Topic: Judge lets rapist off scot free.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B started this discussion 15 years ago #5,306
I read a statistic yesterday, a very upsetting and horrible statistic. Every 17 minutes a woman in Canada is raped. That just boggles my itty bitty female mind, it truly does, so I just had to do the math. OMG, that awful statistic translates into 30,917 rapes per year. That is 30,917 times Canadian women are violently attacked and sexually violated every year.
As bad as that number is that is not the worst statistic. It is far worse that nearly 94% of these rapes are not even reported to police. That’s right, 94% of victims even after they’ve been overpowered, threatened, probably beaten and then forcefully penetrated by some loathsome hellbeast refuse to step into the arena of the criminal and justice system in Canada.
I would not be surprised if that number rises to nearly 100% in Manitoba thanks to Queen’s Bench Justice and Major Asshole Robert Dewar.
The Canadian justice system has set three years of incarceration as the starting point for judges in determining sentences for rape and major sexual assault. Three years is the starting point, the minimum, not the cap, and judges can tack on more time if they feel it’s warranted. In my mind more time is always warranted. Let the rapists rot in jail, I say.
As of 2007 Parliament wisely took from judges the power to grant conditional sentences for sexual assault. Why? Probably because of assholes like Robert Dewar. Unhappily, cases dealing with rapes dating back to before 2007 are subject to the old way of doing things.
This brings us to the case of the convicted rapist Kenneth Rhodes. Back in the summer of 2006 Kenneth Rhodes and a pal met up with a couple of women outside a bar. Now his pal and one of the women hit it off really well, so the four of them piled into the women’s car and headed off toward a nearby lake.
Kenneth Rhodes started hitting on his 20-year-old victim, but she spurned him.
“I didn’t like the guy,†she is quoted as saying. “He was beyond creepy, a real pervert.â€
Well the pervert didn’t stop his attentions. He began foisting upon the girl unwanted kisses. Ewww. He pawed her and mauled her and wouldn’t stop. In a panic the girl asked her friend to stop the car and let her out. She didn’t want to be anywhere around that creep. Her clueless/brainless friend obliged and stopped the car on the highway, in the dark, so she could get out. Unfortunately Kenneth Rhodes got out too, and oblivious to the girl’s distress her friend drove off and left them there. Imagine the terror the girl felt, alone, in the dark, with HIM.
The girl feared for her life and she had good reason to do so. The assault was violent. When it was done she was covered with bruises and had been raped and sodomized. She still bears a scar on her knee as a result of the attack.
After the prolonged assault the girl fled from her rapist without her pants, trying to run away through the dark woods. She ultimately had to no choice but to go back to the highway, still without pants, to flag down help from a passing car. Horrifically for her she had to share a ride with her rapist.
And so it came to be that Kenneth Rhodes was convicted of raping the girl. No question that he did it. Guilty, guilty, guilty. But because the crime occurred before 2007, Justice Robert Dewar had the right to impose his own sort of justice in sentencing.
And if you read this official transcript of Kenneth Rhodes’ sentencing hearing (Click Here to view it on Scribd.com), you’ll see that’s exactly what he did. I warn you, by the time you finish reading it, your level of anger may reach dangerous levels.
Justice Robert Dewar decided that the two men meeting up with the two women outside a bar constituted “inviting circumstances.†He noted that the women were wearing tube tops with no bras, high heels and plenty of makeup.
“They made their intentions public known that they wanted to party,†Dewar said. There was “sex in the air†that night, and Dewar gave weight to the convicted rapist’s contention that he thought the woman had consented to sex.
“This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behavior,†Dewar concluded.
Rape and sodomy are inconsiderate behavior? Seriously? Yup, that’s what the man said. Betcha he thinks murder is downright incivility and rudeness.
And not only that, the convicted rapist was in actuality a “clumsy Don Juan†according to asshole Dewar. That’s right, Kenneth Rhodes was being all romantic while he was grinding that girl into the highway, ripping her pants off, shoving his fingers and then his penis into her vagina and anus, ignoring her whimpers of pain.
How was Kenneth Rhodes to know the girl didn’t welcome his advances? I’m sure all his girlfriends ask him if he’s going to kill them while they have sex. I’m sure all his girlfriends try to hide in the woods before and after. I’m sure all his girlfriends wind up with bruises and scarred knees as souvenirs. “Clumsy Don Juan†indeed.
No, according to Robert “Asshole†Dewar poor Kenneth Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing partner.â€
Justice Robert Dewar said, “There is a different quality to this case than many sexual assaults… Not all guilty people are morally culpable to the same level.â€
That’s right, poor Kenneth Rhodes was not morally culpable. The girl was. That nasty slut got him all excited and confused and forced him to believe she wanted sex with him on the highway in the dark. How dare she wear a tube top WITHOUT A BRA! How dare she talk to strange men in a parking lot! How dare she wear too much makeup and high heels! There was “sex in the air†and she damn well knew better than to not deliver!
What did the girl expect anyway? That she could change her mind? Refuse Kenneth Rhodes’ kisses? Deny him full and unfettered access to her vagina and anus?
The prosecutor was seeking a three-year jail term for this convicted rapist, but Justice Dewar decided poor Kenneth Rhodes should be spared jail time.
“Protection of society is not advanced one iota by putting Mr. Rhodes in jail,†Dewar the asshole ruled.
So Kenneth Rhodes got a two-year conditional sentence that allows him to remain free in the community. He’s allowed to go to work and buy groceries, but no booze. Oh, and he has to write a letter of apology to the victim of his “inconsiderate behavior.†And he should attend counseling for sex offenders. Should attend. Not even must attend.
Ooooh, Justice Robert Dewar really gave that convicted rapist what he had coming, right? I’m sure every violent sexual offender in this country will think twice before raping again knowing that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their “inconsiderate behavior.†They don’t even have to write “I will not rape again†a hundred times on the blackboard — instead they get to send their victims a sweet little note saying they’re very, very sorry.
And I’m sure every woman in Canada now knows she doesn’t have to worry about her safety from sexual predators — just so long as she doesn’t wear anything more enticing than a burka… and a parka.
And victims of sexual assault will know better now than to clog up the courts with their nonsense after they’ve enticed these poor rapists into behaving badly. Rapists don’t create victims after all — potential victims create rapists. The moral culpability lies with the woman, everyone knows that. Or at least the judges know that.
Justice Robert Dewar’s decision in this case stirred up a media and public opinion firestorm. He has since been taken off sexual offender cases, and the Canadian Judicial Council is reviewing complaints regarding his conduct. Hopefully he’ll be “retired†from the bench before he does any more damage.
As bad as that number is that is not the worst statistic. It is far worse that nearly 94% of these rapes are not even reported to police. That’s right, 94% of victims even after they’ve been overpowered, threatened, probably beaten and then forcefully penetrated by some loathsome hellbeast refuse to step into the arena of the criminal and justice system in Canada.
I would not be surprised if that number rises to nearly 100% in Manitoba thanks to Queen’s Bench Justice and Major Asshole Robert Dewar.
The Canadian justice system has set three years of incarceration as the starting point for judges in determining sentences for rape and major sexual assault. Three years is the starting point, the minimum, not the cap, and judges can tack on more time if they feel it’s warranted. In my mind more time is always warranted. Let the rapists rot in jail, I say.
As of 2007 Parliament wisely took from judges the power to grant conditional sentences for sexual assault. Why? Probably because of assholes like Robert Dewar. Unhappily, cases dealing with rapes dating back to before 2007 are subject to the old way of doing things.
This brings us to the case of the convicted rapist Kenneth Rhodes. Back in the summer of 2006 Kenneth Rhodes and a pal met up with a couple of women outside a bar. Now his pal and one of the women hit it off really well, so the four of them piled into the women’s car and headed off toward a nearby lake.
Kenneth Rhodes started hitting on his 20-year-old victim, but she spurned him.
“I didn’t like the guy,†she is quoted as saying. “He was beyond creepy, a real pervert.â€
Well the pervert didn’t stop his attentions. He began foisting upon the girl unwanted kisses. Ewww. He pawed her and mauled her and wouldn’t stop. In a panic the girl asked her friend to stop the car and let her out. She didn’t want to be anywhere around that creep. Her clueless/brainless friend obliged and stopped the car on the highway, in the dark, so she could get out. Unfortunately Kenneth Rhodes got out too, and oblivious to the girl’s distress her friend drove off and left them there. Imagine the terror the girl felt, alone, in the dark, with HIM.
The girl feared for her life and she had good reason to do so. The assault was violent. When it was done she was covered with bruises and had been raped and sodomized. She still bears a scar on her knee as a result of the attack.
After the prolonged assault the girl fled from her rapist without her pants, trying to run away through the dark woods. She ultimately had to no choice but to go back to the highway, still without pants, to flag down help from a passing car. Horrifically for her she had to share a ride with her rapist.
And so it came to be that Kenneth Rhodes was convicted of raping the girl. No question that he did it. Guilty, guilty, guilty. But because the crime occurred before 2007, Justice Robert Dewar had the right to impose his own sort of justice in sentencing.
And if you read this official transcript of Kenneth Rhodes’ sentencing hearing (Click Here to view it on Scribd.com), you’ll see that’s exactly what he did. I warn you, by the time you finish reading it, your level of anger may reach dangerous levels.
Justice Robert Dewar decided that the two men meeting up with the two women outside a bar constituted “inviting circumstances.†He noted that the women were wearing tube tops with no bras, high heels and plenty of makeup.
“They made their intentions public known that they wanted to party,†Dewar said. There was “sex in the air†that night, and Dewar gave weight to the convicted rapist’s contention that he thought the woman had consented to sex.
“This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behavior,†Dewar concluded.
Rape and sodomy are inconsiderate behavior? Seriously? Yup, that’s what the man said. Betcha he thinks murder is downright incivility and rudeness.
And not only that, the convicted rapist was in actuality a “clumsy Don Juan†according to asshole Dewar. That’s right, Kenneth Rhodes was being all romantic while he was grinding that girl into the highway, ripping her pants off, shoving his fingers and then his penis into her vagina and anus, ignoring her whimpers of pain.
How was Kenneth Rhodes to know the girl didn’t welcome his advances? I’m sure all his girlfriends ask him if he’s going to kill them while they have sex. I’m sure all his girlfriends try to hide in the woods before and after. I’m sure all his girlfriends wind up with bruises and scarred knees as souvenirs. “Clumsy Don Juan†indeed.
No, according to Robert “Asshole†Dewar poor Kenneth Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing partner.â€
Justice Robert Dewar said, “There is a different quality to this case than many sexual assaults… Not all guilty people are morally culpable to the same level.â€
That’s right, poor Kenneth Rhodes was not morally culpable. The girl was. That nasty slut got him all excited and confused and forced him to believe she wanted sex with him on the highway in the dark. How dare she wear a tube top WITHOUT A BRA! How dare she talk to strange men in a parking lot! How dare she wear too much makeup and high heels! There was “sex in the air†and she damn well knew better than to not deliver!
What did the girl expect anyway? That she could change her mind? Refuse Kenneth Rhodes’ kisses? Deny him full and unfettered access to her vagina and anus?
The prosecutor was seeking a three-year jail term for this convicted rapist, but Justice Dewar decided poor Kenneth Rhodes should be spared jail time.
“Protection of society is not advanced one iota by putting Mr. Rhodes in jail,†Dewar the asshole ruled.
So Kenneth Rhodes got a two-year conditional sentence that allows him to remain free in the community. He’s allowed to go to work and buy groceries, but no booze. Oh, and he has to write a letter of apology to the victim of his “inconsiderate behavior.†And he should attend counseling for sex offenders. Should attend. Not even must attend.
Ooooh, Justice Robert Dewar really gave that convicted rapist what he had coming, right? I’m sure every violent sexual offender in this country will think twice before raping again knowing that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their “inconsiderate behavior.†They don’t even have to write “I will not rape again†a hundred times on the blackboard — instead they get to send their victims a sweet little note saying they’re very, very sorry.
And I’m sure every woman in Canada now knows she doesn’t have to worry about her safety from sexual predators — just so long as she doesn’t wear anything more enticing than a burka… and a parka.
And victims of sexual assault will know better now than to clog up the courts with their nonsense after they’ve enticed these poor rapists into behaving badly. Rapists don’t create victims after all — potential victims create rapists. The moral culpability lies with the woman, everyone knows that. Or at least the judges know that.
Justice Robert Dewar’s decision in this case stirred up a media and public opinion firestorm. He has since been taken off sexual offender cases, and the Canadian Judicial Council is reviewing complaints regarding his conduct. Hopefully he’ll be “retired†from the bench before he does any more damage.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later[^] [v] #93,672
Look at the time!!
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,673
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,674
On the flip side here in the states you can get more prison time for rape than murder, in some cases even if its just statutory rape.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,676
Also this makes great copy pasta.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,681
nobody cares
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,686
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,687
there are no girl furries.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #93,707
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
You'd be surprised... There were two fairly attractive girls in my Web Design and Programming class that were on FurAffinity every day.
You'd be surprised... There were two fairly attractive girls in my Web Design and Programming class that were on FurAffinity every day.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,768
It took forever in USA to start changing the laws. Women are still afraid to report rapes because the system is so hard on them. Many will not even help law enforcement to stop the rapist from doing it to someone else.
The numbers are staggering. Very similar to CP. Very few women rape men but it does happen. Dare I say I was once forced, however its nothing like what women go through.
So to swamplights you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Get politically active. Help change a few of the laws and or get other people that will elected to office. Power to the people is a phrase that has worked in the past eh
The numbers are staggering. Very similar to CP. Very few women rape men but it does happen. Dare I say I was once forced, however its nothing like what women go through.
So to swamplights you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Get politically active. Help change a few of the laws and or get other people that will elected to office. Power to the people is a phrase that has worked in the past eh
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,769
@previous (Syntax)
> Many will not even help law enforcement to stop the rapist [...]
I read that as therapist.
> Many will not even help law enforcement to stop the rapist [...]
I read that as therapist.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,776
@93,768 (Syntax)
I had a male friend who was a football player. At a party he was slipped roofies in his drink by a girl, and blacked out. When he came too, she was riding his erect penis sans condom. He wen't to the police, and they laughed at him.
I had a male friend who was a football player. At a party he was slipped roofies in his drink by a girl, and blacked out. When he came too, she was riding his erect penis sans condom. He wen't to the police, and they laughed at him.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,778
@93,769 (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
Over the years I have met women who never told a sole until they told me. Incest much the same, of course thats rape inside the family.
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
That would mean the drugs knocked him out and made his penis erect. In my case it was a friend. She on ski trip said hey lets share a room. This was after one date months ago where I told her why we could not go beyond one date. Found out she screwed over a good friend of mine and could not see me with her after that one date. I could see no reason to say no to the shared room with two beds. Flew in to Colorado from Santa Monica. Found one bed and hotel had no other choices left.
She made the change on the phone. When she arrived ....anyway I kept saying no . she pushed me down and the damn thing goes erect so story over. I found another hotel to stay at rest of that week. Maybe for me it was an ego thing to get the hell out and the fear of her making up stories to tell to the ski club. Not sure but sure was not happy about that event.
Hummmmmm ski clubs are one great way for those virgin men to connect ...takes some money of course but ski trips where all is fun fun fun and end of day a group is always looking for fun off the snow.
Over the years I have met women who never told a sole until they told me. Incest much the same, of course thats rape inside the family.
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
That would mean the drugs knocked him out and made his penis erect. In my case it was a friend. She on ski trip said hey lets share a room. This was after one date months ago where I told her why we could not go beyond one date. Found out she screwed over a good friend of mine and could not see me with her after that one date. I could see no reason to say no to the shared room with two beds. Flew in to Colorado from Santa Monica. Found one bed and hotel had no other choices left.
She made the change on the phone. When she arrived ....anyway I kept saying no . she pushed me down and the damn thing goes erect so story over. I found another hotel to stay at rest of that week. Maybe for me it was an ego thing to get the hell out and the fear of her making up stories to tell to the ski club. Not sure but sure was not happy about that event.
Hummmmmm ski clubs are one great way for those virgin men to connect ...takes some money of course but ski trips where all is fun fun fun and end of day a group is always looking for fun off the snow.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,781
@previous (Syntax)
My girlfriend was molested by her adoptive brother and mentally, physically, and emotional abused by her adoptive mother. This has negatively effected her life to a large degree.
My girlfriend was molested by her adoptive brother and mentally, physically, and emotional abused by her adoptive mother. This has negatively effected her life to a large degree.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,786
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
yea I know far too many women in her shoes. Fact is for a long time I ended up in too many relationships where women had been abused. I am still attracted to the "hurt" even though I had no surface clue, until deep into the relationship. Still attracted but now only have them as friends. Been years since I have been intimate with a former abused gal.
yea I know far too many women in her shoes. Fact is for a long time I ended up in too many relationships where women had been abused. I am still attracted to the "hurt" even though I had no surface clue, until deep into the relationship. Still attracted but now only have them as friends. Been years since I have been intimate with a former abused gal.
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,797
How do we know that 94% of all rapes are unreported?
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,801
@previous (Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG)
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
About Victims
44% of victims are under age 18
80% are under age 30
Sexual Assault Numbers
Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted
In 2007, there were 248,300 victims of sexual assault
One of many sources and that was the first from Google hit
Reporting to Police
60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police
15 of 16 rapists will never spend a day in jail
Learn more reporting statistics
About Rapists
Approximately 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
About Victims
44% of victims are under age 18
80% are under age 30
Sexual Assault Numbers
Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted
In 2007, there were 248,300 victims of sexual assault
One of many sources and that was the first from Google hit
Reporting to Police
60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police
15 of 16 rapists will never spend a day in jail
Learn more reporting statistics
About Rapists
Approximately 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,814
@previous (Syntax)
Your source claims that 60% of all sexual assaults are not reported to the police.
Your source claims that 60% of all sexual assaults are not reported to the police.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,818
@previous (Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG)
OK So you want new numbers? How about from UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4452962.stm
between 80% and 90% rapes went unreported, which meant police had a "substantial intelligence gap" as they could not assess the true pattern of offending.
Only about 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction.
OK So you want new numbers? How about from UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4452962.stm
between 80% and 90% rapes went unreported, which meant police had a "substantial intelligence gap" as they could not assess the true pattern of offending.
Only about 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction.
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,823
@previous (Syntax)
I would not swear by the statement of one man, as some law enforcement personnel claim that fraudulent reporting is also an issue. In either case, I would need to see a detailed breakdown of the sources and methodology.
I would not swear by the statement of one man, as some law enforcement personnel claim that fraudulent reporting is also an issue. In either case, I would need to see a detailed breakdown of the sources and methodology.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,828
Oh great, here come the it's-all-so-damn-simple people.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,834
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,835
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." -
-- Aaron Levenstein
-- Aaron Levenstein
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,837
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,848
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Problem if you look at spread from USA to Brits numbers ....huge gap...No matter re numbers because if its 60% or 90% when it should only be 5% non reported....Situation has nada to do with Statistics and more to do with how we make the system work for the victim instead of for the conveyancing of court/law decorum
Problem if you look at spread from USA to Brits numbers ....huge gap...No matter re numbers because if its 60% or 90% when it should only be 5% non reported....Situation has nada to do with Statistics and more to do with how we make the system work for the victim instead of for the conveyancing of court/law decorum
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,852
@previous (Syntax)
So you believe that people are paying too much attention to stasttics when they could be actually going out and helping people?
So you believe that people are paying too much attention to stasttics when they could be actually going out and helping people?
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,861
@93,834 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)> Explain please?
People who treat an issue that we've been fighting for millennia as something that either doesn't exist, or can be solved during teatime. -_-;
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,865
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,866
OK, first of all, if 94% of those rapes go unreported, then how do they know they happen? Where do they get those numbers?
Second, why do you assume that all those rapes are violent? How many of them are date rapes?
Third, and I'm gonna sound like an asshole for this, but I have to ask, why is rape so bad? Why do all rapists deserve to rot in jail? I can understand if it was a very violent rape, but then it's bad because of violence itself on top of the rape, not bad because of the rape itself. I can understand repeat offenders of violent rape getting put away for a long time and possibly chemically castrated, but what about one date rape? Take out the violence aspect, and it's just someone using a part of your body in a way you don't like. Aside from the sexual nature, how is it different from someone pinning you down and forcing their finger in your nose? I understand it's a violation, and it's wrong, and rapists need to be dealt with, but is it really on par with manslaughter, or murder, or burglary?
In my opinion, burglary is worse. You work very hard for your property, and someone breaks into your home, causes damage and steals your property. If they're never found you never get it back, and the hundreds or even thousands of hours you may have spent working to save up the money to pay for those things are gone. What do you lose when you're raped? Innocence? Virtue? Pride? Those things are all in your head. They're all constructs. You may make the argument that you feel violated and you had your body used in a way you didn't approve of, but again, how is that different from getting pinned down and having a finger forced in your nose over and over? The feelings associated with it certainly do make it worse, I'm not denying that, but if the only difference is the emotional feelings that it causes, and no objective damage is done, what makes it worse than burglary or murder or vandalism where real damage is done?
Second, why do you assume that all those rapes are violent? How many of them are date rapes?
Third, and I'm gonna sound like an asshole for this, but I have to ask, why is rape so bad? Why do all rapists deserve to rot in jail? I can understand if it was a very violent rape, but then it's bad because of violence itself on top of the rape, not bad because of the rape itself. I can understand repeat offenders of violent rape getting put away for a long time and possibly chemically castrated, but what about one date rape? Take out the violence aspect, and it's just someone using a part of your body in a way you don't like. Aside from the sexual nature, how is it different from someone pinning you down and forcing their finger in your nose? I understand it's a violation, and it's wrong, and rapists need to be dealt with, but is it really on par with manslaughter, or murder, or burglary?
In my opinion, burglary is worse. You work very hard for your property, and someone breaks into your home, causes damage and steals your property. If they're never found you never get it back, and the hundreds or even thousands of hours you may have spent working to save up the money to pay for those things are gone. What do you lose when you're raped? Innocence? Virtue? Pride? Those things are all in your head. They're all constructs. You may make the argument that you feel violated and you had your body used in a way you didn't approve of, but again, how is that different from getting pinned down and having a finger forced in your nose over and over? The feelings associated with it certainly do make it worse, I'm not denying that, but if the only difference is the emotional feelings that it causes, and no objective damage is done, what makes it worse than burglary or murder or vandalism where real damage is done?
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,867
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,869
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,870
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,871
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,875
@93,866 (L)Statistics are more complex than just counting.
A person is more than the sum of her parts.
Free Speech us also »just information«.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,877
@93,870 (L)
Well, what if a man raped you manually, orally, and anally? It would hurt, and be embarrassing, and you would feel guilty for having an orgasm. Would that be just a crime? Would you want to see your attacker again? Could you ever fell really safe?
Well, what if a man raped you manually, orally, and anally? It would hurt, and be embarrassing, and you would feel guilty for having an orgasm. Would that be just a crime? Would you want to see your attacker again? Could you ever fell really safe?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,884
@93,875 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Yes, free speech is just information, but does that mean that censorship is as bad as murder? Maybe if the suppression of free speech leads to murder it's just as bad, but then it's bad because of the murder, not because of the suppression itself.
I understand that a person is more than just the sum of his/her parts, but if it's a non-violent rape, where only emotional damage is caused, why is it on the same scale as burglary, murder, and vandalism where real damage is caused. Let's say I believe in a religion where the human mouth is considered incredibly sacred, kissing is considered even more intimate than sex, there are special rites and rules for eating and touching of the mouth, etc. Now let's say that someone pins me down and force feeds me a bunch of food that's against my religion. How would that be different from rape? Would it be as bad as rape? Should the person who force fed me food be left to rot in jail. There's certainly nothing right about what they did, but how severely should they be punished?
Yes, free speech is just information, but does that mean that censorship is as bad as murder? Maybe if the suppression of free speech leads to murder it's just as bad, but then it's bad because of the murder, not because of the suppression itself.
I understand that a person is more than just the sum of his/her parts, but if it's a non-violent rape, where only emotional damage is caused, why is it on the same scale as burglary, murder, and vandalism where real damage is caused. Let's say I believe in a religion where the human mouth is considered incredibly sacred, kissing is considered even more intimate than sex, there are special rites and rules for eating and touching of the mouth, etc. Now let's say that someone pins me down and force feeds me a bunch of food that's against my religion. How would that be different from rape? Would it be as bad as rape? Should the person who force fed me food be left to rot in jail. There's certainly nothing right about what they did, but how severely should they be punished?
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,892
@93,877 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
OK, let's switch the tables on me. Let's even assume they do all three as a perfect example. Your first point is that it would hurt. The oral and manual sex would not, but the anal would. But that just brings me back to my first point that violent rape is bad because of violence on top of the rape, not bad because of the rape itself. The unlubricated violent anal sex is bad because of the physical pain and damage it causes. As for the oral and manual sex, yes it would be embarrassing and indignant. I never said it wouldn't be, but how does something being embarrassing and indignant put it on the same scale as murder, burglary, or vandalism where real damage are caused? You asked "Would you feel safe?" I think being robbed would make me feel less safe than being raped. Let's say they put a gun to my head in order to force me to do the acts you said. Then it's much worse because of the trauma associated by being coerced with a gun, but being forced to do anything at gunpoint would cause emotional trauma. Are you following me?
OK, let's switch the tables on me. Let's even assume they do all three as a perfect example. Your first point is that it would hurt. The oral and manual sex would not, but the anal would. But that just brings me back to my first point that violent rape is bad because of violence on top of the rape, not bad because of the rape itself. The unlubricated violent anal sex is bad because of the physical pain and damage it causes. As for the oral and manual sex, yes it would be embarrassing and indignant. I never said it wouldn't be, but how does something being embarrassing and indignant put it on the same scale as murder, burglary, or vandalism where real damage are caused? You asked "Would you feel safe?" I think being robbed would make me feel less safe than being raped. Let's say they put a gun to my head in order to force me to do the acts you said. Then it's much worse because of the trauma associated by being coerced with a gun, but being forced to do anything at gunpoint would cause emotional trauma. Are you following me?
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Anonymous L triple-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,896
I just thought of another example. Let's say you date someone for 5 years, get married, have kids, you're married for 10 years, and you think everything is perfect. You think they're your soul mate and you couldn't be happier. You significant other then cheats on you, leaves you, says you were the worst mistake of their life and that they're much happier with the other person and they never want to see you again. You're hurt to the point that you would kill yourself if not for the love for your kids keeping you going, but even they are a constant remind of the pain this person caused you every day.
I would say that the emotional damage this would cause, if far far far worse than the emotional damage caused by rape. Yet this is perfectly legal. Why?
I would say that the emotional damage this would cause, if far far far worse than the emotional damage caused by rape. Yet this is perfectly legal. Why?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,898
@93,892 (L)
I am. But rape also can spread std's, cause unwanted pregnancies, render some women not being able to marry in certain cultures. Also, most women are trained feel dirty about sex anyway so their emotional issues will be unleashed upon society.
I am. But rape also can spread std's, cause unwanted pregnancies, render some women not being able to marry in certain cultures. Also, most women are trained feel dirty about sex anyway so their emotional issues will be unleashed upon society.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,899
@93,896 (L)
Which part of this are we using for the comparison? Her cheating on you or the fact that she's leaving you?
Which part of this are we using for the comparison? Her cheating on you or the fact that she's leaving you?
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,903
@93,852 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I believe the numbers. Even based on a small sample re gals I know in R/L who never reported and I was the first person to be told....much too much experience and at Santa Monica Rape Crisis my name became a how are you among staff over a few years...and YES The laws in USA were/are too lax on punishment. Its much better in last decade. Laws get wayyyyyy better after a kid is raped and murdered. Some major national law changes re Calif cases recently
@93,866 (L)
> OK, first of all, if 94% of those rapes go unreported, then how do they know they happen? Where do they get those numbers?
Easy answer is Sample sample...just as in politics ....800 people polled can if done correctly represent the nation.
I believe the numbers. Even based on a small sample re gals I know in R/L who never reported and I was the first person to be told....much too much experience and at Santa Monica Rape Crisis my name became a how are you among staff over a few years...and YES The laws in USA were/are too lax on punishment. Its much better in last decade. Laws get wayyyyyy better after a kid is raped and murdered. Some major national law changes re Calif cases recently
@93,866 (L)
> OK, first of all, if 94% of those rapes go unreported, then how do they know they happen? Where do they get those numbers?
Easy answer is Sample sample...just as in politics ....800 people polled can if done correctly represent the nation.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,908
@93,898 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> Also, most women are trained feel dirty about sex anyway so their emotional issues will be unleashed upon society.
Those are emotional issues. I'm not saying that rape doesn't cause emotional issues, but those are psychological. They're not as real as something like murder. Also, I could turn that around and say that rape wouldn't be so bad if society didn't teach women to think that way.
> But rape also can spread std's, cause unwanted pregnancies
Well then much like the example I gave with violent rape being bad because of the violence, rape that spreads STDs and unwanted pregnancies is bad because of the STDs and unwanted preganancies, not just because of the rape itself. What if you consent to sex, but the person lies about being clean of STDs and knowingly gives you an STD? This is not rape, but in my opinion this person shouldn't be treated much differently from the rapist who spreads an STD. It's bad because of the disease. An unwanted pregnancy can be aborted. Obviously there is a lot of emotional trauma and controversy over that, but it's bad because of the emotional trauma and controversy of the unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Like in the previous example, you can consent to sex but maybe you're both really drunk and he lies about using a condoms and gets you pregnant. In my opinion, this is almost as bad as the rape case, because again most of the harm comes from the trauma of the unwanted pregnancy, not the rape itself. I'm looking for what makes rape, sex against your will, so inherently bad. Specifically, what makes it worse than being forced to do anything else against your will. So far the only reason I can come up with are the emotional and cultural reasons.
> render some women not being able to marry in certain cultures
Once again it can be argued that that's an emotional issue only and can also be argued that that's more of an issue with the culture for placing a value and a judgement on women who have had crimes committed against them.
> Which part of this are we using for the comparison? Her cheating on you or the fact that she's leaving you?
I was giving an example of something that would be incredibly emotionally damaging. Since the only thing I can find that makes rape inherently worse than being forced to do anything else against your will is the emotional damage caused by it because of the sexual nature, I tried to think of something else that would cause a similar, if not much greater amount of emotional pain. I think we can all agree that the emotional damage caused by the example I gave would be far far greater than the emotional damage caused by rape. I would much rather be raped several time than have that example happen to me. Yet, there is nothing illegal about the example I gave despite the emotional damage it would cause. Why is that? Think about it.
> Also, most women are trained feel dirty about sex anyway so their emotional issues will be unleashed upon society.
Those are emotional issues. I'm not saying that rape doesn't cause emotional issues, but those are psychological. They're not as real as something like murder. Also, I could turn that around and say that rape wouldn't be so bad if society didn't teach women to think that way.
> But rape also can spread std's, cause unwanted pregnancies
Well then much like the example I gave with violent rape being bad because of the violence, rape that spreads STDs and unwanted pregnancies is bad because of the STDs and unwanted preganancies, not just because of the rape itself. What if you consent to sex, but the person lies about being clean of STDs and knowingly gives you an STD? This is not rape, but in my opinion this person shouldn't be treated much differently from the rapist who spreads an STD. It's bad because of the disease. An unwanted pregnancy can be aborted. Obviously there is a lot of emotional trauma and controversy over that, but it's bad because of the emotional trauma and controversy of the unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Like in the previous example, you can consent to sex but maybe you're both really drunk and he lies about using a condoms and gets you pregnant. In my opinion, this is almost as bad as the rape case, because again most of the harm comes from the trauma of the unwanted pregnancy, not the rape itself. I'm looking for what makes rape, sex against your will, so inherently bad. Specifically, what makes it worse than being forced to do anything else against your will. So far the only reason I can come up with are the emotional and cultural reasons.
> render some women not being able to marry in certain cultures
Once again it can be argued that that's an emotional issue only and can also be argued that that's more of an issue with the culture for placing a value and a judgement on women who have had crimes committed against them.
> Which part of this are we using for the comparison? Her cheating on you or the fact that she's leaving you?
I was giving an example of something that would be incredibly emotionally damaging. Since the only thing I can find that makes rape inherently worse than being forced to do anything else against your will is the emotional damage caused by it because of the sexual nature, I tried to think of something else that would cause a similar, if not much greater amount of emotional pain. I think we can all agree that the emotional damage caused by the example I gave would be far far greater than the emotional damage caused by rape. I would much rather be raped several time than have that example happen to me. Yet, there is nothing illegal about the example I gave despite the emotional damage it would cause. Why is that? Think about it.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,910
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #93,914
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
That's just as bad as rape if not worse. Again, I'm not arguing that rape is OK, I just think that spending 5 years of your life in prison for causing someone embarrassment and shame doesn't make sense. It makes sense for repeat offenders who are a menace to society, and I support chemical castration of repeat offenders to help rehabilitate them, but I still think that beating someone within inches of their life, or robbing someone of their possessions, is a much worse crime.
I can still do with child molestation what I did with the previous examples. Take the sexual nature out of the crime, and let's imagine that instead of doing anything sexual to the child, they use candy to trick the child into getting into their van and they then tie them up and leave them in the dark for several hours, very scared, unable to move. This crime is terrible because it takes advantage of the trust children tend to put in adults, it's terrible because of how the child is coerced and tied down, and it's terrible because of the emotional damage done to the child, and as a child that emotional damage may be longer lasting. Adding a sexual nature to the crime makes it worse, but not much worse. It's bad for all the other reasons I mentioned, and child molestation is bad for the same reasons, just with the sexual nature added to it.
That's just as bad as rape if not worse. Again, I'm not arguing that rape is OK, I just think that spending 5 years of your life in prison for causing someone embarrassment and shame doesn't make sense. It makes sense for repeat offenders who are a menace to society, and I support chemical castration of repeat offenders to help rehabilitate them, but I still think that beating someone within inches of their life, or robbing someone of their possessions, is a much worse crime.
I can still do with child molestation what I did with the previous examples. Take the sexual nature out of the crime, and let's imagine that instead of doing anything sexual to the child, they use candy to trick the child into getting into their van and they then tie them up and leave them in the dark for several hours, very scared, unable to move. This crime is terrible because it takes advantage of the trust children tend to put in adults, it's terrible because of how the child is coerced and tied down, and it's terrible because of the emotional damage done to the child, and as a child that emotional damage may be longer lasting. Adding a sexual nature to the crime makes it worse, but not much worse. It's bad for all the other reasons I mentioned, and child molestation is bad for the same reasons, just with the sexual nature added to it.