• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

3-year-old raped by uncle, officials say

I'm not saying these things to place blame on anyone who is raped. I'm just saying that "date rape" is in fact more avoidable than the less common assault by a complete stranger rape.
Click to expand...

Your pu$sy (or arse, or mouth) probably won't be able to tell the "difference", when some guy shoves his dick in it against your will.
 
1069 said:
Your pu$sy (or arse, or mouth) probably won't be able to tell the "difference", when some guy shoves his dick in it against your will.
Click to expand...

Well, let me interject though...a lot of instances of date rape weren't, in fact, rapes at all. We all know that and I think that is what talloulou should be approaching rather than making excuses for the rapes that are true date rapes.
 
jallman said:
I only posted the end of your response to save space, but I intend to answer, succinctly, everything you said.

When talking about rape, we are not talking about the guy or girl who made some bad decisions and inadvertantly had sex as part of that bad decision. What we are talking about is the predatorial event of someone taking away a person's power to make the decision to have sex rather by force or subterfuge or chemical. It is the predator who preys on a child incapable of making that decision, the insecure frat boy who intentionally gets a girl drunk to have his way with her while she is impaired, it is the slimy circuit boy who spikes a guy's drink to knock him out, and it is the aggressive sicko who breaks into women's houses to forcefully abuse them.

Each and every time, the sex takes a back seat to the power issues and the violence and violation of having the most intimate of spaces (emotional and physical) invaded by someone who was not invited.
Click to expand...


I hear ya Jallman but I'm telling you lots of girls seek help for "feeling" they were raped while remaining uncertain. They don't remember what happened because they were drunk. They can't give a detailed account of events and they can't say when or how they were forced to do anything but these events are going down statistically as "rape." These cases are labeled and called raped and as soon as the woman seeks out any type of counseling she is told she was "raped" because she couldn't have consented in her condition. This is very common on college campuses across the country.
 
jallman said:
Well, let me interject though...a lot of instances of date rape weren't, in fact, rapes at all. We all know that and I think that is what talloulou should be approaching rather than making excuses for the rapes that are true date rapes.
Click to expand...

See now let me tell you if you were to work on a college campus and a girl came in one morning saying she "thinks maybe" she was raped but then again maybe she wasn't because she doesn't remember because she had too much to drink and you said, "Well maybe you weren't..." that is a huge PC no no! :shock:
 
jallman said:
While I agree that there are certain enticements for a rapist, it makes no difference when determining the rights of a young woman not to be violated.

Let me ask you this: Me being a guy, does that mean if I walk out of my house wearing a muscle shirt and going commando in running shorts and for some reason I get raped, that I "could have been more careful". Would you say that to a guy in the same situation?
Click to expand...

I'd tell you that if you were attacked by a complete stranger outside of your house that the guy was more than likely a violent psychopath. And more than likely you'd be beaten up and bruised all over and there would be no question that you were in fact raped and you'd easily win in a court of law if the assailant was caught.

However if you dressed like Richard Simmons in your shortest short shorts and no shirt and drank an entire case of beer and danced all night till you hooked up with some guy that you eventually fell into bed with and then you can't remember what happened exactly next but you don't remember consenting to anal but you know you got anal based on physical evidence then that whole entire situation could have been avoided and rather than live in fear of it happening again it might be a good idea to retain more control over your own actions to avoid precarious situations.

See the difference? There is a difference isn't there? "Cause in my mind the difference is HUGE but clearly 1069 thinks I'm a crazy biatch.
 
1069 said:
Your pu$sy (or arse, or mouth) probably won't be able to tell the "difference", when some guy shoves his dick in it against your will.
Click to expand...

Maybe not after a night of partying and tons of liquer. My point exactly. :moon:
 
talloulou said:
See now let me tell you if you were to work on a college campus and a girl came in one morning saying she "thinks maybe" she was raped but then again maybe she wasn't because she doesn't remember because she had too much to drink and you said, "Well maybe you weren't..." that is a huge PC no no! :shock:
Click to expand...

When have I ever been PC?

It would warrant a deep look into the events of the night in question, but I was in a fraternity. I know girls sometimes get drunk, get a little uninhibited, and make dumb decisions. I, myself, have woken up beside a guy before and was like, "what the hell was I thinking". But claiming rape to not take responsibility for your own bad decisions is not the same as actually being raped.
 
See the difference? There is a difference isn't there? "Cause in my mind the difference is HUGE but clearly 1069 thinks I'm a crazy biatch.
Click to expand...

No, "crazy" would imply some sort of deviance from societal norms.
I think you're entirely mainstream; I think approximately 90% of Americans share your fvcked-up and misogynistic opinions.
That doesn't, however, make them any more palatable.
 
talloulou said:
I'd tell you that if you were attacked by a complete stranger outside of your house that the guy was more than likely a violent psychopath. And more than likely you'd be beaten up and bruised all over and there would be no question that you were in fact raped and you'd easily win in a court of law if the assailant was caught.

However if you dressed like Richard Simmons in your shortest short shorts and no shirt and drank an entire case of beer and danced all night till you hooked up with some guy that you eventually fell into bed with and then you can't remember what happened exactly next but you don't remember consenting to anal but you know you got anal based on physical evidence then that whole entire situation could have been avoided and rather than live in fear of it happening again it might be a good idea to retain more control over your own actions to avoid precarious situations.

See the difference? There is a difference isn't there? "Cause in my mind the difference is HUGE but clearly 1069 thinks I'm a crazy biatch.
Click to expand...

First of all, short shorts on a guy are kinda gross. Unless they are tight white boxer briefs. :mrgreen:

But you do realize that the "rapist" in question in your scenario is still responsible for the rape, right?
 
1069 said:
No, "crazy" would imply some sort of deviance from societal norms.
I think you're entirely mainstream; I think approximately 90% of Americans share your fvcked-up and misogynistic opinions.
That doesn't, however, make them any more palatable.
Click to expand...

Have you ever talked with a young college woman who "thinks" maybe she was raped but then again "maybe" not? It's very common. Unfortunately the way it is normally handled in our current climate is she is told A) she was defintely raped and B) none of it was her fault and C) taking any responsibility for anything that did or did not happen is not okay and it won't help her to heal.

It's part of the reason I stopped working as a SANE advocate. At times I was confused about what types of things would be best to say. But the group I worked with was hellbent on making every woman we dealt with as much as a "victim" as possible and I wasn't convinced that it was really what was best for them. I didn't see the problem with suggesting that if they thought maybe they weren't raped then hey, maybe they weren't. The vast majority of women I met were young, their situations involved partying, drugs, alcohol, and I just got tired of doing it so I quit after a year or so. But I did meet two women who were RAPED RAPED and honest to god there was no question that the assailants that attacked them were freaking way a$$ different than the college men who were bedding drunk chicks.
 
jallman said:
First of all, short shorts on a guy are kinda gross. Unless they are tight white boxer briefs. :mrgreen:

But you do realize that the "rapist" in question in your scenario is still responsible for the rape, right?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah without question. And the women honestly aren't just wondering if they were raped because they woke up and the guy was ugly. They really feel that they didn't consent and in their drunken state they probably didn't but it's all fuzzy. My son will be taught not to have sex with drunk women. My daughter will be taught to not get so drunk that she has memory loss. Then they'll go out and do whatever it is they are going to do. :shock:

But my whole point was there are different types of RAPE and some are about sex. Most are about sex statistically if you are taking in to account all these partying college women who are unsure. Those assailants who see nothing wrong with taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated are still assailants of a sort but they are radically different from the assailant who isn't doing it just for the sex. The drunk college guy who takes advantage of a drunk woman is not the cold calculated predator that rapes because he gets off on "hurting" and "fear." They're different.
 
They're different.
Click to expand...

Frosting a dog turd does not make it a cupcake.
Expressing this same misogynistic opinion over and over again in increasingly syrupy tones does not make it any less objectionable.
 
talloulou said:
Oh yeah without question. And the women honestly aren't just wondering if they were raped because they woke up and the guy was ugly. They really feel that they didn't consent and in their drunken state they probably didn't but it's all fuzzy. My son will be taught not to have sex with drunk women. My daughter will be taught to not get so drunk that she has memory loss. Then they'll go out and do whatever it is they are going to do. :shock:

But my whole point was there are different types of RAPE and some are about sex. Most are about sex statistically if you are taking in to account all these partying college women who are unsure. Those assailants who see nothing wrong with taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated are still assailants of a sort but they are radically different from the assailant who isn't doing it just for the sex. The drunk college guy who takes advantage of a drunk woman is not the cold calculated predator that rapes because he gets off on "hurting" and "fear." They're different.
Click to expand...

That still does not supercede the violence and violation factor of true rape no matter what the form.
 
1069 said:
Frosting a dog turd does not make it a cupcake.
Expressing this same misogynistic opinion over and over again in increasingly syrupy tones does not make it any less objectionable.
Click to expand...

I never tried to turn any rapist into a cupcake.:roll: And being a proud woman I find your misogynistic tripe amusing.
 
jallman said:
That still does not supercede the violence and violation factor of true rape no matter what the form.
Click to expand...

So do you think all rapes have nothing to do with sex? Really? 'Cause that was my main point. I wasn't trying to make creepy losers who can't get laid unless the girl is drunk out to be cupcakes because I'm such a woman hating biatch. But most of the rapes that occur are the "partying" variety and I can't help but think they have lots to do with sex, that they're about sex, and that the assailant above all is trying to get laid and if he could get laid without taking advantage of a drunk woman he probably would but given that he can't he takes whatever slop he can get whenever the opportunity presents itself. I never said it wasn't rape. I just said it's a different kind of rape and in my mind that type of rape is all about the sex.
 
talloulou said:
So do you think all rapes have nothing to do with sex? Really? 'Cause that was my main point. I wasn't trying to make creepy losers who can't get laid unless the girl is drunk out to be cupcakes because I'm such a woman hating biatch. But most of the rapes that occur are the "partying" variety and I can't help but think they have lots to do with sex, that they're about sex, and that the assailant above all is trying to get laid and if he could get laid without taking advantage of a drunk woman he probably would but given that he can't he takes whatever slop he can get whenever the opportunity presents itself. I never said it wasn't rape. I just said it's a different kind of rape and in my mind that type of rape is all about the sex.
Click to expand...

I think that the violation of the victim makes it about violence and power by default. That's all I am going to say.
 
NguyenRhymesWithWin said:
Truth hurts! What's racist about it though? This is quite a real. Goto Tijuana and Ensenada. Be a part of any tour in Mexico and they'll tell you all about it. Don't give money to these kids, give them food or something else that is only for them. But I guess this is just Racist Propaganda coming from the Mexicans themselves ey? Tell your brother in law he's a hyper sensitive race-card player that needs to stiff upper lip and realize that sad truths are not hate filled generalizations. I know it's cool and everyone does it, but restrain from "dats waycist! >:[" for every little bit of criticism and truth against any creed(which isn't just always race or requires race) as racist. That's for stupid easily offended cry babies only.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying that some beggars don't use children to try to solicit money. But there are two problems I have with your post that sound pretty bad to me.

First of all, you seem to paint this as a distinctly Mexican behavior. It isn't. I had a friend that did volunteer work in Malawi, and she had poor black kids trying to get money out of her. I'm sure that if you visited Europe before it modernized, you'd have children panhandling for their parents. If you read victorian-era literature, it's full of it. Hell, I've seen little vietnamese kids in my city panhandling. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but to attribute it as distinctly Mexican, as you seem to do, is what strikes wrong about your statement.

Now what really offended Rob was this:

Once the kid turns 12, she's not as cute anymore so what do they do with their useless 12 year old panhandler? Get her pregnant to make more cute little hustlers.
Click to expand...

This is to suggest that Mexicans see nothing wrong with raping a 12 year, especially if its to make "more cute little hustlers." Please explain this statement if I missed something? Am i missing something, Nguyen?
 
I would like to thank all posters that have contributed to this thread over the past 12 hours, and have saved it from being moved, and instead have focused comments on aspects of the thread title's content and the major issue surrounding the article.

Hey, jfuh! I was right, you were wrong! :2razz::2razz::2razz:
 
Panache said:
An intruiging generalization.

So when a HS senior (who is 18) has consensual sex with his HS Junior GF (who is 17) in a state where the age of consent is 18, that is a case of statutory violence?
Click to expand...

Regardless of the law, this is not rape. It is consensual sex that is given the legal terminology of rape...wrong in my opinion. BTW, there is no state that I know of where this would be considered statutory rape, anyway. Most states have a 3 or 4 year age difference rule.

Or how about when some loser slips a girl some date rape drug and has sex with her (non-violently) while she is passed out because he is too lame to get laid any other way?
Click to expand...

This is about power and dominance and implies violence. The sex act is is just the way the violence is exhibited. Punching a passed out person, just for kicks, is the same thing.
 
talloulou said:
Well to be fair it is an immigration thread.
Click to expand...

And, ultimately, inappropriately place, as we see where the topic has, reasonably, headed. ;)

Also while I think many sexual assualts are about much more than sex to say that rape is not about sex at all as 1069 did using your credentials as back up is faulty.
Click to expand...
Sex is the form that the violence is taking of. Rape is not about sex in the way we perceive the sex act to be or to represent. Rape is about power, dominance, aggression, and assault (a word that you appropriately used). Sex is the behavior used to this end, just like punching, kicking, or other forms of violence could be used in the same representations. Sex is not what occurs...sexual assault is.

And 1069 is quite correct to use my credentials to back her position. A rape victim did not have sex. The rape victim was sexually assaulted. Any variation from this blames the victim. Having done rape counseling on many occasions (unfortunately), varying from this is both inaccurate and damaging.
 
talloulou said:
Well rape is one of those P.C. issues where there are things that are commonly said because they are considered the "correct" thing to say but unfortunately I think some of the things commonly said about rape including, "Rape is not about sex," have done more damage than good.

Obviously a man who goes out looking for a stranger to assualt is operating on a different level than the most common form of rape seen. But the rape victims who are assualted in that way are not the most common form of rape. The most common form happens to teens and college girls and it happens most commonly at parties where everyone, including the aggressor and the victim, are drunk and doing drugs. Many women are confused and unsure if they've been raped or not. It's very common for a women to not know what happened at all because she was so intoxicated. Every man should be taught not to have sex with a woman he doesn't know well when she's too drunk or drugged up to realistically consent. But these rapes are the most common form to occur.

When you take college kids and high school kids, ect and you think realistically about "sex" there is a coercing factor and the lines do blur. Not every person who tries to get another person to have sex with them is "raping." And unfortunately for young people especially it's very common for the women to sort of be talked into sex. So while men should be taught to take any sign of "no" as no it happens far to often that with a little more petting, a little more seducing, ect that no can turn to yes. I myself have thought frequently I wasn't in the mood only to be seduced into the mood by my very persistent husband. So the lines blur and when you add alcohol, drugs, and youth into the mix it's unfortunately all too common to be sitting accross from a young woman who thinks she might have been raped but she isn't all together sure what the hell happened. Generally she was too intoxicated to remember and so it becomes a real problem because obviously she was too intoxicated to consent to anything but is the man involved a violent sexual offender? Maybe but not necessarily and most times he was probably heavily intoxicated too. In his mind he may have successfully talked her into sex.

These are the most common types of rape and they're radically different from the guy who grabs a girl while she's out jogging in my mind anyway. And while I do agree the guy should be held responsible for having sex with a woman too intoxicated to consent the girl should be held responsible for putting herself in that position in the first place. Unfortunately no one wants to say that. No one wants to put any responsibility on the woman at all and so the result is that young women aren't learning how to keep themselves out of comprimising positions. God forbid you suggest that a woman shouldn't go out barely wearing anything at all and get all drunk with a bunch of other drunk people she doesn't know very well. Everyone gets pissed when you say crap like that but, from all I've seen, saying $hit like that might help women avoid situations like that.

Because ultimately I believe those situations, the most common form of rape, are all about sex.
Click to expand...

A lot of information, here. As far as drunk college/high school kids getting drunk and having sex, here's how I see it. If both are drunk and impaired enough, then this mutual impairment cancels each other out and no rape occurred. If, however, the woman's impairment was such that she was unable to consent, and the man's was not, this was rape. Remember, rape is defined as forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse. Key words here are 'force' and 'submit'. If one cannot defend themselves, they are forced to submit. This is what occurs in my second example, above. Here's a real life example. A 19 year old client of mine, when she was 16 went out with a guy she liked. He gave her 1 drink, of which she passed out from (she later learned that he had done this to several girls). He proceeded to have sex with her (she recognized this in the morning, as she had been a virgin). She was most certainly raped. Was this violent? Other than her broken hymen, she had no bruises or cuts. It was certainly coercive, degrading, aggressive, and assaultive. She was unable to defend herself in any way and was forced to submit to an assault that left her humiliated, violated, and emotionally scarred. Sex requires physical contact, not gentle, at times. The dominating part of this incident, implies violence, even if violence as we, usually, perceive it, didn't occur.

As far as women putting themselves in dangerous or inappropriate situations, I mention this to girls all the time. I told a 16 year old to not wear 'hooker boots', today, so she wouldn't get negative attention and wouldn't put herself in danger. And if she did, anyway, and got raped, it STILL wouldn't be her fault that she got raped. I don't think it's inappropriate to warn people to not put themselves in bad situations. But it is the sole responsibility of the perpetrator for any assault/crime that gets committed. The crime could happen regardless of the circumstances.
 
talloulou said:
See? :eek: I'm just saying there's a difference between the most common form of rape and a guy who breaks into your house or graps you while you're jogging. The assailants are different and one the girl can't do much about while the other a girl can do alot to prevent. The one guy probably is into the violence of the rape the other guy is more than likely trying to get laid and his rape is about sex.
Click to expand...

These types of sexual assaults have a commonality. They are about dominance and power over someone. The type of coercion depicted in all of the non-consensual circumstances mentioned is unnecessary in obtaining sex. If someone really wants to get laid, they needn't force or coerce unless there are other issues.

Im not saying the "rape" is her fault. I'm saying it may have been avoidable had she been more careful. But no one is interested in protecting these young women and telling them the truth.
Click to expand...

If you are discussing prevention, here, then I agree with you. Telling people how to avoid trouble is appropriate...I do it all the time, regardless of how it is taken. But once the assault happens, addressing this, just adds to the violation, self-blame, self-loathing, and humiliation of what happened and how they feel.
 
talloulou said:
Have you ever talked with a young college woman who "thinks" maybe she was raped but then again "maybe" not? It's very common. Unfortunately the way it is normally handled in our current climate is she is told A) she was defintely raped and B) none of it was her fault and C) taking any responsibility for anything that did or did not happen is not okay and it won't help her to heal.

It's part of the reason I stopped working as a SANE advocate. At times I was confused about what types of things would be best to say. But the group I worked with was hellbent on making every woman we dealt with as much as a "victim" as possible and I wasn't convinced that it was really what was best for them. I didn't see the problem with suggesting that if they thought maybe they weren't raped then hey, maybe they weren't. The vast majority of women I met were young, their situations involved partying, drugs, alcohol, and I just got tired of doing it so I quit after a year or so. But I did meet two women who were RAPED RAPED and honest to god there was no question that the assailants that attacked them were freaking way a$$ different than the college men who were bedding drunk chicks.
Click to expand...

This is going to be good. I've worked with many girls, college and high school who have been in the situations that you have described. I have nearly never told any of them that they were raped, unless the situation was incredibly clear, they were acting out, physically and/or emotionally that was clear evidence of a sexual assault, and their denial was emotionally damaging to them. Most of the time I have them discuss what happened an allow them to come to their own conclusions. Sometimes they were raped. Sometimes it was drunken sex.

These situations are not always so clear cut, but many of the scenarios that you have described are. A loser who has sex with a passed out, drunken girl, committed a forceable act of domination and power with implied violence. She did not consent and he needed to physically force the issue and she would be unable to respond. He made a choice to perform this act on someone helpless. Why didn't he choose someone coherent? Didn't think he could? Sounds like some inadequacies going on, often signs of deeper problems that could be exhibited in anger. These acts are not about sex.

The confounding issue is the level of impairment of both parties, and when this level meets the criteria for being 'too impaired'.

There is certainly a difference between the psychopath who violently rapes a jogger and a frat boy who rapes a passed out college co-ed. The difference is the degree of coercion, domination, and violence, not whether these things apply.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is going to be good. I've worked with many girls, college and high school who have been in the situations that you have described. I have nearly never told any of them that they were raped, unless the situation was incredibly clear, they were acting out, physically and/or emotionally that was clear evidence of a sexual assault, and their denial was emotionally damaging to them. Most of the time I have them discuss what happened an allow them to come to their own conclusions. Sometimes they were raped. Sometimes it was drunken sex.

These situations are not always so clear cut, but many of the scenarios that you have described are. A loser who has sex with a passed out, drunken girl, committed a forceable act of domination and power with implied violence. She did not consent and he needed to physically force the issue and she would be unable to respond. He made a choice to perform this act on someone helpless. Why didn't he choose someone coherent? Didn't think he could? Sounds like some inadequacies going on, often signs of deeper problems that could be exhibited in anger. These acts are not about sex.

The confounding issue is the level of impairment of both parties, and when this level meets the criteria for being 'too impaired'.

There is certainly a difference between the psychopath who violently rapes a jogger and a frat boy who rapes a passed out college co-ed. The difference is the degree of coercion, domination, and violence, not whether these things apply.
Click to expand...

If I could highlight an "incident" involving myself that I think highlights how these things work, in regards to drunken sex.
After my best friends wedding, at which I had been drinking from noon until after midnight, my wife and I went back to our hotel room and had some great sex. At some point during the night, after we fell asleep I woke up and was ready to go again. So I caressed my wife, and she seemed to respond so I started going at it. She "woke up" while I was going through the motions, and was like "what the hell are you doing?" So she jokingly claims I took her against her will, even though I thought she was awake.
Had this been some college girl I had just met that night I could have been in some deep trouble, and she probably could have claimed rape even though my intention wasn't to force myself on her against her will.
 
I just don't get why it's taboo to say sometimes rape is about sex. When did it become so PC to separate the two and start saying crap like "rape" has nothing to do with sex. Many date rapes are about sex and I don't see how anyone could see it as any different. When the girl isn't sure she was raped due to intoxication, when she doesn't remember clearly what happened, ect, she can't know for sure that she gave off signals that told the guy, who was probably also intoxicated, NO! And while I can see holding the guy responsible for having sex with a woman in that condition it's hard not to recognize that in many cases the guy was in the same freaking condition as she was and so he should be given some consideration too. Now if the woman was drugged against her will that's entirely different. If it was a date rape but the woman KNOWS she was raped and can relay a detailed of account of what happened then that's also different. But sometimes I think many of the instances that get noted statisitically as "rape" do in fact involve guys who were trying to have sex and so you can't say sex had nothing to do with it. You can argue about levels of responsibility ect but I just don't get the whole insisting sex had nothing to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom