New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe

Tar.Aldarion · 16-04-2010 03:02AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

That is just simply not true, I honestly cannot believe the amount of people in agreement with some of the nonsense be spouted on this thread.

First of all, when you say: "Of course she is..", you are dismissing 10% of rape victims which are men.

Secondly, even if you said: "Of course they are in fear of their lives.."

That would imply that you are talking about strangers who rape their victims.

Did you know that only 2% of rape victims are actually raped by strangers?

Did you know that 98% of rape victims actually know the rapist?

So, how many victims are afraid that their husbands or their boyfriends or even one of their close friends are going to kill them?

I wouldn't say too many.

I would say acquaintances and ex-boyfriends would be the highest, as one being not too well known and the other holding somewhat of a grudge.

So, to say or imply that ALL rape victims are in fear of there lives is rubbish. The vast majority know they are being raped and that is all.

If they then kill that person raping them, it is to stop a rape and nothing more.

This is why I believe that MURDER is not a proportionate response to a non-violent rape.

Just because a man or woman refuses to take no for an answer, does not mean he or she deserves to be murdered.

We have a court system to decide what should happen after that.

Your honour, I maintain that Jenny should not have killed billy whilst he raped her...for in fact, like 98% of all rape victims..she knew billly.

*court goes silent*

In fact, they had previously gone bowling together... and she therefore knew he would not kill her!

*jury makes shocked noises*

Threw away the key on poor Jenny they did.

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 03:07AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Your honour, I maintain that Jenny should not have killed billy whilst he raped her...for in fact, like 98% of all rape victims..she knew billly.

*court goes silent*

In fact, they had previously gone bowling together... and she therefore knew he would not kill her!

*jury makes shocked noises*

Threw away the key on poor Jenny they did.

This Jenny one sounds kinda cute, you know what prison she's been held at?

I may visit :cool:

K-9 · 16-04-2010 03:15AM

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Your honour, I maintain that Jenny should not have killed billy whilst he raped her...for in fact, like 98% of all rape victims..she knew billly.

*court goes silent*

In fact, they had previously gone bowling together... and she therefore knew he would not kill her!

*jury makes shocked noises*

Threw away the key on poor Jenny they did.

Channel 4 did a docudrama on a rape trial a couple of years ago.
The females members of the jury where far more damning on the "she knew him before line or what was was she going to his room?" part.

In my experience women are far more likely to question the victim.

minidazzler · 16-04-2010 06:04AM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

I couldn't even read most of this thread, got through like 2 pages, alot of it of Pete's typical posting. The situation is "this" exactly there can be no variation.

Yes, this device is barbaric, but so is rape, barbary begets barbary I think.

As for a rape victim killing her attacker in self defence, yeah, perfectly OK TBH. That's why they call it self-defence, it is not murder.

In fact, I am quite a fan of the death penalty for these types of crimes.

RapeAxe, every woman should have one.

And finally. Since rape-axe is dildo shaped, can a woman have an orgasm while just walking around wearing it? Or is it soft?

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 09:46AM

minidazzler wrote: »

Pete's typical posting.

Minidazzler in 'missing the point' shocker.

minidazzler wrote: »

The situation is "this" exactly there can be no variation.

That couldn't be any further from my stance actually, but good try at a summation.

I understand you wanting to jump in with everyone else and get the boot into Pete though - but next time actually read my posts and you won't make such a silly comment that implies my stance was that there could be "no variation".

I gave plenty of different situations where a woman or a man ,would be quite well in her rights to murder her attacker.

Communicationb · 16-04-2010 09:50AM

You would need to live in a seriously dodgy neighbourhood to be heading out on a Saturday night with that in place...:eek:

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 09:55AM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

This is all a pointless argument anyway as it such a rare occurrence that someone is murdered while attempting to rape someone.

I guess the victims must feel as I do, that it would be an inappropriate response, otherwise there would be thousands of such cases.

Considering the number of rapes worldwide each year.

This is by far the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard in my entire life. Words fail me to describe how reprehensible an attitude this is. I doubt very much any VICTIM thought to themselves, ah well, it's a good old raping for me so, i can't be entirely sure my escape method is non lethal. What a pile of bollox

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as far as im concerned it's sick and displays a total perversion of any shape or form morality or conscience. The rapist has no rights, they opt out of their contract to be treated fairly when they decide to force themselves on another person, man, woman or child, their right to life or health in no way supercedes the victims right to end their ordeal. I'm disgusted that anyone would argue it does. Also your bulls'hit statistics regarding victims being killed and imaginary difference between voilent stranger rapists and friendly boyfriend date rapists is absolutely sickening.

In case i wasn't clear enough - your attitude turns my stomach

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 10:15AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This is by far the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard in my entire life. Words fail me to describe how reprehensible an attitude this is. I doubt very much any VICTIM thought to themselves, ah well, it's a good old raping for me so, i can't be entirely sure my escape method is non lethal. What a pile of bollox

I was slighty kidding at that point last night as people kept on asking me the same questions over and over and I had had enough.

However, in saying that.

Take a country like the USA where guns are everywhere, you can buy one as simple as you rent a DVD. They have more guns per head than any other country worldwide. More people carry guns, more have them their homes, cars etc

Rape is also very high in the states, yet I can never remember a man being shot while raping a woman. Many where guys came back and tried to rape a woman again or threatened family members or indeed had weapons themselves.

So, why are all these gun holders not killing their attackers?

It is my opinion that does not happen as it would be an inappropriate and disproportionate response.

I feel if some woman in America, is with her partner (the vast majority of rapists seemingly being boyfriends / husbands) and he starts to force himself on her sexually, she is not going to reach for her gun, she is far more likely to reach for a bedside lamp or an ashtray even if her gun is there.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as far as im concerned it's sick and displays a total perversion of any shape or form morality or conscience.

And I feel your opinion of my stance is quite sick tbh.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The rapist has no rights, they opt out of their contract to be treated fairly when they decide to force themselves on another person, man, woman or child, their right to life or health in no way supercedes the victims right to end their ordeal.

Really, so your stance is that if a woman or man starts to force himself sexually on their partner, killing them is fine?

Ha, and you say my opinion is "sick" and "displays no shape or form morality or conscience"

Maybe we should just execute all men and women charged with rape then.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In case i wasn't clear enough - your attitude turns my stomach

And yours turns mine.

Someone forces themselves on their partner - your response - KILL THEM!!!

Yeah, pretty stomach churning stuff.

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 10:37AM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

So, why are all these gun holders not killing their attackers?

It is my opinion that does not happen as it would be an inappropriate and disproportionate response.

.

At a guess Pete, i'd say fear, or a simple inability to react due to the sheer horror of the situation that is being FORCED upon them. We all say if i was mugged i'd do this, or if someone broke into my house i'd do that, but the simple reality is most people just freeze, and that's just being robbed. I couldn't beging to imagine what a rape victim must feel like. But i would say with 100% certainty that their thoughts are not for the safety of their attacker, only a f'ucking idiot would think that. You seem to have some idea in your head that there is such a thing as a gentle rape, ie the boyfriend not taking no for an answer or whatever, that's ****ing nonsense, and also that the victim should somehow prioritise the rights of the scumbag who's attacking them. That's even worse nonsense

If the boyfriend wont take no for an answer, that is no different from a stranger who won't take no for an answer. The answer was no in both cases. No one has a right to anothers body, there are no exceptions to this, none, not ever.

No one considers f'ucking crime statistics while they are being attacked, it is totally ridiculous for anyone to suggest they should. Everyones priority is to protect themself, their families, their home and so on. If someone breaks into your house at 3 in the morning, carrying a knife, and you find them the first thing that pops into your head is unlikely to be, in 95% of cases he's only looking for my f'ucking car keys and money. Are you honestly suggesting this s'hite??

If someone is being raped, anything, absolutely anything they do to stop that is perfectly fine in my book. There is no situation, under any circumstance, whereby any human being should have to endure that so as not to violate the rapists human rights, and frankly i would be extremely weary of anybody who would be even remotely concerned for the rapist in such a situation. There is something seriously f'ucking wrong with anyone who does as far as im concerned.

--LOS-- · 16-04-2010 10:57AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

At a guess Pete, i'd say fear, or a simple inability to react due to the sheer horror of the situation that is being FORCED upon them. We all say if i was mugged i'd do this, or if someone broke into my house i'd do that, but the simple reality is most people just freeze, and that's just being robbed. I couldn't beging to imagine what a rape victim must feel like. But i would say with 100% certainty that their thoughts are not for the safety of their attacker, only a f'ucking idiot would think that.

No, their thoughts are with trying to escape NOT murdering the person for the sheer fact that they are attempting to rape someone which is weirdly the view of a lot people here especially early on in thread if you care to read back. That is different than someone ending up dead as a last resort.

I think you are missing this point, people on here have suggested an indisputable entitlement to the attackers life, even killing them after the fact or as a means to "prevent" the attack.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If the boyfriend wont take no for an answer, that is no different from a stranger who won't take no for an answer. The answer was no in both cases. No one has a right to anothers body, there are no exceptions to this, none, not ever.

And don't forget false accusations of rape are rampant and some peoples definition of attempted rape is extremely distorted.

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 11:00AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

only a f'ucking idiot would think that.

Appreciate it if you would stick to attacking the content of my post and not me, cheers.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You seem to have some idea in your head that there is such a thing as a gentle rape...

Keyword there being "seem".

I don't as it goes.

I just realise that not all rape justifies killing the rapist.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No one considers f'ucking crime statistics while they are being attacked..

No crash victims think about crash statistics before they crash, but I think you'll find that they apply to them nonetheless.

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 11:45AM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Appreciate it if you would stick to attacking the content of my post and not me, cheers.

No crash victims think about crash statistics before they crash, but I think you'll find that they apply to them nonetheless.

I am attacking the content of your post, it's f'ucking idiotic. The crash victims thing is completely irrelevant, of course the statistics apply, i never said they didn't. What i said is only a fool would expect someone to consider them whilst being raped. Statistics mean nothing when applied to individuals, and less than nothing in your particular ridiculous example. As Jimmy Carr said "statistically speaking 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape" Difference is, i'm sure Jimmy doesn't moralise based on it! That would be the mistake you're making and that's why your opinion and your posts are idiotic.

Even assuming some, unbeleivably calm rape victim was to consider these stats of yours, you claim something like 0.2% of rapes end in murder, why should any innocent person be forced to live with those odds to safeguard the health and safety of some scumbag who is actually raping them? I find it absolutely disgusting for you to suggest they should, for any reason, much less to protect the f'ucking rapist.

I think your moral compass needs a squirt of WD40 or something, cos from where i'm looking it's stuck in a s'hitty, s'hitty place!

--LOS-- · 16-04-2010 11:48AM

In relation to the last comment I made, maybe some people should have a look at this; video of Ulrika Jonsson describing being "raped"

sorry about the awkwardness of the links and the celebrity status of the case but this just sprang to mind after seeing it on tv a while back.

Skip to 7.16 in first video.

.....continues a little bit into this video:

She admits herself she was happy to go along with the kissing etc at the start, she says she didn't feel like she was being raped at the time and she says she doesn't think he realised what he had done.

Her description of being raped is laughable really, she was 19 at the time, not a young child and had been sexually active for a year and a half.

She's just offloading her insecurities about not being assertive onto a rape accusation. Suppose this means the guy should have died??

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 11:59AM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

--LOS-- wrote: »

No, their thoughts are with trying to escape NOT murdering the person for the sheer fact that they are attempting to rape someone which is weirdly the view of a lot people here especially early on in thread if you care to read back. That is different than someone ending up dead as a last resort.
.

In my opinion, if someone is trying to escape or prevent a rape, any and all means are justified. It is bulls'hit to expect any person to suffer rape for the sake of the rapist. Total bulls'hit.

We are all well aware that different people react differently to situations, particularly sexual situations, but it is a golden rule that if one party says no, then no it is. It does not matter one iota if the other party feels they are being unreasonable, or being a tease, or it's their girlfriend or anything else. It is a black and white isssue, consent or no consent.

We have all chanced our arm after getting an initial brush off, but that is very different from making someone fear they are about to be raped. We are all well aware of where the line is that should not be crossed. If this line is crossed then bad things are going to happen and i know for an absolute certainty which party i would rather they happened too, in every single case without exception.

The victim is who is important, to the ABSOLUTE EXCLUSION of any rights of the attacker.

Edit: Sorry i'm in work at the moment, have no sound, so can't really comment on the video

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 12:05PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I am attacking the content of your post, it's f'ucking idiotic.

There is a difference between saying what somebody posted was idiotic and saying "only a fucking idiot would think that".

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I The crash victims thing is completely irrelevant, of course the statistics apply, i never said they didn't.

Just like I never said a rape victim thinks about statistics while being raped.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What i said is only a fool would expect someone to consider them whilst being raped.

Nope, "only a ****ing idiot" where your words.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Statistics mean nothing when applied to individuals..

I'll tell that to my car insurance company, see what they say.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Even assuming some, unbeleivably calm rape victim was to consider these stats of yours

Eh, I never said that people being raped considered stats.

Your comments are boorish.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

you claim something like 0.2% of rapes end in murder, why should any innocent person be forced to live with those odds ...

A percentage of people who get mugged, burgled, assaulted etc etc end up dead by the end of the ordeal. So maybe people should just kill all muggers, burglars and everyone that hits someone a punch, just in case they themselves end up dead.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I find it absolutely disgusting for you to suggest they should, for any reason, much less to protect the f'ucking rapist.

So the penalty for rape in your eyes in execution.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think your moral compass needs a squirt of WD40 or something, cos from where i'm looking it's stuck in a s'hitty, s'hitty place!

I'm glad you think my moral compass is skewed, I'd be worried about my thinking if you didn't. Your trivialising of killing another human is quite worrying, even if they are forcing themselves sexually on another person.

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 12:07PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

From your description it does sound a bit dodgy. My understanding of rape is, person A says no, person B goes on regardless. How could you possibly do that without realising?

--LOS-- · 16-04-2010 12:11PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In my opinion, if someone is trying to escape or prevent a rape, any and all means are justified. It is bulls'hit to expect any person to suffer rape for the sake of the rapist. Total bulls'hit.

nobody is suggesting that. I don't feel the need to reiterate what I already said, you can reread if it hasn't gone in.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We are all well aware that different people react differently to situations, particularly sexual situations, but it is a golden rule that if one party says no, then no it is.

Ulrika didn't say no

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It does not matter one iota if the other party feels they are being unreasonable, or being a tease, or it's their girlfriend or anything else. It is a black and white isssue, consent or no consent.

It is unfortunately far from a black and white issue as the case in the video above demonstrates. Do you think she should have killed that man?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The victim is who is important, to the ABSOLUTE EXCLUSION of any rights of the attacker.

Again, murky water there, would you apply the term "victim" to the case above?

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 12:27PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

Pete, i can only imagine you are being deliberately pedantic here.
If you believe a certain opinion is idiotic, that is the same as saying only and idiot would think it, what's the problem there?

Do i think the penalty for rape should be death? No, for the simple reason of miscarriages of justice, false accusations etc.

But i do believe that any person, is fully entitled to do anything within their power to protect themselves from any violent attacker, be that a rapist, a mugger or whatever. If some f'ucker is trying to drag me down a dark alley, i don't know if he's trying to rape me, rob me or whatever, all i know is he has not got my best interests at heart and in fear for my own life, safety, anal virginity or whatever else, i am going to do everything and anything i can to stop him, without the slightest regard for the consequences to him. If all i have is my hands i'll use them, if i find a bar, bottle, knife, or a f'ucking chainsaw, then thats what he'll be getting, end of story.
It is patently ridiculous for you to suggest i should behave otherwise, or that anyone should behave otherwise. I do not care what happens to my attacker so long as i get away, if he gets a black eye so be it, if he gets a broken skull, so be it. My conscience will be clear and i will count my lucky stars that i got away and most importantly of all, i know for a fact i can do this from the comfort of the moral high ground, but i SHOULD also be able do do it quite legaly, without fear of any repercusions. I should not EVER have to submit to whatever my attacker has in mind because his right to attack is more valid than my right to defend myself. That is what's right

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 12:29PM

--LOS-- wrote: »

Do you think she should have killed that man?

I don't think she should have killed him ..

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 12:32PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Pete, i can only imagine you are being deliberately pedantic here.

I realise that's all you can imagine, it's getting rather tedious tbh.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do i think the penalty for rape should be death? No ..

Eh, your comments so far would suggest you do.

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 12:35PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

--LOS-- wrote: »

Ulrika didn't say no
It is unfortunately far from a black and white issue as the case in the video above demonstrates. Do you think she should have killed that man?
?

Again, i haven't seen the video, but based on your description, if she didn't say no and he didn't force her, how was she raped?
There is a big difference between regretting a sexual encounter and being raped.

Do i think she should have killed him? Why? Based on what you've said he didn't do anything.

But if she had made it clear she wasn't interested and if he then forced her, then she would have been totally justified in using anything that came to hand and if it killed him, so what. But thats a lot of if's and then's. So in other words "If things were different, things would be different"
What exactly is your point here?

T runner · 16-04-2010 12:39PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

--LOS-- wrote: »

In relation to the last comment I made, maybe some people should have a look at this; video of Ulrika Jonsson describing being "raped"

sorry about the awkwardness of the links and the celebrity status of the case but this just sprang to mind after seeing it on tv a while back.

Skip to 7.16 in first video.

.....continues a little bit into this video:

She admits herself she was happy to go along with the kissing etc at the start, she says she didn't feel like she was being raped at the time and she says she doesn't think he realised what he had done.

Her description of being raped is laughable really, she was 19 at the time, not a young child and had been sexually active for a year and a half.

She's just offloading her insecurities about not being assertive onto a rape accusation. Suppose this means the guy should have died??

Dont be ridiculous. She had to be hospitalised after it. She said he was being aggressive, she said he didnt seem to understand when he was being told NO. He didnt have her consent to have sexual intercourse with her ergo he raped her.

As has been said many people freeze in this situation because, as she pointed out, she thought she trusted this guy.

You seem to think that the definition of a rape is dependent on how the victim fights back. This is not the case.

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 12:41PM

T runner wrote: »

Dont be ridiculous. She had to be hospitalised after it. She said he was being aggressive, she said he didnt seem to understand when he was being told NO. He didnt have her consent to have sexual intercourse with her ergo he raped her.

As has been said many people freeze in this situation because, as she pointed out, she thought she trusted this guy.

You seem to think that the definition of a rape is dependent on how the victim fights back. This is not the case.

So you think she should have killed this guy?

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2010 01:00PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Eh, your comments so far would suggest you do.

My comments suggest, that the victim is worth more than the attacker, in each and every case and should always be the focus of any sympathy. Any rapist that is killed in self defense by a victim or intended victim, got what they deserved and i have no sympathy for them. There are no exceptions.

You, quite incredibly are more concerned with the rapist in some cases, and even argued that "all" he was trying to do is "stick his penis in and out of her"

That is simply disgusting in my opinion.
But you are right on one thing, this is getting tedious and we are going round in circles.

So i'm off on my high horse to get some lunch:D

OutlawPete · 16-04-2010 01:09PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You, quite incredibly are more concerned with the rapist in some cases, and even argued that "all" he was trying to do is "stick his penis in and out of her"

Way to take what I said out of context.

If you take away the fear of death argument, then that is what happens at that moment.

There may be a vast amount of consequences that will live with the victim for the rest of their lives, but right THERE and THEN.

If Ulrika Johnson had of killed that guy, you would approve, that is sick to me.

If the victim legitimately fears for their life because the rapist has broken into their home or dragged them into a park etc etc, then I have no problem with them using ANY force whatsoever.

--LOS-- · 16-04-2010 01:19PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What exactly is your point here?

LOL! My point is this:

--LOS-- wrote: »

No, their thoughts are with trying to escape NOT murdering the person for the sheer fact that they are attempting to rape someone which is weirdly the view of a lot people here especially early on in thread if you care to read back. That is different than someone ending up dead as a last resort.

I think you are missing this point, people on here have suggested an indisputable entitlement to the attackers life, even killing them after the fact or as a means to "prevent" the attack.

And don't forget false accusations of rape are rampant and some peoples definition of attempted rape is extremely distorted.

T runner wrote: »

Dont be ridiculous. She had to be hospitalised after it. She said he was being aggressive, she said he didnt seem to understand when he was being told NO. He didn't have her consent to have sexual intercourse with her ergo he raped her.

hospitalised? that was probably a bit dramatic, guess what, sex hurts if you're not into it

She didn't say no! This would be different if it was an under-age girl, we're talking about an adult here. She may have been naive, stupid, submissive but that's no excuse to wreck his life in the way that she did or even KILL HIM, yes, that's what people on here are suggesting. It was her duty to say no, she didn't, she didn't give him any inclination that she didn't want to partake.

I'm sure he did hurt her since she didn't really want to partake, but how was he supposed to know that, I'm sure she also felt ashamed of herself afterwards but that's not the guys fault, she clearly led him on and didn't set any boundaries, I don't think he was going to stop and ask explicitly for permission do you.

T runner wrote: »

You seem to think that the definition of a rape is dependent on how the victim fights back. This is not the case.

No I don't, I just question the definition of victim.

SV · 16-04-2010 01:23PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

--LOS-- wrote: »

hospitalised? that was probably a bit dramatic, guess what, sex hurts if you're not into it

wow..
you deserve to be hospitalised tbh/

--LOS-- · 16-04-2010 01:25PM

SV wrote: »

wow..
you deserve to be hospitalised tbh/

Girls should take responsibility for themselves, that's all, it's all too easy to shift the blame.

biko · 16-04-2010 01:37PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

SV wrote: »

wow..
you deserve to be hospitalised tbh/

Refrain from comments like these please.

whatever99 · 16-04-2010 02:00PM

I really cannot believe what I'm reading in Outlaw Pete's posts.

1. I would presume when a person is being raped, they're not thinking about future pain, or "I'm gonna kiill this f*cker!". I would say that all they are thinking is "stop, stop, stop". If they don't freeze, and manage to somehow stop the attack through violent means, and that results in the death of the attacker, then so be it.

2. I'm sure that having a penis shoved into you against your will in the THERE and THEN is pretty painful and frightening, so in the THERE and THEN I would think a victim is perfectly justified in using any means possible to stop such an event from happening. You say that that's what's happening in the THERE and THEN - right, that's it, but even if you don't consider the future pain, torment and anguish suffered by the victim, while the attack is happening the victim is already experiencing possibly one of their worst nightmares (as woman, it's certainly one of mine, and I would doubt that I'm alone in this), so physically all that's actually happening is a penis is being shoved into them, but that causes extreme physical pain at the same time, and mental pain in the THERE and THEN. The person is brutalised all throughout the experience, and even if they weren't going to suffer future mental trauma, then I think they are perfectly justified in taking whatever means necessary to stop it.

3. I do not think rapists should be executed as punishment, but if attacking someone results in their death at the hands of their victim, while the victim is defending themselves, then I think that's perfectly ok. If by some terrible chance, someone close to me raped someone and their victim ended up killing them, I don't think I would blame the victim. However, thankfully that scenario is very far removed from the realms of possibility for me, as I don't know anyone who could do such a thing.

Anyway, no matter what way you describe it, it is still one of the most awful things a person can experience, and I really am dumbfounded and quite honestly sick to my stomach reading your posts. They're actually very upsetting to read.

New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe

Comments