Why do some men commit rape?

Tipperary Fairy

newport2 wrote: »

FFS. That's not coercion, that's turning someone on. If Boy A is not horny and Girl B whips her top off, is that coercion? Ridiculous and they'll end up undermining themselves.

I think according to some it would be considered sexual assault.

smash

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

I think according to some it would be considered sexual assault.

She walked in to the bedroom after her shower and dropped her towel... It's sexual assault your honour!

Tipperary Fairy

There was a thread on another forum about flashers and to my surprise the consensus was that flashing is a type of sexual assault.

WinnyThePoo

The Black Oil wrote:

A listener, Paul, sent in a text about how his male friends felt they had been put in a situation where they'd not given consent. Martina Devlin dismissed this as a wind up, telling him to 'behave himself' and 'shame on you, get back to work'.

It's funny after saying 'rape culture blaming victims' she then dismissis a victim due to his gender.

Lemming

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's funny after saying 'rape culture blaming victims' she then dismissis a victim due to his gender.

"Do as I say, not as I do". In short, hypocrisy.

NI24

smash wrote: »

How the????

The girl admitted to investigators that he raped her. She told him no and he penetrated her anyway. She didn't call it rape and she didn't want him charged but if her story is to be believed then that is precisely what happened. And he should be prosecuted for it. If I slap you across the face on a date and you forgive me shortly afterwards, am I no longer a dangerous individual? Even though I just proved that I am violent? The answer is yes I am and I should be prosecuted for assault.

ivytwine wrote: »

The girl stirring **** should be tossed in jail for a long long time.

She should be tossed in jail for reporting a crime? I would also like to know what this friend actually said. I find it interesting that the "journalist" had direct quotes and sources for everything else in the article except the friend. Am I the only one that expects journalists to back up what they say with things like sources and quotes and not supposition on the operation of the friend's mind?

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

The girl admitted to investigators that he raped her. She told him no and he penetrated her anyway. She didn't call it rape and she didn't want him charged but if her story is to be believed then that is precisely what happened. And he should be prosecuted for it. If I slap you across the face on a date and you forgive me shortly afterwards, am I no longer a dangerous individual? Even though I just proved that I am violent? The answer is yes I am and I should be prosecuted for assault.


She should be tossed in jail for reporting a crime? I would also like to know what this friend actually said. I find it interesting that the "journalist" had direct quotes and sources for everything else in the article except the friend. Am I the only one that expects journalists to back up what they say with things like sources and quotes and not supposition on the operation of the friend's mind?

You did read the full report didn't you? Where the alleged victim herself said he didn't rape her? Where the 'no' was because she wasn't on birth control, and he stopped, checked if it was OK if he was using a condom and once this was affirmed by the other party, only then proceeded? Where the other party agrees that they had consensual sex on several occasions in the report?

Lemming

I find it alarming that people are trying to reclassify 'flashing' as something other than indecent exposure. It is already covered by specific law, and if that's the case I've been sexually assaulted by men & women throughout the years. Anyone that tries to say that flashing is sexual asault is a f*cktard to be shown about as much contempt and scorn as one can muster. No doubt they'll then try and convince everyone else that said contempt & scorn is mental assault. 'ckin idiots ...

The Masculinist

No means no, until it means yes.

I think there is a line between persuasion (like trying to get a woman you met in a club come back to your place for a one night stand) and forced sex.

It is important that those claiming to be raped are not getting the two mixed up.

BoatMad

The big unfairness , is that charges of rape that are then proven to be not so in a court , should expose the person claiming it to civil liabilities for impuning a persons character . Today simply the claim of rape could ruin a mans life and reputation

The Masculinist

BoatMad wrote: »

The big unfairness , is that charges of rape that are then proven to be not so in a court , should expose the person claiming it to civil liabilities for impuning a persons character . Today simply the claim of rape could ruin a mans life and reputation

Could and has

George Michael

BoatMad wrote: »

The big unfairness , is that charges of rape that are then proven to be not so in a court , should expose the person claiming it to civil liabilities for impuning a persons character . Today simply the claim of rape could ruin a mans life and reputation

just because someone is found not guilty, doesnt mean they didnt do it and likewise just because someone was found guilty, doesnt mean they they do it. the judiciary like any system isnt perfect.

having said that i do think the defendant should be anonymous until a decision is reached. (edit: i mean if he is found not guilty he should remain anonymous and if found guilty, then named)

BoatMad

George Michael wrote: »

just because someone is found not guilty, doesnt mean they didnt do it and likewise just because someone was found guilty, doesnt mean they they do it. the judiciary like any system isnt perfect.

having said that i do think the defendant should be anonymous until a decision is reached. (edit: i mean if he is found not guilty he should remain anonymous and if found guilty, then named)

the law is such that if you are found not guilty then you didnt break the law. what really happened is actually irrelevant , since laws dont cover " what really happened"

and yes anonymity unless guilty actually should be a feature of all court cases in my view

George Michael

BoatMad wrote: »

the law is such that if you are found not guilty then you didnt break the law. what really happened is actually irrelevant , since laws dont cover " what really happened"

and yes anonymity unless guilty actually should be a feature of all court cases in my view

yea i agree. but if you're a man who was falsely accused of some crime (not just rape) and found guilty, you are going to feel hard done by.

the judiciary in ways is a game of chance or high stakes poker. its ones interpretation versus another.

i remember watching making a murderer and one of the lawyers makes a great point. He said one could be the most moral or law abiding person alive, but that doesnt mean someone cant make a claim against you. The moral being you have to be so careful in todays world.

BoatMad

George Michael wrote: »

yea i agree. but if you're a man who was falsely accused of some crime (not just rape) and found guilty, you are going to feel hard done by.

the judiciary in ways is a game of chance or high stakes poker. its ones interpretation versus another.

i remember watching making a murderer and one of the lawyers makes a great point. He said one could be the most moral or law abiding person alive, but that doesnt mean someone cant make a claim against you. The moral being you have to be so careful in todays world.

at least if you are found guilty , bit believe you were wrongly so charged, there are ground for appeals etc.

If you are alleged to have committed a sexual crime ( of any type), the assumption as a man is you are guilty until proven innocent and you life and reputation are ruined.

NI24

tritium wrote: »

You did read the full report didn't you? Where the alleged victim herself said he didn't rape her? Where the 'no' was because she wasn't on birth control, and he stopped, checked if it was OK if he was using a condom and once this was affirmed by the other party, only then proceeded? Where the other party agrees that they had consensual sex on several occasions in the report?

I read it alright. She said no and he penetrated her anyway. She said it herself. Why did he continue when she already said no? Whatever her reason for saying no, he ignored it and penetrated her despite it. What if she said no because she changed her mind about the whole thing and wanted to leave and he ignored it like he did this time. Would that be rape then? People can say no for any reason they feel. Perhaps you should go back and read again.

Also, many women defend their rapists and go back to them repeatedly and other bizarre behavior. Hopefully this experience will teach him not to ignore people when they tell him no. He deserved exactly what he got.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

I read it alright. She said no and he penetrated her anyway. She said it herself. Why did he continue when she already said no? Whatever her reason for saying no, he ignored it and penetrated her despite it. What if she said no because she changed her mind about the whole thing and wanted to leave and he ignored it like he did this time. Would that be rape then? People can say no for any reason they feel. Perhaps you should go back and read again.

Also, many women defend their rapists and go back to them repeatedly and other bizarre behavior. Hopefully this experience will teach him not to ignore people when they tell him no. He deserved exactly what he got.

Ah, so the individual doesn't believe it was rape but godammit theyre just not clued in enough to know what happened to them, so we'll decide after the fact for them. Hell we'll ignore the bits of the story that don't fit that narrative too.

Poor little weak women without agency, thank god we have the college thought police to think for them. Personally I don't think he deserved any of this and I hope he takes the college to the fcuking cleaners (which I suspect might actually happen)

NI24

tritium wrote: »

Ah, so the individual doesn't believe it was rape but godammit theyre just not clued in enough to know what happened to them, so we'll decide after the fact for them. Hell we'll ignore the bits of the story that don't fit that narrative too.

Poor little weak women without agency, thank god we have the college thought police to think for them. Personally I don't think he deserved any of this and I hope he takes the college to the fcuking cleaners (which I suspect might actually happen)

Ah so you're ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit into your poor-men-are- always- being- accused- of- crimes- they- didn't- commit narrative. Let's just hope the next girl he ignores and continues on with actually takes him to court over it. Btw, the narrative is as follows: she says no, he penetrates her anyways, then he stops and asks if he put on a condom would it be okay. The bold part is the most important part of her testimony. I love how you continually ignore the fact that despite her saying NO, he continued on.

And if he does take the college to the cleaners over it and wins, it will just prove how easy it is for men to get away with rape. Assuming, of course, that the woman's testimony was truthful, which you do. The guy explicitly stated that she never said no, while she says she did, so someone isn't telling the truth. And I'm not at all surprised you don't think he deserves any of this-- going by the tone on this forum men can never commit rape in any circumstance whatsoever.

Tipperary Fairy

Could someone link me to the post or story you're all talking about? I've looked back a few pages but can't seem to see it.

Wibbs

NI24 wrote: »

Ah so you're ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit into your poor-men-are- always- being- accused- of- crimes- they- didn't- commit narrative.

Ironic given your consistent narrative of it's-always-the-man's fault-and-women-bear-no-responsibility. Very Victorian altogether. Then again you seem to equate a slap across the face to assault by a "dangerous individual" who needs prosecution, so just a tad melodramatic to boot.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

Ah so you're ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit into your poor-men-are- always- being- accused- of- crimes- they- didn't- commit narrative. Let's just hope the next girl he ignores and continues on with actually takes him to court over it. Btw, the narrative is as follows: she says no, he penetrates her anyways, then he stops and asks if he put on a condom would it be okay. The bold part is the most important part of her testimony. I love how you continually ignore the fact that despite her saying NO, he continued on.

And if he does take the college to the cleaners over it and wins, it will just prove how easy it is for men to get away with rape. Assuming, of course, that the woman's testimony was truthful, which you do. The guy explicitly stated that she never said no, while she says she did, so someone isn't telling the truth. And I'm not at all surprised you don't think he deserves any of this-- going by the tone on this forum men can never commit rape in any circumstance whatsoever.

Funnily enough I would have said the most important part of her testimony was where she (repeatedly) says he didn't rape her. I'm conscious there's a difference in their testimony at the point you highlight- he indicates he stops straight away when asked (actually she also indicates this, the difference is she indicates she'd previously said they couldn't have sex because she didn't have birth control)

Strangely enough, when a person is adamant something didn't happen to them, and there's no indication they've been coerced into that view, I tend to believe them ahead of someone piecing together a story based on selective excerpts of an incomplete narrative.

LostinBlanch

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Could someone link me to the post or story you're all talking about? I've looked back a few pages but can't seem to see it.

Here you go, it's post #167

I just saw this on Reddit.

Basically a guy and girl engage in consensual sex, another girl finds out the next morning and surmises that because they guy is a prominent football player she's been raped and reports that to the University Authorities who then suspended him despite her saying that the sex was consensual.

This is going to a federal law suit. His lawyer states

In the federal lawsuit Neal is suing not only CSU-Pueblo, but also the U.S. Department of Education for its Title IX process.

“CSU-Pueblo has violated my client’s due process rights and engaged in gender discrimination in his wrongful suspension,” said Neal’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg. “There’s a mountain of evidence to prove my client’s relationship with the alleged victim was entirely consensual, including statements from the alleged victim herself.”

__________________

BoatMad

Whats strange is that NI24 seems to contend that if someone decides they were not raped. they should still be prosecution anyway.

Rape is a strange crime , there is little in the way of normal proof , thats exists in other criminal trials, there is typically merely the word of both individuals, there is almost never any third party evidence collaborating , as there would be in other criminal trials.

Consent can be very hard to determine in some cases and can be offered and withdrawn multiple times. Women to some extent , have an " illusion" of the chase " for example

Yes in some cases its clearly a straightforward crime, in some cases it is clearly not

Pawwed Rig

It would seem to me that advice that should be offered to someone who is being raped (from a legal perspective) would be to fight it for all they are worth. This may lead to an increase in violence in the situation but would be more 'provable' where a prosecution was sought. It would also remove all ambiguity from the situation for the perpetrator.
I am curious as to what advice is given. I have never been or heard of anyone getting any guidance. Any other violent assault it would seem obvious to me that you get away if you can, failing that you try to limit the damage to the best of your ability.
Not victim blaming here but genuinely curious as to what I should be telling my kids.

Tipperary Fairy

It seems odd. It says that she told him she didn't want to have sex without contraception and he went ahead anyway. It does say she said she said no. So if it happened in that order, then yeah technically it is kinda rape.

It's odd also that the flatmate decided just from seeing a hickey that she was raped, they have to have left something out there.

NI24

tritium wrote: »

Funnily enough I would have said the most important part of her testimony was where she (repeatedly) says he didn't rape her. I'm conscious there's a difference in their testimony at the point you highlight- he indicates he stops straight away when asked (actually she also indicates this, the difference is she indicates she'd previously said they couldn't have sex because she didn't have birth control)

Strangely enough, when a person is adamant something didn't happen to them, and there's no indication they've been coerced into that view, I tend to believe them ahead of someone piecing together a story based on selective excerpts of an incomplete narrative.

So rape is no longer an action, but a state of mind huh? I think therefore I am. I don't think I was raped, therefore I was not.
So let's take your word for it that what he did was not rape and let's say it happens again. He's with a woman, she tells him no, he proceeds to do whatever the hell he wants anyways --as he did before--only this time the woman gets angry, leaves, and charges him with rape. It's the same exact scenario, the same action, only the reaction is different. So now what tritium? Does a person's reaction only count as proof this time?

BoatMad wrote: »

Whats strange is that NI24 seems to contend that if someone decides they were not raped. they should still be prosecution anyway.

Rape is a strange crime , there is little in the way of normal proof , thats exists in other criminal trials, there is typically merely the word of both individuals, there is almost never any third party evidence collaborating , as there would be in other criminal trials.

Consent can be very hard to determine in some cases and can be offered and withdrawn multiple times. Women to some extent , have an " illusion" of the chase " for example

Yes in some cases its clearly a straightforward crime, in some cases it is clearly not

So body language is enough to exonerate rape, but not enough to accuse? Well, isn't that convenient.

NI24

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

It seems odd. It says that she told him she didn't want to have sex without contraception and he went ahead anyway. It does say she said she said no. So if it happened in that order, then yeah technically it is kinda rape.

It's odd also that the flatmate decided just from seeing a hickey that she was raped, they have to have left something out there.

It's absolutely a big if. According to the article, she said "although I told him no, he ended up penetrating me anyway...and I told him to stop." That ellipse puts a big question mark over what happened. What did she tell investigators in between those statements?

Pat Mustard

Link

Colorado State University-Pueblo suspended a male athlete for years after he was found responsible for sexually assaulting a female trainer. But the trainer never accused him of wrongdoing, and said repeatedly that their relationship was consensual. She even stated, unambiguously, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped."

Says it all, really.

NI24

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Link


Says it all, really.

Not even close Pat. All of those that disagreed with me were hanging their entire argument on what was written in the article and specifically what the girl said. An article that took quotes out of context, that didn't even give a quote to what the third party friend actually said to investigators, and which quoted the girl as saying, "although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me..." and then she asked him to stop and he did so. So she may have said she wasn't raped, but what she told investigators, was, in fact, a rape.

Basically, in order to support their conclusion of his innocence, you went searching for evidence, instead of searching for the evidence and then coming to a conclusion. Also, you think a blog post which, once again, is full of theory and speculation and opinion actually constitutes fact? I'm laughing so hard it hurts.

If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that he was denied his constitutional rights (according to your link) then the entire argument could have ended right then and there. Case closed, nothing to see here. If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that the article left out pertinent parts of the story, such as what occurred between her first no and his penetrating her. If only they came to the conclusion he was innocent because the guy and girl gave conflicting testimony so who can you believe?
But no. First their conclusion was reached, and then they set about finding evidence to reach their conclusion. No bias there I'm sure.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

Not even close Pat. All of those that disagreed with me were hanging their entire argument on what was written in the article and specifically what the girl said. An article that took quotes out of context, that didn't even give a quote to what the third party friend actually said to investigators, and which quoted the girl as saying, "although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me..." and then she asked him to stop and he did so. So she may have said she wasn't raped, but what she told investigators, was, in fact, a rape.

Basically, in order to support their conclusion of his innocence, you went searching for evidence, instead of searching for the evidence and then coming to a conclusion. Also, you think a blog post which, once again, is full of theory and speculation and opinion actually constitutes fact? I'm laughing so hard it hurts.

If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that he was denied his constitutional rights (according to your link) then the entire argument could have ended right then and there. Case closed, nothing to see here. If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that the article left out pertinent parts of the story, such as what occurred between her first no and his penetrating her. If only they came to the conclusion he was innocent because the guy and girl gave conflicting testimony so who can you believe?
But no. First their conclusion was reached, and then they set about finding evidence to reach their conclusion. No bias there I'm sure.

Funnily enough (not really) you've done exactly what you accuse everyone else of and selectively taken quote(s?) From the article to justify your position while conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't support your view.