• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Week in Men: It's Only ATTEMPTED Rape and Voyeurism, Girls. No Worries! (1 Viewer)

Josie said:
I don't understand your title. Do you think he should've been charged with rape?
Click to expand...

This time, court documents said, he reached his hand under the stall, then blocked the woman from leaving. He reportedly "caught her from behind and wrestled her to the ground" but her cries for help were heard by a witness who came to rescue her. And managed to snap a photo of him leaving the building.
Click to expand...

Assault at the very least.
 
I will never understand this kind of kink. There is NOTHING sexy about someone using the toilet.

As an aside, the story mentions women bringing mace with them in the restroom. That might seem like a good idea but using that stuff in a confined space is a BAD idea. Just kick the bastard in the face and get the heck out of there.
 
Josie said:
I don't understand your title. Do you think he should've been charged with rape?
Click to expand...

That was just for all the mansplainers on this forum who, when they read about these sorts of crimes against women, rush to post that 1.) it is VERYYYYYY rare 2.) and anyway, most of the time the sex crimes aren't REALLLLY that big a deal.

Unless they manage to control their urges (to post on this thread), you'll see what I mean. In 3-2-1....
 
Lutherf said:
I will never understand this kind of kink. There is NOTHING sexy about someone using the toilet.

As an aside, the story mentions women bringing mace with them in the restroom. That might seem like a good idea but using that stuff in a confined space is a BAD idea. Just kick the bastard in the face and get the heck out of there.
Click to expand...

My wife used to carry on her key-chain the same "mace" that the police use. In the store she worked at, the customer service was next to the exit doors. One day she left her keys sitting out and a couple of kids grabbed them, stepped outside the doors and sprayed once before they got yanked off their feet by their father. That one spray caused the eyes of people throughout the store (medium sized dept. store) to tear up. They do make pepper foam that works really well. I used to sell them through a little catalog business and got a tiny bit on my hand once and it was NOT pleasant. The foam also dyes your skin, making you easy to spot.
 
Jane said:
That was just for all the mansplainers on this forum who, when they read about these sorts of crimes against women, rush to post that 1.) it is VERYYYYYY rare 2.) and anyway, most of the time the sex crimes aren't REALLLLY that big a deal.

Unless they manage to control their urges (to post on this thread), you'll see what I mean. In 3-2-1....
Click to expand...

But you didn't answer my question ---- do you think he should've been charged with rape?
 
Josie said:
But you didn't answer my question ---- do you think he should've been charged with rape?
Click to expand...

Well, it does say attempted rape and it seems that the OP got that from the article. Personally, I'd have no problem with that charge but you're right that there's no way a straight rape charge would stick.
 
Josie said:
But you didn't answer my question ---- do you think he should've been charged with rape?
Click to expand...

I'm not privy to the actual evidence in this case as is the charging prosecutor, nor am I specifically informed on Oklahoma law. But if the victim or a proxy has not made a complaint of rape per that state's legal definition, then I'm content with the information as presented in the news article, and can't see why would you ask such a question? <<That was a rhetorical question just then; no need to answer.

I think I've explained myself above and beyond the call of duty now. Looking forward to any further comments, though I may not be roused to respond. Cheers!
 
Jane said:
I'm not privy to the actual evidence in this case as is the charging prosecutor, nor am I specifically informed on Oklahoma law. But if the victim or a proxy has not made a complaint of rape per that state's legal definition, then I'm content with the information as presented in the news article, and can't see why would you ask such a question? <<That was a rhetorical question just then; no need to answer.

I think I've explained myself above and beyond the call of duty now. Looking forward to any further comments, though I may not be roused to respond. Cheers!
Click to expand...

The way you worded your title made it seem like you didn't think it was just "attempted" rape.
 
Jane said:
That was just for all the mansplainers on this forum who, when they read about these sorts of crimes against women, rush to post that 1.) it is VERYYYYYY rare 2.) and anyway, most of the time the sex crimes aren't REALLLLY that big a deal.

Unless they manage to control their urges (to post on this thread), you'll see what I mean. In 3-2-1....
Click to expand...

Could you give me an example of someone who has said things like this here?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
People are stupid when they argue it doesn't, won't, or can't ever happen.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anyone here make these arguments. I guess you hare hearing them locally or on other sites.
 
Lutherf said:
As an aside, the story mentions women bringing mace with them in the restroom. That might seem like a good idea but using that stuff in a confined space is a BAD idea.
Click to expand...

The obvious solution is for them to bring an actual mace.

latest
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That's the type of **** I don't want to foster or encourage by dissolving gender separate bathrooms.

People are stupid when they argue it doesn't, won't, or can't ever happen.
Click to expand...

It's also likely for trans women to be assaulted when they're forced to use a men's bathroom. Is their safety less important?
 
spud_meister said:
It's also likely for trans women to be assaulted when they're forced to use a men's bathroom. Is their safety less important?
Click to expand...
Again, I will put forward my personal experience that MtF transsexuals are not commonly sexually dominant or 'alpha' in nature. It is a part of actually testing for transsexuality to understand if the MtF likes to 'mount and thrust' in a dominant way. I just don't understand how a transsexual is more likely sexually assault.
 
William Rea said:
Again, I will put forward my personal experience that MtF transsexuals are not commonly sexually dominant or 'alpha' in nature. It is a part of actually testing for transsexuality to understand if the MtF likes to 'mount and thrust' in a dominant way. I just don't understand how a transsexual is more likely sexually assault.
Click to expand...

Given the number of dominant cis females I know that like to "mount and thrust", I don't think this is a criteria for determining if an individual is actually transgendered or not.
 
maquiscat said:
Given the number of dominant cis females I know that like to "mount and thrust", I don't think this is a criteria for determining if an individual is actually transgendered or not.
Click to expand...
It is part of a range of criteria used during assessment. In general, FtM would abhor penetration whereas MtF would abhor penetrating. It is an indicator and not as you are trying to imply a hard and fast rule. However, both our basis are anecdotal so I cannot give your post any more or less credence than mine.
 
William Rea said:
It is part of a range of criteria used during assessment. In general, FtM would abhor penetration whereas MtF would abhor penetrating. It is an indicator and not as you are trying to imply a hard and fast rule. However, both our basis are anecdotal so I cannot give your post any more or less credence than mine.
Click to expand...

I can go with that. The way th first post was worded, it left me the impression that it was supposed to be a hard and fast rule. Being in the BDSM lifestyle, there is such a large population of people who don't follow the "penetration norms" regardless of what they identify as.
 
Jane said:
"It's just terrifying that you would have to fight for your life in the bathroom area when you're working every day."

Yep. These women get it.

Metro Woman Shares Terrifying Encounter With Alleged Peeping Tom - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports
Click to expand...
Renae said:
Who gives two ****s?
Click to expand...

1.) You? Because you replied here?

or

2.) Not you? Because you can't identify with, empathize with, or appear to even understand the actual expressed concerns of the actual woman quoted, one of at least three actual women this pervert victimized in the their bathrooms?

Maybe the answer to your question is BOTH #1 and #2? Disgusting.
 
Jane said:
1.) You? Because you replied here?

or

2.) Not you? Because you can't identify with, empathize with, or appear to even understand the actual expressed concerns of the actual woman quoted, one of at least three actual women this pervert victimized in the their bathrooms?

Maybe the answer to your question is BOTH #1 and #2? Disgusting.
Click to expand...

What's disgusting is your obsessive behavior.
 
Renae said:
What's disgusting is your obsessive behavior.
Click to expand...
Sure. Okay. But can you explain why you don't give "two ****s" as you so sweetly put it, about the three victims in the OP who were terrorized by the perv dude in their bathrooms?

I find your lack of identification with these women truly fascinating. This was just your garden-variety man attacker; no way for you to play the Oppression Olympics around a trans issue. Why are you so contemptuous of them? And, by the way, since there were three of them, I guess it would be more accurate to say you don't give three ****s about them. Right?
 
Jane said:
Sure. Okay. But can you explain why you don't give "two ****s" as you so sweetly put it, about the three victims in the OP who were terrorized by the perv dude in their bathrooms?

I find your lack of identification with these women truly fascinating. This was just your garden-variety man attacker; no way for you to play the Oppression Olympics around a trans issue. Why are you so contemptuous of them? And, by the way, since there were three of them, I guess it would be more accurate to say you don't give three ****s about them. Right?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid your faux outrage doesn't move me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom