SlutWalks

[Rubyretro]

A man sits alone in a bar. He is joined by a young lady and they start talking. During the course of the conversation the girl proclaims her age as being 18. There is nothing in her behaviour or demeanour to make the man think otherwise. Things progress and they go to bed together.

Afterwards the man is arrested for Statutory rape because the girl is in fact only 17 years and eleven months and therefore a minor. The man admits he had sex with the lady and is duly convicted of rape. He is then a rapist and the woman is the victim. Now do you honestly expect us to believe that in these circumstances the woman is blameless? That someone who deliberately lied is blameless and someone who made an honest mistake is an evil rapist? As I said – utter tripe!

[/QUOTE]

Bob -the whole coversation was mean't to be about 'slutty clothing' and it's relationship to 'rape'.

Your example is about a girl consenting -although underage. It clearly belongs to a whole different thread.

[babybird67]

exactly Bob

i said rape, not statutory rape, which is different. As most other posters here can appreciate.

[TomTomKent]

Again I do wish someone would read what has been written. Baby bird stated quite plainly ALL - I REPEAT ALL- rape victims.

This means all victims of rape whether it be statutory rape or violent rape. She did not say 'some victims of rape' she said 'all'.

And she may have a point. The man may have felt no reason to suspect, but it his responsibility to ensure his partner is consenting, and capable of consenting. If he neglected to check her drivers license for his partners age, then legally the girl remains the victim.

The reason it is considered a rape is because she was not able to give consent legally. If he slept with her, then it is not her fault. She was unable to offer consent because of her age.

[Bob Hinton]

I am sorry if you felt that was a genuine accusation, allow me to rephrase:

So tell us Bob, exactly what clothes must your victim wear for it to be herfault you raped her?


How else am I expected to take it? You say my name and then refer to ‘my victim’ and then ‘you raped her’.

You are not getting away with this LTT. You remove that immediately and apologise or I will sue you.

[TomTomKent]

So tell us Bob, exactly what clothes must your victim wear for it to be herfault you raped her?


How else am I expected to take it? You say my name and then refer to ‘my victim’ and then ‘you raped her’.

You are not getting away with this LTT. You remove that immediately and apologise or I will sue you.

I have already contacted the forum leaders to ask for just that. I considered the context to have made the sarcasm clear. I appologise.

[Bob Hinton]

Bob -the whole coversation was mean't to be about 'slutty clothing' and it's relationship to 'rape'.

Your example is about a girl consenting -although underage. It clearly belongs to a whole different thread.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but that was not what Babybird wrote. Read what she wrote, she even repeats it for emphasis. "ALL- I REPEAT ALL" rape victims are blameless.

If she meant some then she should have said so.

You will note that I did predict that we would be swamped with a series of posts bleating "oh that's not what I meant" etc.

[glyn]

Even if that statement was true IT IS STILL THE RAPISTS FAULT!

If men can't control themselves just because a woman is showing a bit of leg then MEN SHOULD BE ORDERED OFF THE STREETS.

Let's see how a bit of curtailment of men's freedom goes down!

One more time.......Ive never said the rapist is not to blame.I said dressing as a slut,acting like a slut increases the likelihood of an attack by some hideous wretch. Plain and simple and pretty obvious. Ive never said that ALL raped women have dressed sluttily,the emphasis is on ALL.Cant anyone grasp that ?
Which asks the question why would a woman want to dress like a slut anyway?
Tom,
You mention that I shouldnt get petty because others disagree with me...does petty include accusations of racism,bigotry,condoning paedophilia,and all the rest made by your colleagues? plainly not.
Being " pefectly capable of resisting becoming a rapist" isnt the issue its whether they want to resist is the question. What makes one resist ,and another not?
Of course I supported the view,why else would I USE THE REF?
IF I havent provided evidence linking dress with assault as you say,then neither have you provided evidence to the contrary..so?
I didnt moan ,but its ok ,by now Im used to you distorting anything and everything thats posted here in your desperate attempts to ingratiate yourself with your erstwile cronies.
Happy hunting,and by the way my advice to you is to withdraw your loathsome comment made earlier not to me,but to another...that isnt the kind of quip to make and expect to get away with in this day and age.....perhaps its your genes?

[babybird67]

i'm not bleating

I am clarifying that statutory rape is not the same as rape, the latter subject is what we are discussing.

It is only because you cannot sensibly address the points that have been made to your obnoxious support of rapists in alleging they are not to blame if a woman doesn't dress to your approval (not that we have yet got you to define what clothing actually prevents rape) that you are trying to skew the argument and make it about a totally different subject with totally different issues.

And yes Tom, this particular rapist in this example is also a paedophile isn't he. Since he shouldn't sleep with a child and he should be responsible for checking her age, and she cannot legally have given her consent.

[Bob Hinton]

Backpedlling

i said rape, not statutory rape, which is different. As most other posters here can appreciate.

No please make sure of your facts:

"to statutory rape (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing)"


I did predict you would start bleating about "that's not what I meant". The problem with you is that you expect to be taken seriously but when you make a basic error like you just did instead of putting your hands up you try to weedle your way out of it.

[TomTomKent]

No please make sure of your facts:

"to statutory rape (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing)"


I did predict you would start bleating about "that's not what I meant". The problem with you is that you expect to be taken seriously but when you make a basic error like you just did instead of putting your hands up you try to weedle your way out of it.

You may want to scroll down a bit more:
Reasonably believing that the victim is over the age of consent—in some jurisdictions, (such as England and Wales[7]), it is a defence if the accused can show that he or she reasonably believed the victim was over the age of consent. However, where such a defence is provided, it normally applies only when the victim is close to the age of consent or the accused can show due diligence in determining the age of the victim (e.g., a 15-year-old who used a fake identification document to enter a bar for persons 18 and older).
So either: The case fails and is not tried as rape, or he failed due diligence to check the age.

Oh and considered equall to is not the same as "tried as", the two are kept legally seperate for good reason, and it is a reasonable assumption that the original statement was made with that distinction to be understood.

[babybird67]

No please make sure of your facts:

"to statutory rape (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing)"

Bob, it may be dealt with the same IN LAW. It is different in EXPERIENCE both for the man and the woman/perpetrator and victim.

I did predict you would start bleating about "that's not what I meant". The problem with you is that you expect to be taken seriously but when you make a basic error like you just did instead of putting your hands up you try to weedle your way out of it.

I didn't make the error. You are the one trying to make this discussion about something which it was NEVER about. Rape and statutory rape are DIFFERENT. One involves consent, the other does not.

We are discussing rape, not statutory rape, and if you cannot tell the difference i suggest you speak to some actual victims and find out what it's really like instead of pretending you know. This is just like the immigration thread where every post you made was about crime, as if the two were inextricably linked.

They are not.

The only link between rape and statutory rape, is the word rape. The experiences are totally different because consent is involved in statutory rape in a way in which it never is in rape (in which i am happy to repeat that ALL victims are blameless).

I'm always happy to admit I am in the wrong when I am, as I have done many times on these boards in the past. This time, however, you are the one in the wrong, by trying to apply my comment to a subject it was never made about.

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

I am clarifying that statutory rape is not the same as rape, the latter subject is what we are discussing.

It is only because you cannot sensibly address the points that have been made to your obnoxious support of rapists in alleging they are not to blame if a woman doesn't dress to your approval (not that we have yet got you to define what clothing actually prevents rape) that you are trying to skew the argument and make it about a totally different subject with totally different issues.

.

And you are wrong. In the eyes of the law they are the same and carry the same penalties. And please don’t tell me I am trying to make it about a different subject. You wrote: ALL VICTIMS – I REPEAT ALL VICTIMS ARE BLAMELESS. If you didn’t mean all victims then perhaps you shouldn’t have written it.

Since when have I ever voiced an opinion stating that I support rapists? Your callous disregard for the truth and the facts make you either a fool or a vicious liar. You pick.

I have never ever intimated any support for rapists at all, what I have said, and continue to say is that it is up to all of us to take reasonable precautions against being attacked, and if a police officer suggests that modifying the way certain women dress might be a sensible precaution who am I to disagree?

[glyn]

Bob, it may be dealt with the same IN LAW. It is different in EXPERIENCE both for the man and the woman/perpetrator and victim.



I'm always happy to admit I am in the wrong when I am, as I have done many times on these boards in the past. This time, however, you are the one in the wrong, by trying to apply my comment to a subject it was never made about.

HEE-HAW HEE-HAW

[Ally]

Bob,

The issue here is clearly wardobe and rape. You are attempting to divert the subject because the real topic is clearly insupportable.

A girl lying about her age has nothing to do with what she is wearing and whether she brought her rape on herself.

One issue is not related to what is under discussion here.

Which asks the question why would a woman want to dress like a slut anyway?

What difference does it make? Why would men want to wear plaid shorts with striped tops? Why would men want to wear their pants hanging down their butts? Why would men want to wear penny loafers or tennis shoes, the most butt ugly clothing on the planet? Why would they want to wear white tank tops ? Why baggy tshirts? Why in the name of god would men want to wear baseball caps or fishing hats?

Why would any man want to wear that crap?

[Bob Hinton]

You may want to scroll down a bit more:
[B]Reasonably believing that the victim is over the age of consent—in some jurisdictions, (such as England and Wales[7]), it is a defence if the accused can show that he or she reasonably believed the victim was over the age of consent..

You really can't be so stupid as to believe that if someone has a defence to a charge they are automatically acquitted are you?