alphamale
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,120
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The only function of the government is the protection of the innocent. Rape victims, mugger victims, unborn children. The government is supposed to protect them all.
alphamale said:Once a woman has been raped, the government has in fact "failed" it's protection of women. The government is required to provide ALL the equal protection of the laws, not set up special privileges for one gender, violating the accused's right to a PUBLIC, not semi-private trial.
Stace said:Not to mention that men are rape victims as well.....so what were we saying about only women being protected?
alphamale said:Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.
Stace said:Oh yes. Being a male yourself, I'm sure you know SO much about what women REALLY want. :roll:
Stace said:Oh yes. Being a male yourself, I'm sure you know SO much about what women REALLY want. :roll:
alphamale said:Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.
vergiss said:What about the victim of rape? His/her life has already been ruined. Don't you care about them? Let's assume for a minute your sister or girlfriend was raped (and I hope she never is) - would you care about the alleged rapists "privacy" then?
vergiss said:And who said anything about gut feelings?
vergiss said:RightatNYU - but thankfully, your friend did not go to trial because there simply wasn't the evidence, and the nasty girl in question wussed out. If it's actually gone so far as to go to trial, don't you think that, more often than not, it's got to be credible?
RightatNYU said:Not to mention that until conviction, the accused rapist is innocent as well.
Calm2Chaos said:If the rape was proven.... Then the accused name should be public knowledge broadcast over all airways. BUt until there is proof why would you be so willing to destroy and innocent persons life? The stigma of being a sexual predator is far greater then that of the victim .. least in my opinion. If you have been raped I would feel for you but I wouldn't think you were any less of a person. It was something beyond your control. But if I know you are a rapist your dirt. You have no real prospects and society as a whole is going to dismiss you. Now I am not goingto say this goes for everyone. And there axceptions to every rule. And there are backward *** people in the world.
vergiss said:Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."
Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours. Think about if the victim's a man - imagine the stigma he'd have to face - people thinking he's gay, not manly enough to stop it, etc etc.
The people who the accused knows will already be aware of the case. The only oblivious people will be strangers - and if a stranger reads about it in the paper, he's hardly going to give a care about people he's never met.
vergiss said:Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."
Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours.
talloulou said:This whole post makes no sense to me. If a man was accused of rape and his name were made public all kinds of people who wouldn't otherwise know will know. If he gets off and is proven innocent it will still be in peoples heads. Imagine if you were going on a date with someone you just met and their name comes up on google as someone who was accused of rape? Imagine the guys family who have to deal with everyone knowing their family member was accused of rape. He could get off completely scott free but that doesn't completely wipe the stigma off his name. Now what if he really was innocent? Justice would be keeping both names private. If that can't be done then both names should be released. Courtrooms are designed to treat people fairly. Releasing the accused persons name while keeping the accuser private is just unfair and unjust, particularly since the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty.
My issue with this whole debate is the insidious undertones to alphamale's attitude, putting "victims" in inverted commas in the topic title,
he has very little care for victims of rape.
What the hell is is problem in the post just above this one? He's turned this into some kind of bulls**t men vs. women thing (which it's not), and to me the attitude displayed is a very worrying one indeed.
Physiologically no, women are not equal.alphamale said:Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.
vergiss said:Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."
Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours. Think about if the victim's a man - imagine the stigma he'd have to face - people thinking he's gay, not manly enough to stop it, etc etc.
The people who the accused knows will already be aware of the case. The only oblivious people will be strangers - and if a stranger reads about it in the paper, he's hardly going to give a care about people he's never met.
alphamale said:What chick's have doesn't wear out! :2razz:
jamesrage said:Unless there are bruises on the alledged victim rape cases are pretty much a "her word against his".A person's character should come into play when evidence is circumstancial and there is no bruises,cuts or anything else to signal it was a forced rape case.
Urethra Franklin said:You can be raped at gunpoint, knifepoint, or under threat. You may not fight physically out of sheer fear, possibly for your life. Not a bruise in sight.
No means no when it is said clearly, regardless of anything that has gone before. A person's character has **** all to do with it. You presumably believe that prostitutes, lap dancers, any woman who's had multiple sexual partners can't ever be raped? Meanwhile, the preacher's wife can cry wolf and get away with it because she's of "good character"
Worst of all is the "she said no but she meant yes" How f***ing stupid. Some guys don't even have the intelligence to say "oh I misheard I thought she said yes" If a woman (or a guy for that matter) says no, it's no - doesn't matter how (s)he's dressed or what you might think (s)he wants.
It's because of guys like you and your atitudes that rapists walk free.
Urethra Franklin said:You can be raped at gunpoint, knifepoint, or under threat. You may not fight physically out of sheer fear, possibly for your life. Not a bruise in sight.
No means no when it is said clearly, regardless of anything that has gone before. A person's character has **** all to do with it. You presumably believe that prostitutes, lap dancers, any woman who's had multiple sexual partners can't ever be raped? Meanwhile, the preacher's wife can cry wolf and get away with it because she's of "good character"
Worst of all is the "she said no but she meant yes" How f***ing stupid. Some guys don't even have the intelligence to say "oh I misheard I thought she said yes" If a woman (or a guy for that matter) says no, it's no - doesn't matter how (s)he's dressed or what you might think (s)he wants.
It's because of guys like you and your atitudes that rapists walk free.
So if the girl was not wholesome by Bills standards, even if the girl were a victime of brutal savage rape she deserves the punishment of rape and then the physical and psychological effects of a pregnancy? WTF?A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
love the way you read into someones statements something that is not therejfuh said:Let me add to this, it's the attitude that women who live a particular lifestyle deserve to be raped. Look at what the great senator Bill Napoli of South Dakota said upon thier new law against abortion:
So if the girl was not wholesome by Bills standards, even if the girl were a victime of brutal savage rape she deserves the punishment of rape and then the physical and psychological effects of a pregnancy? WTF?
Well that is just your perspective isn't it? I could very much say the same for you as well. Does such an argument serve anything purposeful?DeeJayH said:love the way you read into someones statements something that is not there
so it fits you twisted agenda
It says nothing of the sort, and you can not prove that it does
No I do not beleave only slutty women get raped.
Now if you a juror in one of these cases and there is no hard evidence what so ever the accused raped the accuser, how do you come to the conclusion who is telling the you truth?
As far as I am concerned they both do have equal motivation to lie,it up is up to both of them to convince a juror that they are telling the truth.The juror does not know the accused and the accuser.A perfect case would have all the hard evidence pointing to the accused.But from what I have been told, often times there is no hard evidence so it does come down to who do you believe is telling the truth.A person's character is very important in helping you make that determination in who is telling you the truth.You make it sound as though each (victim and accused) has equal motivation to lie.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?