that.


You made the claim.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>>Nice to see your poor understanding of legal issues continues. The judge is not allowing an open-ended examination of her sexual history to question her "moral character" or whatever, rather the judge is allowing evidence of particular episodes as they relate to other specific issues.

Indeed. A sexual history of the days and nights in question seems to be of sufficient relevance.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>So forcing a woman to have unprotected sex is date rape?

Legally, it all depends on what a jury considers to be "force". If the situation is an all out orgy, an honest jury might take a dim view of such claims.

>> Or is sex with a prostitue date rape?


Ditto. See above.


>>You still havent't really clarified the issue of why you feel a woman/man who makes a charge of date rape should be charged with a crime.


If the claim proves to be false, that could be justification depending on the circumstances.

>>So far what you have said is vauge,

The whole subject is inherently vague. So-called date rape usually involves no other witnesses but plaintiff versus defendant -- his word against hers -- often no evidence whatever.

>>how is a woman crimanly liable if a date rape ocurs, isn't that like saying a homeowner is criminaly liable if a guest at a party takes cash for their house?

No. A reasonable judge or jury might take notice of the fact that a homeowner takes no pleasure in being unjustly deprived from his wealth. The same might not be said of a female date rape accuser, especially one with a prolific sexual history.

-- Rouser


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2



You made the claim.


-- Rouser

Then you will have no problem in directing me to the post where I claim the Scottish legal system is "entirely based" on Roman Law.

Of course failure to do so will simply confirm you as an outright liar.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Legally, it all depends on what a jury considers to be "force". If the situation is an all out orgy, an honest jury might take a dim view of such claims.

Now you are waffling, if woamn consent to an orgy she still has the right to refuse any sexual act at any time. I asked you if a man forcing a woman against her will to have unprotected sex, after she agreed to protected sex was rape.


>> Or is sex with a prostitue date rape?


Ditto. See above.

How would sex with aprotitue be similar to date rape. Forcing sex on a prostitue that they did not consent to is rape.



>>You still havent't really clarified the issue of why you feel a woman/man who makes a charge of date rape should be charged with a crime.
If the claim proves to be false, that could be justification depending on the circumstances.

And that is alreday allowed for in our judicail system, I believe that your claim was that all women who accuse date rape should be charged with a crime. Have you changed your mind?


>>So far what you have said is vauge,

The whole subject is inherently vague. So-called date rape usually involves no other witnesses but plaintiff versus defendant -- his word against hers -- often no evidence whatever.

Which is why date rape is very rarely charged, unless there is other physical evidence that rape occured.


>>how is a woman crimanly liable if a date rape ocurs, isn't that like saying a homeowner is criminaly liable if a guest at a party takes cash for their house?

No. A reasonable judge or jury might take notice of the fact that a homeowner takes no pleasure in being unjustly deprived from his wealth. The same might not be said of a female date rape accuser, especially one with a prolific sexual history.

-- Rouser




That is a really broad claim, care to show any evidence that women who enjoy sex also enjoy being raped. i assume that you enjoy sex, do you enjoy being raped?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Then you will have no problem in directing me to the post where I claim the Scottish legal system is "entirely based" on Roman Law.

Of course failure to do so will simply confirm you as an outright liar.


What you wrote was: "As Scots law is based on Roman law, how can it possibly be part of a common law system?"


Thus, although the words "entirely based" are not in the sentence, the erroneous exclusion of Common Law heritage leaves the clear implication of the words "entirely" as entirely correct and your description of the Scottish legal system as incorrect.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>And that is alreday allowed for in our judicail system, I believe that your claim was that all women who accuse date rape should be charged with a crime. Have you changed your mind?


The attribution is false.


>>... care to show any evidence that women who enjoy sex also enjoy being raped


An honest woman once related to me how she would handle a rapist: "Why don't we just both relax so we can both enjoy it?"


-- Rouser

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
An honest woman once related to me how she would handle a rapist: "Why don't we just both relax so we can both enjoy it?"Outstanding! Your ability to plumb new depths is a marvel to behold.

Oh, and that joke (in various guises) has been around forever. Somehow, it never improves with age.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Dancing David

>>And that is alreday allowed for in our judicail system, I believe that your claim was that all women who accuse date rape should be charged with a crime. Have you changed your mind?


The attribution is false.


Funny thing Rouser, your words were very different on page four and five of the thread we find these comments by Rouser2

I just asserted that both parties should be punished -- sent to jail and you assert that means I support rape and child molestation?

Oh, contraire. I'm fair and balanced. If I could be judge and jury in date rape cases, I'd usually send both parties to jail.



Now generaly speaking, in our judicaial system a person is charged with a crime for them to go to jail, I believe that is called arraignment? They can be arrested by a police officer who feels that there is enough evidence that a crime has been committed.

So on what grounds would you send a person who accused another of date rape, if not that they had comitted a crime?

In both sentences you use the phrase 'send/sent to jail' and in the second one you state in fact that is what you would do as a judge and/or jury, which would imply that the female accuser had been charged and convicted.

So what level of spin will you exhibit this time. Your own words say that you are less than truthful.

[Dancing David]

Dancing David
>>... care to show any evidence that women who enjoy sex also enjoy being raped?



Rouser2 responds
An honest woman once related to me how she would handle a rapist: "Why don't we just both relax so we can both enjoy it?"


And that is evidence that women who enjoy sex enjoy rape? How?

So are you suggesting that Abner L, who has a the handle of toilet plunger shoved up his rectum, he should have just relaxed and enoyed it?

And that young woman who had her vagina torn when someone raped her with a baseball bat they should have enjoyed it?

As I said Rouser2 , you are one sick puppy. The seventy nine cent solution would probably cure you!

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2
An honest woman once related to me how she would handle a rapist: "Why don't we just both relax so we can both enjoy it?" So, can we guess you raped her then, to bring some joy to both of you? :(

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>>>And that is alreday allowed for in our judicail system, I believe that your claim was that all women who accuse date rape should be charged with a crime. Have you changed your mind?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>The attribution is false.


>>Funny thing Rouser, your words were very different on page four and five of the thread we find these comments by Rouser2

You always seem to miss out on qualifiying words and substitute your own strawman generalizations. I never said "all women".

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>So are you suggesting that Abner L, who has a the handle of toilet plunger shoved up his rectum, he should have just relaxed and enoyed it?

>>And that young woman who had her vagina torn when someone raped her with a baseball bat they should have enjoyed it?


More off point nitwittery. I believe the subject herein is "date rape", not "rape" per se. Not too many people date toilet plungers.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Bjorn
So, can we guess you raped her then, to bring some joy to both of you? :(

We can guess that there is no age discrimination on this board. Why don't you retire back to your playpen and let the grownups try to have a grownup discussion?


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2



What you wrote was: "As Scots law is based on Roman law, how can it possibly be part of a common law system?"


Thus, although the words "entirely based" are not in the sentence, the erroneous exclusion of Common Law heritage leaves the clear implication of the words "entirely" as entirely correct and your description of the Scottish legal system as incorrect.

-- Rouser

No, the description is completely correct - Scots law is based on Roman Law. Nobody claimed it was "entirely based" - that was simply a lie that you made up.

Do you claim that Scots Law is not based on Roman Law? If so then please provide a source. If not, then my description of the Scottish legal system is entirely correct.