But Women Don't Rape

A fundamental problem with these views is that you see people not as individuals with different values, beliefs, powers, responsibilities, faults, & burdens,

Click to expand...

How? The tape given as an example was not RAPE...I mean really..it wasn't rape had it been man on man man on woman etc..that was not rape..

That was an attack..I said in my view? punishible by 3 years and 5 years probabation.I din't say it was "fine" ...but it wasn't rape...

DallasApple said:

No I am completley equal..fact is more women (and girls) by far are actually raped Revolutionsist..is that in dispute?

Having said that ...sexual misconduct or "rape" by women is not "excusable " due to that fact..but what i saw on that tape was not "rape".

Click to expand...

A woman is engaged verbally in an elevator with no sexual language exchanged, and a feminist claims victimhood during the "raping hour".

A woman attempts to forcibly strip and engage in sex with a young boy on a bus, and a feminist(you) claims there was no sexual attack.

This DIR is not for you.

DallasApple said:

How? The tape given as an example was not RAPE...I mean really..it wasn't rape had it been man on man man on woman etc..that was not rape..
That was an attack..I said in my view? punishible by 3 years and 5 years probabation.I din't say it was "fine" ...but it wasn't rape...

Click to expand...

I don't dispute this.
I addressed your post.

Why do you have to argue with me? Why? I said just based on the video I think she needs to sit behind bars for 3 years and afterwards 5 years probation .(for me that would be fair punishment) and I'm questioned and attacked like????I mean I would love it if every guy who did that to a girl got that kind of punishment..I'm equal opportunity...I would love to see that kind of crime more punished..and trust me ...a LOT more guys would be in prison..a lot more...

DallasApple said:

Why do you have to argue with me? Why? I said just based on the video I think she needs to sit behind bars for 3 years and afterwards 5 years probation .(for me that would be fair punishment) and I'm questioned and attacked like????I mean I would love it if every guy who did that to a girl got that kind of punishment..I'm equal opportunity...I would love to see that kind of crime more punished..and trust me ...a LOT more guys would be in prison..a lot more...

Click to expand...

You said these things while ranting the feminist talking points. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Revoltingest said:

I don't dispute this.
I addressed your post.

Click to expand...

Sorry Rev...it just seems like Im being questioned..when all I said is she should go to jail...

I disagreed she should go to jail for a higher crime she did not commit.

I'm talking Apples to Apples too. According to the feminist definition of rape if a man and woman are making out and the man climbs on top of the woman, and she doesn't want him to, it's rape. Therefore, what the woman in the video did is definitely rape if feminists consider climbing on top of a woman fully clothed rape.

DallasApple said:

Sorry Rev...it just seems like Im being questioned..when all I said is she should go to jail...

I disagreed she should go to jail for a higher crime she did not commit.

Click to expand...

Legally, she committed Assualt with Intent to Rape and Attempted Rape.

nyRednek said:

You said these things while ranting the feminist talking points. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

My point is irrelevant to someone with deaf ears who can not be rational because of feminist paranoia..This whole thread is some sort of "talking point' in fact...good bye..have a lonely man ******** day..

The woman was pulling the pants of the child clearly against the child's will and the only reason she stopped was because pele around her made it clear enough they were not going to be accomplices to rape.

Sure, it wasnt rape and no, I would not convict it as rape, but it was about to be, and if the people around her had had a different attitude, the woman was going to rape the child.

DallasApple said:

My point is irrelevant to someone with deaf ears who can not be rational because of feminist paranoia..This whole thread is some sort of "talking point' in fact...good bye..have a lonely man ******** day..

Click to expand...

Oh, it isn't feminist paranoia. Your entire experience in this DIR has been an apparent attempt to minimize any men's issues that exist, with the further injection of feminist propoganda. If you choose to no longer post here, good riddance.

EDIT: Just noticed the nice sexist comment in the end. Please PLEASE keep your agenda out of here. Whether you do it with a smug self-assurance that I'm such a lonely man with no life(despite the fact that I'm married to Rakhel) or just out of some respect for men(if you had any), just go.

What this woman did falls under two criminal complaints
Attempt to Rape

Evidence showing an accused person's voluntary attempt to remove complainant's clothes to expose his/her private parts would be sufficient to support conviction of attempted rape, even though no further actions were taken to commit an offense of rape.
Attempt to Rape - Rape

Click to expand...

Assault to Commit Rape

Generally, a man(replace with "person") who commits an overt act will be convicted for an assault with intent to rape, if the victim is under the age of consent and has expressed their willingness to such overt act. The reason being that a child cannot consent to the crime of rape or to an assault with the intent to commit rape - See more at: Assault With Intent to Commit Rape - Rape

Click to expand...

Me Myself said:

The woman was pulling the pants of the child clearly against the child's will and the only reason she stopped was because pele around her made it clear enough they were not going to be accomplices to rape.

Sure, it wasnt rape and no, I would not convict it as rape, but it was about to be, and if the people around her had had a different attitude, the woman was going to rape the child.

Click to expand...

She needs to be charged with "attempt to rape" then..along with every other guy that does it..Really I would be happy if every guy that did that went jail for the same term as if he had actually committed rape.. and every woman.Maybe it would solve the social problem.

DallasApple said:

Your entire agenda has been to exaggerate "men's issues" ..to make a mountain out of a mole hill..when we all know what the 'issue is...

Click to expand...

That is, literally, the orthodox feminist response to the existence of the masculist philosophy. If you don't mind, keep the personal attacks to a minimum, considering they are directly against the rules.

Curious George said:

Are you laughing because I gave you the states that recognize female initiated, forced, oral sex as rape?

Click to expand...

No. I'm laughing because I would bet good money that you didn't look up a single one of them. Just got an alphabetical list of states and copy/pasted a couple dozen or so.

not passive voice, For goodness sakes! you did not even have a subject in your sentence

Click to expand...

Nope, elliptical sentences often don't (see posts 14 & 18).

passive as in wish-washy, not assertive.

Click to expand...

Lack of knowledge and indicating as much is now "wish-washy"? Okay, *snicker* Just be advised that in the future I may use the word again rather than try to bluff my way through a point.

I do not understand how why you fail to realize that your reaction to a morally outrageous act does not demonstrate apathy.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that everyone was obligated to register their personal outrage. Next time an outrageous incident appears in a thread you've chosen to post in I'll try to remember to tell you how I feel. :slap:

I understood your choice of focus--that the poster was exaggerating or posting dishonestly-- to gloss over the elephant in the room, the molestation of a child by an adult, to attack the credibility of the poster.

Click to expand...

I choose to address those points I feel need addressing; not what anyone else thinks I should address.

Do you honestly think that :

Skwim said:

Assaulted and perhaps molested, but not raped.

Click to expand...

is not dismissive?

Click to expand...

Nope. It's corrective. It's ignoring what you think I should address in favor of what I choose to address. My aim was to correct a misrepresentation. That you are evidently looking for a head count of "nays" is interesting, but hardly a compelling reason to join your survey.

There are currently 41 mods for this board nyRednek, if they were seriously acting in such a way as to censor opinions they did not like - then given that each likely has different things that they do not like there would be almost no posts whatsoever on this board.

Moderating/Administrating a forum involves not just formulating appropriate rules and monitoring for potential infractions, it involves the subjective comprehension of content and the attempt to ensure that subjective influences on your decision to excise designated forum powers adhere to the rules and to the board's norms, which on RF (not always the case for every forum) includes doing one's best to ensure that it is an objectively valid reason for intervention. This includes comparison to established norms, so for example on a board that has little formal intervention in general, is likely to have moderators that are more inclined towards less intervention, handling things informally and so forth. There are also likely processes that need to be met, such as having more than one moderator agree on a course of action, go through a warning process etc

Green forums convey a set of norms more conducive to conflict (note that not all conflict is bad, though we tend to view it as such) than blue or purple, not merely in rules but in expectations on members and on staff. It is therefore quite reasonable to expect that infractions or disruptions in a purple forum might be dealt with more quickly and more harshly than in a blue or green. Of course infractions are still to be dealt with, it is merely that a different approach and mindset towards intervention is adopted depending on the context in which it occurs.

Skwim said:

No. I'm laughing because I would bet good money that you didn't look up a single one of them. Just got an alphabetical list of states and copy/pasted a couple dozen or so.

Nope, elliptical sentence often don't (see posts 14 & 18).

Lack of knowledge and indicating as much is now "wish-washy"? Okay, *snicker* Just be advised that in the future I may use the word again rather than try to bluff my way through a point.

I wasn't aware that everyone was obligated to register their personal outrage. Next time an outrageous incident appears in a thread you've chosen to post in I'll try to remember to tell you how I feel. :slap:

I choose to address those points I feel need addressing; not what anyone else thinks I should address.

Nope. It's corrective. It's ignoring what you think I should address in favor of what I choose to address. My aim was to correct a misrepresentation. That you are evidently looking for a head count of "nays" is interesting, but hardly a compelling reason to join your survey.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did bother to look up rape statutes,

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes- 3101 Definitions... "Sexual intercours." In addition to its ordinary meaning, includes intercourse per os or per anus, with some penetration however slight;emission is not required.

3121(a) A person commits a felony in the person egages in sexual intercourse with complainant:
(1) by forcible compulsion
(2) by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.
(3)....

Anyhow, that is Pennsylvania, Go ahead and look up the states which I mentioned. You asked, I delivered

Skwim said:

Nope. It's corrective. It's ignoring what you think I should address in favor of what I choose to address. My aim was to correct a misrepresentation. That you are evidently looking for a head count of "nays" is interesting, but hardly a compelling reason to join your survey.

Click to expand...

Skwim, If you really had no ill will in posting the way you did, then I am sorry for assuming such.