Absolutely nothing. Maiming a man after a rape is a crime that you most certainly will not serve prison time for.

Look ladies, I am not arguing for the many rape cases that are comitted by the average joe. Joe needs pussy, he has a hard time getting pussy and will do anything for it. How can I argue for him? I am only arguing for the rape cases charged against men who most women actually want to rape themselves. There is a class of women out there that can really be considered predators. They destroy the lives of men and even if they aren't successful they aren't reprimanded in any way.

The American legal system is fucked.

Whew! Thanks for clarifying that. For a minute there I thought there was some law against murdering people.....especially during the act of vigilante justice!

:blink:

In conjunction with other things 'suck it bitch' is definately foreplay.
I guess it depends on what else your doin' at the time, huh?

I hope all you guys standing by reading this thread are enjoying yourselves. Pussies.

I agree... for a certain income level. The reason we are discussing this is Kobe. I will venture to say about 90% of the rape cases involving rich or famous men are false.

What would you say?[/b][/quote]
Upon what do you base this statement? Rich guys "don't have" to rape?

Are there false charges of rape against some rich folks? Of course. Are ALL - or 90% (I hope you washed that off, since I suspect the figure came from pretty foul orifice) - of the charges of rape against "rich men" false? Interesting stat - where did it come from?

Experience. Seeing these cases firsthand. Knowing a lot of the women beforehand. If you haven't been to the Superbowls, the prizefights or even with other basic rich people in your podunk area that have lots of women... please reserve your comments.

The neighborhood I moved from 2 years ago was littered with sports stars (basketball, wrestling, baseball, football, etc.), coaches, nationally very well knowns politicians, and "rich" folks that had a lot more money than all the others I just mentioned. B)

In the 7 years I lived there, and the 20 years my parents have lived there, not a single one has been "accused" of sexual assault.

Maybe it's time to change the crowd you hang out with, or at least they should pick a different type of woman to have "consensual" sex with. :zoinks:

One must tread lightly when speaking on the subject of rape with those who have been raped. Me thinks!!!

I like most men will never know (Hopefully) how it feels to be raped. (Voodooman is an exception of course!!!) Gotcha cuz

I as a man can do only a few things:
1) NOT RAPE ANYONE.
2) Make sure those around me are safe from rape to the best of my ability.
3) If someone close to me gets raped, I can kill or mame the MFer who did it. (This carries penalties of course)

The only other thing I'm sayin' is:
OK, you get the girl to sign the contract stating she is of willing mind and body to partake in some carnal knowledge.
The legal document acknowledges she has not been impared by any intoxicants of any kind.
You have two witnesses sign the legal document prior to startin' the fuckin' and suckin'.

You both fuck like rabits all night to mutual delight.

Later for whatever reason.............................
In the court room afterwards the signed and witnessed legal document described above is negated by the fact that the girl says she said "NO" in the middle of the sexual act.

NUFF SAID!!! :huh:

I'm not going to argue this. it's something too emotional for people to consider it rationally.

my only point was that if you create an agreement to perform act x with somebody, you cant then turn around and scream that cancelling act x half way through the job is the same as the guy forcing act x on you in the beginning..

again, not saying it's ok to continue after a "no", just saying that rape is used to define a sex act that is forced from the beginning.

to me this is more akin to a breech of contract... sexual assault maybe... rape? no.

[quote]Originally posted by Peaches@Jul 30 2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf,Jul 30 2003, 10:32 PM Maybe it's time to change the crowd you hang out with, or at least they should pick a different type of woman to have "consensual" sex with. :zoinks:

Look Peaches, what you see and what i see are two different things. You see trees, grass and kids and I see nightclubs, awards shows and groupies. 2 different worlds even from your old neighborhood. Am I concerned about who I hang out with, no not at all. The female predators come with the package.

Pick a different type of woman? hahahaha! The wife in most cases is nothing like the women that are served up on a platter on a daily basis. I don't think many guys would turn down these women. We are talking about the hottest of the hot. You can only be so careful.

And before you say what I know is on your mind... do I think the cheating is right? No, but it happens, often. It's just something that comes with the territory.

And per you, these women file false sexual assault charges....looks like when you play with "hot", you get burned. B)

Not being emotional....I thought I was rather rational actually....lol.

So you agree that a 'wrong' has been commited, even if you don't believe it should be labelled 'rape'. Good to see.

And per you, these women file false sexual assault charges....looks like when you play with "hot", you get burned. B)[/b][/quote]
I can't argue there. :P

And per you, these women file false sexual assault charges....looks like when you play with "hot", you get burned. B)[/b][/quote]
LOLOL! But Peaches...it comes with the territory remember? :rolleyes:

I suppose knowing these 'hottest of the hot' women are only looking for money couldn't possibly mean they might try to pull stunts like that. Naaaaaah, couldn't be!

It doesn't make it right, ladies.

Can't argue with that either. :P

My whole point is that these types of cases do not represent the majority. The law must look at the big picture and protect as many people as possible.

And that's a fact jack. :awinky:

In conjunction with other things 'suck it bitch' is definately foreplay.
I guess it depends on what else your doin' at the time, huh?[/b][/quote]
LOL

ok, you have a point there

i should clarify: 'suck it bitch' isn't foreplay on its own LOL

Posts: 2000

ok time for another tshirt ...
is there a new shirt for this internext? need 1 for the collection

:D

LOL

ok, you have a point there

i should clarify: 'suck it bitch' isn't foreplay on its own LOL[/b][/quote]
GNYUCK, GNYUCK, GNYUCK. >;-)) LOL :zoinks:

Hmmm... and you choose to associate with these women solely on their looks - and I guess they're there solely for the $
guess you don't need to think really hard about why those situations you described happen


Back to topic - I can't with the exception of incidentally/accidentally causing discomfort/pain imagine a woman asking a man to stop (unless she's a total headcase and you don't know it beforehand)

Sex is really about passion (which I recognize as the finest emotion) and if you're that passionate/worked up about it I don't see/hear stop going on EDIT - actually quite the opposite

I think Hooper has a very good point with
Difference between rape and sexual assault



Last edited by Vick at Jul 30 2003, 11:12 PM

Well, I'll tell you what. I will not only concede that you are much more of a playa than me, I'll even throw in your dick is bigger. Somehow, I suspect you would find that important.

That being said, none of the "basic rich people" (including professional athletes) I have known have ever been accused of rape - falsely or otherwise. And my range of acquaintences would suprise some folks - although they are admitedly short on professional basketball players.

IMHO, for every false accusation of rape by a money-grubbing groupie out to scam somebody, you've got ninety-nine prima-donnas who regard women as objects, cannot possibly conceive of the idea that someone would say no to them, or flat out don't care because daddy (or daddy's brewery, their agent, their business manager, or ???) will bail them out of it.

I step out for a drink and come back to this. :rolleyes:

Yes, compared to you I guess I might be a 'playa' and my cock is probably bigger. I don't think that's important but I know quite a few women who do.

That said, I will agree that most of these guys are primadonnas. I have never seen any of these guys force a woman to do much of anything. I've seen tons of women get sent out of a room because aren't doing anything but that's as far as it's gone. The thing is, these guys know as soon as one gets sent out another one will takes her place. Instead of raping someone they are more likely to pay a prostitute which they do quite often believe it or not. The reason being, it's hard for a woman to try to set you up if she accepted money. $200-$3,500 is well worth it considering the things at stake.

And, no, none of the guys that I know do things because someone will bail them out. That's a different mentality that's kind of reserved for rich ivy league spoiled boys than entertainment and sports folk.


Enough said abut that.


Do you think that will ever happen? I don't. I see this issue remaining like it is. Men are guilty when this goes to court unless some kind of highly obvious evidence comes along. If it's a her word against his she will win everytime and no matter what the actual crime, sexual assault won't be the title, it will always be called rape if the woman says it is.

Is this as big of a problem in other countries?

The statistics I posted paint quite a different picture:

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.

If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.

If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 6% of rapists—1 out of 16— will ever spend a day in jail. 15 out of 16 will walk free.

[Probability statistics compiled by NCPA from US Department of Justice statistics. See www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html]

Hmm... I guess there's no real way of deciding what's going on without sitting in every courtroom and eyeballing the perp and the victims.

More women need to report the crime. It sounds like the ones that don't report it are the ones who it has happened to without a doubt and need to bring the guy to justice (or something). I still think justice is best served by male members of the females family. :ph34r:

I don't say this often but .. you're an idiot.

I don't say this often but .. you're an idiot.[/b][/quote]
I'll second that
But then again I have a gift for the obvious

Edit -
You know its kinda hard just to get along today
Our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
He may not have a clue, and he may not have style
But everything he lacks, well he makes up in denial

So don't debate, a player straight
You know he really doesn't get it anyway
Gonna play the field, and keep it real
For you no way, for you no way
So if you don't rate, just overcompensate
At least you'll know you can always go on Ricki Lake
The world needs wannabes

Now he's getting a tattoo yeah, he's getting ink done
He asked for a 13, but they drew a 31
Friends say he's trying too hard and he's not quite hip
But in his own mind he's the, he's the dopest trip

So if you don't rate, just overcompensate
At least you'll know you can always go on Ricki Lake
The world needs wannabes
The world loves wannabes
Let's get some more wannabes
Hey, hey, do that brand new thing!







Last edited by Vick at Jul 31 2003, 01:29 PM

It's really easy for people to sit back and say "women should report it". Or, say "let the law handle it". You see so many victims out there that people look at them like it's thier fault, they shouldn't have worn this, or they shouldn't have said that... It's embarrassing, humiliating and feels like being victimized all over again, especially when the perp walks!

So tell me, if you were just leaning over a table, minding your own business, and this huge ogre looking dyke bitch shoved what feels like a 2 litter bottle up your ass, would you report it?

Perhaps you would, I don't know. But, I am sure you would be reluctant.

what is the necessity of this law?
why is it needed?

You really are a piece of work....

You obviously don't consider the statistics above relevent....sad.

I understand your experience in the past has jaded you.....but what you are missing is that those cases are not the norm.

Based on the statistics above.....Would you be so willing to report it when there is a 50/50 chance that the perp will even be arrested? Would you be so willing to go through the hell of reliving the nightmare in court when there is only a 17% chance the perp will end up in jail?

These stats show there no motivation for victims to report these crimes.

Maybe this new law will help change these statistics in the future, thus empowering women and giving them some hope that justice will be served.

I would say it removes some of the gray area.

coming in late on this topic but a few thoughts come to mind.

Pornwolf... if your sister or wife was raped or just having cheating sex which you say is okay to you... and wanted the guy to stop and he wouldnt (like cj said the condom broke and she didnt want to be pregnant with his child) would you be so reluctant to believe that she wanted him to stop and he said FU bitch I am already started?

Of course there is grey areas... somehow I doubt that the heat on a famous person or sports person is going to be any greater because of this new part of the rule. Kobe looks very innocent, sad and in the very least sorry (if he even did do this) We cant sit in judgement on a publicized case there is no way.

There was a much publicized case in my city of a man who came home drunk to his wife... they fought and his way of winning the arguement was to stick a broom handle up her ass and another handle in her pussy while she was restrained on the floor. I imagine she said no. Then he pulled out one of those and fucked her. I imagine she was still saying no.

I suppose that because she was married to him and she often had consentual sex with him that he had the right to treat her that way? Even if all he did was fuck her when they were arguing and she said no. Thats rape. Sorry.

The media that reported on the case said that the man repeatedly said he did this and made comments like "just send me to jail already" in a whinny voice meant to make her feel sorry for him (obvious emotional manipulation) AND better still all of his family screamed and shouted to her about how she was ruining so many lives. Right. The man had nothing to do with any of it LMAO

You see there is always two sides to a story. These family members actually stood up for this man. They thought she should have dealt with this another way so that he would not have to go to jail. I wonder... maybe she should have killed him? Maybe the family would feel better then.

/end sarcasm and disappointment

What a horrendous case Susanna....sigh.

There was a random attack case here in Vancouver where 4 teenagers attacked a lady while she was taking out her garbage. Each of them had their turn with her.

Turns out.....she had AIDS. Now THAT is the most ironic form of payback I've seen yet.....

I would say it removes some of the gray area.[/b][/quote]
i think there are different ways to look at this issue. basically, i did not go read the law as it is written, nor did i look up the legal definitions of "rape" in the state of illinois.

but it seems to me on the surface that this law creates a HUGE gray area. we can have sex, it can be consensual, we can have fun... and after the fact, you can say "i said no" right before he climaxed and he pumped me a few more times... and thats rape.

what can be more gray than that? no struggle? no evidence of rape? not only that but we are talking about consensual sex taking place. what does does it mean to "change your mind"? what is the code word where each party knows it just went from screwing their brains out and having a good time to "rape"?

if a guy and girl are shitfaced and their are screwing thier brains out and its totally consensual... and the girl says half heartedly "i changed my mind" - thats rape?

what is scary about something like this is that there seems to be no burden of proof. it does not add clarity to anything that i can see. it creates a nightmarish gray area on top of what already is often a pretty questionable situation.

i think there are different ways to look at this issue. basically, i did not go read the law as it is written, nor did i look up the legal definitions of "rape" in the state of illinois.

but it seems to me on the surface that this law creates a HUGE gray area. we can have sex, it can be consensual, we can have fun... and after the fact, you can say "i said no" right before he climaxed and he pumped me a few more times... and thats rape.

what can be more gray than that? no struggle? no evidence of rape? not only that but we are talking about consensual sex taking place. what does does it mean to "change your mind"? what is the code word where each party knows it just went from screwing their brains out and having a good time to "rape"?

if a guy and girl are shitfaced and their are screwing thier brains out and its totally consensual... and the girl says half heartedly "i changed my mind" - thats rape?

what is scary about something like this is that there seems to be no burden of proof. it does not add clarity to anything that i can see. it creates a nightmarish gray area on top of what already is often a pretty questionable situation.[/b][/quote]
I agree. I think there are different ways of looking at this situation.

What you have outlined here, IMO, is NOT what this law refers to.

I believe it clears up the gray in a very common area of rape cases.....date rape.

There are many cases where the courts throw out a case because the girl initial agreed to have sex, but during sex, something turned sour and she ultimately decided it was in her best interest to stop.

The guy pleads with his jury that she initiated the sex, and that she even invited him into her house.

The juries were finding that because she initially agreed, or even initiated the sex it can't be rape.

Cases where I think this law would be beneficial to apply are cases where, as cj mentions, a condom breaks, or maybe the guy has some fetish that he doesn't reveal until they are heavy into it and she doesn't agree. Cases where the bar is raised from regular sex to say anal sex without the girl agreeing etc etc.

This is where I think the gray clears up.

It's funny, the men posting here seem to have the view that women are these conniving bitches who will use this law to 'get back' at men. This is the only argument I have seen against this new law....a fallacy based on a minute percentage of cases. :(

It goes without saying this does happen, and it's pathetic and sad.....however, as I've said, it is NOT the norm.....further, the law is there to protect the largest part of the population...in this case, rape victims.

I'd love to find some statistics that show how many reported rape cases were proven to actually be women with a vengance or a mission.....I'd fair to say the percentage would be relatively low compare to all the cases that are legitimate....and further, the cases that are not even reported.

No, gigi ... pornwolf at least seems to assure us that only POOR men rape women, and only rich men are the victims of "women [who] are ... conniving bitches who will use this law to 'get back' at men." :rolleyes:

JR, I don't agree with your point about this "creating" a gray area. The gray area has existed forever, and this law attempts to eliminate at least part of it by taking a way the "well, she said yes first" defense.

Geez, I almost wrote a book when all I really wanted to say was what you said here in 2 sentences...lolol. :P

of course that's not going to be able to be proven in a court of law, so no, that case would probably get dismissed.

if the girl had bruises, scratches, pulled out hair, was bleeding etc, because she struggled (making the sex act a violent act without consent - legally defined as rape) then this would start to form a case.

but no matter how many laws like this are brought in to try to protect women, the burden of proof still lies with the victim to 'prove' the act became non-consensual. She has to convince the jury she isn't a slut, explain her relationship with the victim, describe the consensual sex act, and convincingly explain to a mixed jury why she changed her mind or what made the act become non-consensual ...

even after going through this process ... well look at the stats gigi posted.



of course not, she would get slaughtered by a jury and/or a defense lawyer.

not at all, the burden of proof has ALWAYS been with the woman. Pornwolf made a few comments that i couldn't even be bothered scrolling backwards to copy regarding how women always get their way - i'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what kind of lifestyle one must be living to truly believe that.

some really good posts in this thread

Well, perhaps it's just that he's young at heart - some attitudes remain that kinda remind me of locker room about chicks in high school.

You guys/girls reactions to my comments are almost as bad as the TGP kids when spam is mentioned. I did not say all cases were unfounded, just some are, as all of you agree. What I did say, and I mean wholeheartedly, is a way higher percentage of cases involving wealthier people are unfounded.

If it were my sisters in a rape situation I would still look at the facts and the person and look deep into their eyes. The truth would be apparent and it would be handled accordingly. If it was the guys fault he would be handled without legal interference.

It's hard to have these conversations much like religious and political conversations.

Oh, real nice Colin, thanks for your support.



Last edited by Pornwolf at Aug 1 2003, 03:04 PM

Uh ... maybe the reaction you are getting to your comments has more to do with WHAT YOU ARE SAYING rather than the audience you are saying it to. I think your premise - that a higher percentage of cases involving wealthy people are unfounded - is bullshit. There are a lot more things involved in "class" than the amount of money in a wallet, bank account, trust fund or portfolio - and true class don't follow socioeconomic lines at all. So for every gold digger that your friends have encounterd I'm quite sure there are MORE self-centered little pricks who have difficulty believeing that anyone could possibly be serious when they are saying NO to them.

BTW ... if, in fact, you are familiar with several of these cases, then you or your friends need to take a SERIOUS look at the kind of people you are running around with.