pretty much, i mean i wouldn't be alone at night in central park.
So does that mean you think she's partially to blame?
maybe she's not to blame, but if she's this stupid, something at some point in this life will harm her. i know this because they play the news both in the morning and at night.
I saw an ad for a sick twisted show recently, that's stuck with me. A women pretends to be far drunker than she is and then they send in a guy to pick her up and he says lets go back to my hotel room, it's just a few blocks from here. i think it's called "What would you do"? they then film this and depending on the other bar attendents or bartender actions they come in ask "How could you let her leave w/ guy when she was clearly drunk and out of it?" this kind of made me sick, you have to be responsable for your own actions and not depend on everyday people to be a hero, so what? they were expecting the bartender to intervene, get his ass kicked to protect the virtue of this cleary stupid ass girl? i guess my point is at what point do you look at the women and say, the worlds fucked up, don't put yourself in stupid situtations, and if you do don't blame me for not saving you. i don't know, it's just a stupid dumb ass show, manipulating people, emotions and situtions. I mean who's to say that she didn't want to go to the guys hotel room, and she wen't to the bar looking for excatly that.
What if a girl is running alone at night in Central Park or some such place ("stupid ass girl" who put herself in a stupid situation, right?) and someone jumps out and attacks her in front of you? Do you look at the woman and say, "the world's fucked up, don't put yourself in stupid situtations, and if you do don't blame me for not saving you"?
Huge difference between intervening when a drunk woman leaves a place where people go to hook up, and intervening when a woman is alone in an isolated area and is attacked. A bartender's obligation is not to police who goes home with whom....he IS, however (at least where I live) , obligated to stop serving people who are too drunk. I would like to think that anyone who is able-bodied enough to help a woman being attacked is, at least morally, obligated to intervene. Apples n oranges. Sometimes i love some of you women and your analogies
????????? I can't believe somebody would even post such a "please argue with me so I can call you an animal" question, you can't be serious with this topic.......come to think of it if rape insurance were offered and a woman filed a claim the insurance company would find her 10% at fault for being in a position to be raped
then drop their policy :? what a weird question, it don't take a genius to realize NO would be the correct answer here.
I saw an ad for a sick twisted show recently, that's stuck with me. A women pretends to be far drunker than she is and then they send in a guy to pick her up and he says lets go back to my hotel room, it's just a few blocks from here. i think it's called "What would you do"? they then film this and depending on the other bar attendents or bartender actions they come in ask "How could you let her leave w/ guy when she was clearly drunk and out of it?" this kind of made me sick, you have to be responsable for your own actions and not depend on everyday people to be a hero, so what? they were expecting the bartender to intervene, get his ass kicked to protect the virtue of this cleary stupid ass girl? i guess my point is at what point do you look at the women and say, the worlds fucked up, don't put yourself in stupid situtations, and if you do don't blame me for not saving you. i don't know, it's just a stupid dumb ass show, manipulating people, emotions and situtions. I mean who's to say that she didn't want to go to the guys hotel room, and she wen't to the bar looking for excatly that.
What if a girl is running alone at night in Central Park or some such place ("stupid ass girl" who put herself in a stupid situation, right?) and someone jumps out and attacks her in front of you? Do you look at the woman and say, "the world's fucked up, don't put yourself in stupid situtations, and if you do don't blame me for not saving you"?
Huge difference between intervening when a drunk woman leaves a place where people go to hook up, and intervening when a woman is alone in an isolated area and is attacked. A bartender's obligation is not to police who goes home with whom....he IS, however (at least where I live) , obligated to stop serving people who are too drunk. I would like to think that anyone who is able-bodied enough to help a woman being attacked is, at least morally, obligated to intervene. Apples n oranges. Sometimes i love some of you women and your analogies
I understand that there's a difference, but I don't think it's as big a difference as you think it is. The attitude is the same in both cases, as the guy I was quoting said.
????????? I can't believe somebody would even post such a "please argue with me so I can call you an animal" question, you can't be serious with this topic.......come to think of it if rape insurance were offered and a woman filed a claim the insurance company would find her 10% at fault for being in a position to be raped
then drop their policy :? what a weird question, it don't take a genius to realize NO would be the correct answer here.
Godfather.
:? :?
Huh? It's more of a "I just heard about a new advertisement addressing this topic; what do you think about it?" topic. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Animal.
i think godfather is spot on. i fell into the trap and tried to actually make a point. but your not really intrested in reality. so take your spot on the high moral ground and enjoy.
I've read this thread through but it's not a question where an answer is really wanted...to me anyway...it seems to just be a none debate.
Who is going to own up if they believe women are partially to blame for being raped?...no sane individual in their right mind is ever going to say they believe some fault lies with the victim...that makes the question a bit pointless really.
If you want my opinion then I'd say no, everyone should be able to roam the streets safe at night...in a perfect world all woman should feel safe showing off their beautiful legs or cleavage...sadly the world isn't perfect and not everyone roaming the streets is text book 'normal'...statistics say most rape victims know their attackers anyway so the whole 'out jogging in the park' scenario is quite small on the rape statistic scale.
When a woman says "NO" then that should be it...I would expect a bit of "oh go on, please?"...what red blooded male wouldn't try a bit of persuasion before giving in?...I would imagine the frustration level, on being told no, to be rather high but no means no.
In my humble opinion no woman should have to fear being alone outside at night and no woman should cover up her assets (just in case) should she wish to have them on display...rape is a vile crime...more often than not it's all about dominance and control and a woman asserting herself by having the guts to jog in the park at night must be a real turn on but that woman is in no way responsible for the misreading of signals in a rapists brain.
It makes much more sense to live in the present tense
i think godfather is spot on. i fell into the trap and tried to actually make a point. but your not really intrested in reality. so take your spot on the high moral ground and enjoy.
Whatever dude. I was just trying to clarify how you feel about it. I don't know what reality you're talking about, nor do I care whether or not you think I'm interested in it. I'm pretty sure I, unfortunately, know much more about this reality than you could possibly ever understand anyway. :roll:
I understand that there's a difference, but I don't think it's as big a difference as you think it is. The attitude is the same in both cases, as the guy I was quoting said.
Ok, in the context of what you bolded in his post, yes, the attitude is similar....but if you remove the 'stupid ass girl' comments, I think the situations are totally different.
I'm guessing that the root of your stance is a belief that society as a whole must look out for it's most vulnerable (ie: wasted woman alone in a bar). If so, I agree. I personally have approached women on a couple occassions in bars to ensure that the guy(s) trying to pick them up were not harassing them...unfortunately, in both of the instances i can recall, the woman thought i was trying to hit on them too...
I was simply playing devils advocate from the perspective of the bartender or patrons who would have no knowledge of history between the two, nor the woman's intent. . Maybe they should have asked if she was ok (IF they noticed them leaving together - I havent seen the show) , but I have difficulty equating that to walking away from a woman who is under attack.
I understand that there's a difference, but I don't think it's as big a difference as you think it is. The attitude is the same in both cases, as the guy I was quoting said.
Ok, in the context of what you bolded in his post, yes, the attitude is similar....but if you remove the 'stupid ass girl' comments, I think the situations are totally different.
I'm guessing that the root of your stance is a belief that society as a whole must look out for it's most vulnerable (ie: wasted woman alone in a bar). If so, I agree. I personally have approached women on a couple occassions in bars to ensure that the guy(s) trying to pick them up were not harassing them...unfortunately, in both of the instances i can recall, the woman thought i was trying to hit on them too...
I was simply playing devils advocate from the perspective of the bartender or patrons who would have no knowledge of history between the two, nor the woman's intent. . Maybe they should have asked if she was ok (IF they noticed them leaving together - I havent seen the show) , but I have difficulty equating that to walking away from a woman who is under attack.
It's the part I bolded that I was referring to. As for comparison of the two situations, it seemed relevant to me given the conversation about how just because someone's not jumping out of the bushes and attacking someone, it doesn't mean it's not rape. And I think the "stupid ass girl had it coming" attitude totally contributes to the idea that this kind of rape is more acceptable - or is not rape at all.
Just to point out that men get raped as well. If it's already been pointed out, my apologies. I read some of the posts, but not all.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
????????? I can't believe somebody would even post such a "please argue with me so I can call you an animal" question, you can't be serious with this topic.......come to think of it if rape insurance were offered and a woman filed a claim the insurance company would find her 10% at fault for being in a position to be raped
then drop their policy :? what a weird question, it don't take a genius to realize NO would be the correct answer here.
Godfather.
...
Are you an Insurance Salesman?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
is it rape if you are dead asleep and your partner comes home drunk and horny and starts to violate you?
If you're dead asleep, like completely unresponsive, then yes.
what if you were dead asleep but were say groggy by the time of first penetration?
I think it all depends on the exact circumstances, but it could be. If the wife didn't want to have sex but was too out of it to object, then yes. The fact that they are married has no bearing on rape laws, if that's what you're getting at (though I'm sure it would inflence a jury whether it was supposed to or not).
????????? I can't believe somebody would even post such a "please argue with me so I can call you an animal" question, you can't be serious with this topic.......come to think of it if rape insurance were offered and a woman filed a claim the insurance company would find her 10% at fault for being in a position to be raped
then drop their policy :? what a weird question, it don't take a genius to realize NO would be the correct answer here.
Comments
maybe she's not to blame, but if she's this stupid, something at some point in this life will harm her. i know this because they play the news both in the morning and at night.
then drop their policy :? what a weird question, it don't take a genius to realize NO would be the correct answer here.
Godfather.
I understand that there's a difference, but I don't think it's as big a difference as you think it is. The attitude is the same in both cases, as the guy I was quoting said.
Huh? It's more of a "I just heard about a new advertisement addressing this topic; what do you think about it?" topic. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Animal.
Who is going to own up if they believe women are partially to blame for being raped?...no sane individual in their right mind is ever going to say they believe some fault lies with the victim...that makes the question a bit pointless really.
If you want my opinion then I'd say no, everyone should be able to roam the streets safe at night...in a perfect world all woman should feel safe showing off their beautiful legs or cleavage...sadly the world isn't perfect and not everyone roaming the streets is text book 'normal'...statistics say most rape victims know their attackers anyway so the whole 'out jogging in the park' scenario is quite small on the rape statistic scale.
When a woman says "NO" then that should be it...I would expect a bit of "oh go on, please?"...what red blooded male wouldn't try a bit of persuasion before giving in?...I would imagine the frustration level, on being told no, to be rather high but no means no.
In my humble opinion no woman should have to fear being alone outside at night and no woman should cover up her assets (just in case) should she wish to have them on display...rape is a vile crime...more often than not it's all about dominance and control and a woman asserting herself by having the guts to jog in the park at night must be a real turn on but that woman is in no way responsible for the misreading of signals in a rapists brain.
Whatever dude. I was just trying to clarify how you feel about it. I don't know what reality you're talking about, nor do I care whether or not you think I'm interested in it. I'm pretty sure I, unfortunately, know much more about this reality than you could possibly ever understand anyway. :roll:
I'm guessing that the root of your stance is a belief that society as a whole must look out for it's most vulnerable (ie: wasted woman alone in a bar). If so, I agree. I personally have approached women on a couple occassions in bars to ensure that the guy(s) trying to pick them up were not harassing them...unfortunately, in both of the instances i can recall, the woman thought i was trying to hit on them too...
I was simply playing devils advocate from the perspective of the bartender or patrons who would have no knowledge of history between the two, nor the woman's intent. . Maybe they should have asked if she was ok (IF they noticed them leaving together - I havent seen the show) , but I have difficulty equating that to walking away from a woman who is under attack.
It's the part I bolded that I was referring to. As for comparison of the two situations, it seemed relevant to me given the conversation about how just because someone's not jumping out of the bushes and attacking someone, it doesn't mean it's not rape. And I think the "stupid ass girl had it coming" attitude totally contributes to the idea that this kind of rape is more acceptable - or is not rape at all.
If you're dead asleep, like completely unresponsive, then yes.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
what if you were dead asleep but were say groggy by the time of first penetration?
Are you an Insurance Salesman?
Hail, Hail!!!
Thanks. Good point. I don't think it has been mentioned.
I think it all depends on the exact circumstances, but it could be. If the wife didn't want to have sex but was too out of it to object, then yes. The fact that they are married has no bearing on rape laws, if that's what you're getting at (though I'm sure it would inflence a jury whether it was supposed to or not).
Godfather.
it's true.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce