PDA

View Full Version : Rapists, false accusations and the like



garhkal
09-14-2016, 05:42 AM
I just got done watching yet another L&O SVU episode, where false accusations against someone ruined them, but nothing got done to the females making said false accusation.
NOW I KNOW its just a TV show, but i have also heard of that mentality from actual cops as well as our base legal people when quizzed about it during one of our all hands Assault prevention days..
The common misconception is that if they (the authorities) do go after those who make false accusations, is that it will push those who legitimately got assaulted/raped, to NOT come forward.

Who here feels that to be true?
Does wanting to punish those who lie to cops make people who are truly victims less likely to come forward??

Mjölnir
09-14-2016, 10:26 AM
I don't think that it is a misconception at all. As you said, knowing that Law & Order is a TV show, rarely do false, truly false & provably false complaints emerge. As many legal rights and burdens of proof that exist to prove someone guilty of a sexual assault, proving to that same level of certainty that a complaint is false is very hard.

Filing a knowingly false (not in good faith) complaint is a very bad thing, and depending on the type of complaint is criminal and is prosecuted. When an alleged victim files an informal complaint, their statement is not sworn, so if it is not proven or false, there really is nothing a prosecutor can do; if the complaint is formal, the statement is sworn and if false (different from unproven ... but outright false / not in good faith) then the complainant can be prosecuted (I have seen this happen).

It is also to keep in mind that just because a claim is not proven, doesn't make it a false complaint. Yes, the alleged perpetrator cannot be shunned, dinged on evals etc. but it is rare that an unproven complaint is actually proven to be false. Often the issue is not a matter of sexual contact having happened, but under what context: one person saying something happened one way, the other saying it happened a different way. She said, he said.

In my XO tour so far I have (thankfully) not had to deal with a sexual assault accusation, but other she said, he said type scenarios. Sorting out who is telling the truth, or at least the closest version to the truth is a real pain. I do think most of the time, people are telling the truth, from their perspective.

So does/would the prosecuting of people who make false complaints influence people with legitimate complaints to not file a complaint? Very probably, I do think so. I can see how a victim could view prosecuting or attempting to prosecute someone who made a false claim apprehensive about filing a complaint themselves.

Bos Mutus
09-14-2016, 02:45 PM
It is also to keep in mind that just because a claim is not proven, doesn't make it a false complaint.

This is the thing.

Rainmaker
09-14-2016, 02:51 PM
is also to keep in mind that just because a claim is not proven, doesn't make it a false complaint


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/09/11/20160913%20-%20Powell%201.JPG

sandsjames
09-14-2016, 02:54 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2016/09/11/20160913%20-%20Powell%201.JPG


Very relevant to false rape complaints. Stay on that agenda at all costs!!!!

Rainmaker
09-14-2016, 03:00 PM
Very relevant to false rape complaints. Stay on that agenda at all costs!!!!

cough, cough, cough......sip some water, cough, cough.....You're sexist for question(cough)ing my health......take a lozenge.....cough,cough, gag,cough.........Run away to restroom.....cough, cough, wheeze, cough..

WILDJOKER5
09-14-2016, 03:24 PM
I believe they believe its true. That's why the "law" gives women the "right" to cry rape if they were "too drunk to remember". Although the guy could never get away with that line. And it never works if the woman was too drunk to remember she was driving. Feminism is a supremacist movement.

sparks82
09-14-2016, 05:10 PM
I just got done watching yet another L&O SVU episode, where false accusations against someone ruined them, but nothing got done to the females making said false accusation.
NOW I KNOW its just a TV show, but i have also heard of that mentality from actual cops as well as our base legal people when quizzed about it during one of our all hands Assault prevention days..
The common misconception is that if they (the authorities) do go after those who make false accusations, is that it will push those who legitimately got assaulted/raped, to NOT come forward.

Who here feels that to be true?
Does wanting to punish those who lie to cops make people who are truly victims less likely to come forward??

If they actually prove a legitimate false accusation they will go after that person who made it. I know of a story from when I was a SARC at Ft Riley - I did not handle this case. Another SARC did. A female soldier accused her company commander I believe of sexually assaulting her. The only issue is that at the time and date that she said he did this he was at NTC. They tell her this and she continues to lie and says "no he did it." They charged her with making a false report and she got fined for it. That's all I remember about that story. But she kept lying even though he was in another state. I think he was on his way back so he was on a bus with many other soldier to verify for his whereabouts.

As stated it is very, very rare for someone to make a false accusation. Unsubstantiated does not mean false. It means there was not enough evidence to continue on with a charge. CID made that very clear to us. I would tell that to victims when I had to go back and tell them the results. It's very hard to prosecute a case that is years old, with no physical evidence and conflicting statements. OR when you can't find the alleged perpetrator. One case I heard about from another brigade was a female who said she had been sexually assaulted by an Iraqi SGM. But she didn't bring it up until she was doing the questions when you are clearing behavioral health for PCS/ETS I guess. They investigated it though.

Some people might be dissuaded from reporting but I think if it was shown that someone who made a 100% false complaint and was prosecuted for it, I don't think it would stop someone from coming forward more than anything else that stops someone.

sparks82
09-14-2016, 05:12 PM
I believe they believe its true. That's why the "law" gives women the "right" to cry rape if they were "too drunk to remember". Although the guy could never get away with that line. And it never works if the woman was too drunk to remember she was driving. Feminism is a supremacist movement.

The law does not give women the right to cry rape. The law allows for anyone who has been sexually assaulted or raped or believes that they were to report it. That's why all accusations are taken seriously until proven otherwise.

Males are reporting sexual assaults more and not just in the military. Sex crime investigations are not easy and can take a very long time. I've seen it. It's not fun for anyone.

Rusty Jones
09-14-2016, 05:34 PM
I believe they believe its true. That's why the "law" gives women the "right" to cry rape if they were "too drunk to remember". Although the guy could never get away with that line. And it never works if the woman was too drunk to remember she was driving. Feminism is a supremacist movement.

I never understood that. If you get drunk, and you rape someone while you're drunk, will you get off for that?

If someone who is drunk is not responsible for the choices that they make, then it needs to go both ways.

sparks82
09-14-2016, 06:07 PM
Federal definition of rape, sexual assault, abusive contact, etc.

Definition of consent:

(8)Consent.—
(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.
(B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious. A person cannot consent while under threat or in fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (b)(1).

(C) Lack of consent may be inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

Now state laws might be worded slightly differently. I don't think any law states that if you're "drunk" you can't consent. It usually states if you're incapacitated or intoxicated. It usually ends up in the hands of the prosecutor after the investigation to decide on what to charge.

The military has been wrongly teaching that if you're drunk you can't consent at all. I don't think they should have been teaching that in SHARP or SAPR training. There are a lot of ways they shouldn't have been teaching or things that should have been the focus.

Rainmaker
09-14-2016, 06:20 PM
The military has been wrongly teaching that if you're drunk you can't consent at all. I don't think they should have been teaching that in SHARP or SAPR training. There are a lot of ways they shouldn't have been teaching or things that should have been the focus.

This is confusing..... In other words, Sometimes, when they say "No", they really mean, "Yes"?

garhkal
09-14-2016, 06:22 PM
It is also to keep in mind that just because a claim is not proven, doesn't make it a false complaint. Yes, the alleged perpetrator cannot be shunned, dinged on evals etc. but it is rare that an unproven complaint is actually proven to be false. Often the issue is not a matter of sexual contact having happened, but under what context: one person saying something happened one way, the other saying it happened a different way. She said, he said.

That is true, just cause a court trial ruled not guilty/acquitted, doesn't mean the crime didn't happen, but just that there wasn't enough proof to convict.
What i am more on about is when during the investigation leading up TO a potential trial, it is sussed out that the claims ARE false.



So does/would the prosecuting of people who make false complaints influence people with legitimate complaints to not file a complaint? Very probably, I do think so. I can see how a victim could view prosecuting or attempting to prosecute someone who made a false claim apprehensive about filing a complaint themselves.

But how? How is seeing someone who makes a false claim getting punished for it, pushing real victims to stay silent?


I believe they believe its true. That's why the "law" gives women the "right" to cry rape if they were "too drunk to remember". Although the guy could never get away with that line. And it never works if the woman was too drunk to remember she was driving. Feminism is a supremacist movement.

That's something that has always gotten me.. IF a female can't consent cause she is too drunk, then how could the guy also consent if he is also drunk?
If you are inebriated and thus can't make good decisions, as Bos says shouldn't it apply both ways?

Rusty Jones
09-14-2016, 06:36 PM
Shit, I remember times I got drunk on purpose just to have sex with someone I normally wouldn't have sex with (I know I'm not the only one. The term "beer goggles" has been around long before I was born). For example: about three months before I joined the Navy (this was back in 1999), I was on AOL chat rooms... feeling a little lonely that night. I didn't have a car. I used to drive my mother's car; but she needed to keep it that night.

Anyway, so I started talking to this chick on AOL and we agreed to meet at her house. My mother took me over there, dropped me off, and left. I knocked on the door, and a 300 lb Mexican woman answered.

Guess what? My mother was already gone. Not everybody had cell phones back then, and I was among those who didn't. I was stuck there for the night. Luckily, she had a liquor cabinet.

Was I "raped?" If not, would it be "rape" if the sexes were reversed?

sparks82
09-14-2016, 07:21 PM
This is confusing..... In other words, Sometimes, when they say "No", they really mean, "Yes"?

I never said that at all. No means no. If someone tells you no, you stop. You leave them alone. That's pretty clear cut to anyone I would think.

WILDJOKER5
09-14-2016, 07:26 PM
Shit, I remember times I got drunk on purpose just to have sex with someone I normally wouldn't have sex with (I know I'm not the only one. The term "beer goggles" has been around long before I was born). For example: about three months before I joined the Navy (this was back in 1999), I was on AOL chat rooms... feeling a little lonely that night. I didn't have a car. I used to drive my mother's car; but she needed to keep it that night.

Anyway, so I started talking to this chick on AOL and we agreed to meet at her house. My mother took me over there, dropped me off, and left. I knocked on the door, and a 300 lb Mexican woman answered.

Guess what? My mother was already gone. Not everybody had cell phones back then, and I was among those who didn't. I was stuck there for the night. Luckily, she had a liquor cabinet.

Was I "raped?" If not, would it be "rape" if the sexes were reversed?
Well, you already admitted that the intent was to get drunk enough to have sex. I think its when women wake up drunk after the club and they weren't fully intending on sex that night, but wake up to fugly Joe or happen to remember they are married is when "to drunk to consent" gets played.

But I admit to being in the same situation kind of. She wasn't 300lbs, but still a big girl. Drove about 30-45 mins to her house few month after my divorce. Saw what I was in for and chugged my beers I brought.

sparks82
09-14-2016, 08:01 PM
Nowhere does any law say if you have had any alcohol that you can't consent to sex. Show me one law that states that. I haven't seen it. The military teaches "don't have sex if you have any alcohol" because they're just trying to avoid any kind of situation. That's not a very good interpretation of UCMJ.

This is what Article 120 says about consent:


(8) Consent.
(A ) The term ‘consent’ means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent.
Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.
(B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious.
A person cannot consent while under threat or fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection
(b)(1).
(C ) Lack of consent may be inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

I think it's pretty clear what consent is in the military. Leaders who have been preaching "if you're drunk you can't consent at all" are wrong. If both participants state "yes" the it's consensual. If at ANY point a participant states "No" or "stop" then the other person needs to stop. There's nothing I have seen within UCMJ or civilian law that states if either one of you has had even a drop of alcohol you can't consent to sex.

I don't understand how people who are supposed to be adults can't comprehend this at all. No means no. It doesn't mean "maybe" it doesn't mean "yes." It means no. You might think you read some "signals" but you don't. I don't know why someone would keep going anyway in this day and age once someone says "stop."

The only mention of impairment by drug or other intoxicant is the definition of sexual assault:

(b) Sexual Assault. Any person subject to this
chapter who—
(1) commits a sexual act upon another person
by—
(A) threatening or placing that other person
in fear;
(B ) causing bodily harm to that other person;
(C ) making fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose;
or
(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense,
or concealment that the person is another
person;
(2) commits a sexual act upon another person
when the person knows or reasonably should
know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act
is occurring; or
(3) commits a sexual act upon another person
when the other person is incapable of consenting
to the sexual act due to—
(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is
known or reasonably should be known by the
person; or
(B) a mental disease or defect, or physical
disability, and that condition is known or reasonably
should be known by the person;
is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished
as a court-martial may direct.


This is why the investigate every accusation. If each one is not taken seriously THAT is what stops people - women AND men - from coming forward.

I don't know why it's so hard for adults to comprehend.

Rusty Jones
09-14-2016, 09:11 PM
In any case, when I was single, I never got involved with female military members. If my wife were to give me the finger and walk out of my life for good right now, I STILL wouldn't. There are plenty of reasons why, with shit like this being one of them.

garhkal
09-15-2016, 05:10 AM
Was I "raped?" If not, would it be "rape" if the sexes were reversed?

Yes and yes.. Well based on the letter of the law. However if based on how the justice system SEES things (and many in society), No and yes.


Well, you already admitted that the intent was to get drunk enough to have sex. I think its when women wake up drunk after the club and they weren't fully intending on sex that night, but wake up to fugly Joe or happen to remember they are married is when "to drunk to consent" gets played.

Some of the situations i heard while working security in Bahrain, were on the opposite end of that.. Gal goes out intending to bonk hunk she is into, but winds up in the sack with him and someone else. She gets buck wild during the session, but wakes up later regretting doing both guys and crys foul.

Though to me some of the worst ones i have heard were when both were underage, do the deed, keep the relationship going on till the guy is over age while she is still under, then dear ole dad finds out and grasses out the dude. Which is why several states over the past 10 or so years passed those romeo & Juliette laws..


Nowhere does any law say if you have had any alcohol that you can't consent to sex. Show me one law that states that. I haven't seen it. The military teaches "don't have sex if you have any alcohol" because they're just trying to avoid any kind of situation. That's not a very good interpretation of UCMJ.

This is what Article 120 says about consent:


(8) Consent.
(A ) The term ‘consent’ means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent.

You yourself showed why being 'drunk' classes as can't consent. If they are inebriated, how can they be seen as competent to give consent?

Rusty Jones
09-15-2016, 12:20 PM
Well, you already admitted that the intent was to get drunk enough to have sex. I think its when women wake up drunk after the club and they weren't fully intending on sex that night, but wake up to fugly Joe or happen to remember they are married is when "to drunk to consent" gets played.

But I admit to being in the same situation kind of. She wasn't 300lbs, but still a big girl. Drove about 30-45 mins to her house few month after my divorce. Saw what I was in for and chugged my beers I brought.

But the other thing they teach is us that consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. Even DURING intercourse. That being said, even if you get drunk to have sex... wouldn't consent be automatically withdrawn as soon as you're intoxicated?

WILDJOKER5
09-15-2016, 01:04 PM
But the other thing they teach is us that consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. Even DURING intercourse. That being said, even if you get drunk to have sex... wouldn't consent be automatically withdrawn as soon as you're intoxicated?

Good question. I mean our intent was to get drunk so our inhibitions went so far down that it didn't matter what the girl looked like. Now I guess if you started to sober up, then figured out you wanted to say no, then that could be rape. Sometimes you should just pop a Viagra and a ruffy at the same time and just let her do all the work. Get put in her spank bank while you can forget what ever it was you saw.

Here is a fun one for this thread. This kid being accused of rape was in jail for a year before being sentenced. No proof, just 13 "witnesses" from scorned girls.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1992015/did-13-girls-conspire-to-put-high-school-player-in-jail-with-false-rape-charges-defense-say-yes/

WILDJOKER5
09-15-2016, 01:24 PM
http://mensviews.com/tyler-kost-a-falsely-accused-teen-finally-gets-bail-after-700-days-in-jail-pinal-county-attorney-lando-voyles-office-hid-damming-evidence/

The girls need to be sentenced and be in jail for the same length, if not more, than what Kyle has spent in jail. But since our laws give so many women privilege, they probably wont spend more than 30 days in jail.

sparks82
09-15-2016, 05:39 PM
Yes and yes.. Well based on the letter of the law. However if based on how the justice system SEES things (and many in society), No and yes.



Some of the situations i heard while working security in Bahrain, were on the opposite end of that.. Gal goes out intending to bonk hunk she is into, but winds up in the sack with him and someone else. She gets buck wild during the session, but wakes up later regretting doing both guys and crys foul.

Though to me some of the worst ones i have heard were when both were underage, do the deed, keep the relationship going on till the guy is over age while she is still under, then dear ole dad finds out and grasses out the dude. Which is why several states over the past 10 or so years passed those romeo & Juliette laws..



You yourself showed why being 'drunk' classes as can't consent. If they are inebriated, how can they be seen as competent to give consent?

How did I show anything about being drunk *classifies as not consensual? I said the military teaches that but they are wrong. You can have a drink of alcohol and still consent. See what Art 120 says "freely given agreement to the conduct at issue." If someone is staggering around, unable to stand, not coherent obviously they can't consent. If they have had one drink, are coherent and aware of their surrounding they can consent.

It's not about how much someone drank - alcohol effects everyone differently. It's about actions. You are legally drunk if you blow above the legal limit - doesn't mean you're physically drunk. I know people who are functional alcoholics who you wouldn't know they had consumed as much as they had unless you saw it.

Point is the law doesn't say anything about if you have drank alcohol you can't consent to sex.

sparks82
09-15-2016, 06:15 PM
http://mensviews.com/tyler-kost-a-falsely-accused-teen-finally-gets-bail-after-700-days-in-jail-pinal-county-attorney-lando-voyles-office-hid-damming-evidence/

The girls need to be sentenced and be in jail for the same length, if not more, than what Kyle has spent in jail. But since our laws give so many women privilege, they probably wont spend more than 30 days in jail.

Really? The laws give women "so many privileges?" What exactly do we get? Have you forgotten the fact how long it took for domestic violence to even BE against the law? To be taken seriously by the police or prosecutors? Or that marital rape wasn't illegal until 1993 in all 50 states? 1993. Only for the last 23 years has it been illegal for someone to rape his or her spouse.

This guy hasn't even gone to trial and that's because of the crimes he's charged with. The charges are sexual crimes against minors - that's why it has taken so long. Blame the courts and legal system for that one. It takes a long time for nearly any case to go to trial. Especially when a detective or investigator fucks it up and they have to reassign someone to the case. Or when minors are involved.

I have yet to receive privileges legally for having a vagina.

On this case you posted - if the girls get out of a sentence it won't be because they have vaginas. It's going to be because the police department investigator screwed up so badly on this case. I did some research into it outside that article. There are so many issues with this case - I'd be surprised if it doesn't get dismissed at trial. I'm very surprised the prosecutors are still pushing it honestly.

sparks82
09-15-2016, 06:17 PM
But the other thing they teach is us that consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. Even DURING intercourse. That being said, even if you get drunk to have sex... wouldn't consent be automatically withdrawn as soon as you're intoxicated?

It depends on your level of intoxication and what you're on. The laws clearly state that there has to be mutual consent between two coherent people. As I said elsewhere people's level of intoxication differs. Legally you can be intoxicated at a certain point but plenty of people are functional alcoholics.

Rainmaker
09-15-2016, 06:54 PM
You can have a drink of alcohol and still consent.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/7c/68/7d/7c687debe61f4b5aca1f1465811bbd05.jpg

garhkal
09-15-2016, 07:07 PM
But the other thing they teach is us that consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. Even DURING intercourse.

Which i always found strange.


http://mensviews.com/tyler-kost-a-falsely-accused-teen-finally-gets-bail-after-700-days-in-jail-pinal-county-attorney-lando-voyles-office-hid-damming-evidence/

The girls need to be sentenced and be in jail for the same length, if not more, than what Kyle has spent in jail. But since our laws give so many women privilege, they probably wont spend more than 30 days in jail.

I actually doubt they will spend any time in jail, let alone more than 30..
But like you i feel that those who make false accusation, especially ones like that where it was a massive conspiracy, should spend at least DOUBLE the time the guy(s) they falsely accused did.

WILDJOKER5
09-15-2016, 07:28 PM
Really? The laws give women "so many privileges?" What exactly do we get? Have you forgotten the fact how long it took for domestic violence to even BE against the law? To be taken seriously by the police or prosecutors? Or that marital rape wasn't illegal until 1993 in all 50 states? 1993. Only for the last 23 years has it been illegal for someone to rape his or her spouse.Point exactly, women calling rape is taken seriously, men however claiming rape or forced penetration is usually brushed aside. Men get abused about half the time as women in domestic fights, but there are still a total of 0 battered men's shelters. Over 75% of the time, women win full custody of children in divorces. Prostate cancer research receives less than half of breast cancer research, yet both cancers kill in the same respectable levels of each other. Women (teachers) who rape their students and are even pregnant with the student get less than half the time in jail than a man would for raping his student.


This guy hasn't even gone to trial and that's because of the crimes he's charged with. The charges are sexual crimes against minors - that's why it has taken so long. Blame the courts and legal system for that one. It takes a long time for nearly any case to go to trial. Especially when a detective or investigator fucks it up and they have to reassign someone to the case. Or when minors are involved. Rights to a speedy trial, number 6. 2 years is far more than excessive for the kid to spend in jail, probably getting raped himself. Its not like they are going to find more evidence.


I have yet to receive privileges legally for having a vagina. Got your kid? Maybe you just haven't used it properly yet. Kind of like someone who has tons on money in the bank or retirement hasn't withdrawn their nest egg and still works for everything they want.


On this case you posted - if the girls get out of a sentence it won't be because they have vaginas. It's going to be because the police department investigator screwed up so badly on this case. I did some research into it outside that article. There are so many issues with this case - I'd be surprised if it doesn't get dismissed at trial. I'm very surprised the prosecutors are still pushing it honestly.
Kind of like the Casey Anthony case, they just wont stop because then the public outcries will be deafening. Maybe a "Vagina lives matters" riot would break out 28 days later?

sparks82
09-15-2016, 08:15 PM
Point exactly, women calling rape is taken seriously, men however claiming rape or forced penetration is usually brushed aside. Men get abused about half the time as women in domestic fights, but there are still a total of 0 battered men's shelters. Over 75% of the time, women win full custody of children in divorces. Prostate cancer research receives less than half of breast cancer research, yet both cancers kill in the same respectable levels of each other. Women (teachers) who rape their students and are even pregnant with the student get less than half the time in jail than a man would for raping his student.

Rights to a speedy trial, number 6. 2 years is far more than excessive for the kid to spend in jail, probably getting raped himself. Its not like they are going to find more evidence.

Got your kid? Maybe you just haven't used it properly yet. Kind of like someone who has tons on money in the bank or retirement hasn't withdrawn their nest egg and still works for everything they want.


Kind of like the Casey Anthony case, they just wont stop because then the public outcries will be deafening. Maybe a "Vagina lives matters" riot would break out 28 days later?

That has everything to do with society and nothing to do with the law. I see how you so easily dismissed how long it took for women to even get equal treatment under the law. It took forever for women reporting rape to be taken seriously. To be being beaten up by their partners to be taken seriously. To being raped by their husbands to be taken seriously. Again 1993 before all 50 states outlawed marital rape.

Yes it's fucking ridiculous that male victims are ignored. Yes it's ridiculous there are no male shelters. If I ever have the financial resources to do it, I will open one. I would love for their to be no need for shelters like that at all but that's not reality.

They are beginning to address male victims more seriously but you know why that stigma exists? Because of other men. Because of the bullshit ideal that men can't show emotion or they're "weak" and "how can a tiny woman beat you up?"

This case you posted of having him in jail isn't about finding more evidence. It was about the fact the alleged victims were minors. Did you read article about it? I know cases that are more minor than this that don't go to trial for a year.

What does the Casey Anthony case have to do with any of this?

What do you mean "got your kid?" Of course I got custody of my daughter - I'm the only parent with a stable job, a home, who takes her to all her doctor's appointments, who has health insurance to cover it and so on. But yes I got custody of her because I have a vagina. Not because her father is a now homeless drug addict with no job, no car, no license, nothing. Thanks vagina!

No I don't use my gender in any way to "get ahead." I don't need to. Most women I know don't either.

WILDJOKER5
09-15-2016, 08:30 PM
That has everything to do with society and nothing to do with the law. I see how you so easily dismissed how long it took for women to even get equal treatment under the law. It took forever for women reporting rape to be taken seriously. To be being beaten up by their partners to be taken seriously. To being raped by their husbands to be taken seriously. Again 1993 before all 50 states outlawed marital rape. Because that's not part of "today", that is the past. And actually, women weren't always subjugated.

But anyways, if women getting less jail time or winning in court for custody or being taken seriously on rape by the law enforcers is "society", then what would it be to get it considered "the law" in your mind?


Yes it's fucking ridiculous that male victims are ignored. Yes it's ridiculous there are no male shelters. If I ever have the financial resources to do it, I will open one. I would love for their to be no need for shelters like that at all but that's not reality. Then you will face the strong back lash of women who think your inner misogyny was showing.


They are beginning to address male victims more seriously but you know why that stigma exists? Because of other men. Because of the bullshit ideal that men can't show emotion or they're "weak" and "how can a tiny woman beat you up?" So if a guy went to a female officer, the reason she would blow him off would be because of the male officers?


This case you posted of having him in jail isn't about finding more evidence. It was about the fact the alleged victims were minors. Did you read article about it? I know cases that are more minor than this that don't go to trial for a year. He was technically a minor when the acts were preformed. They kept him in jail with no chance of parole because its written in the law that "serious sexual crimes" don't get bail.


What does the Casey Anthony case have to do with any of this? Public pressure to push for a jury and prosecution. The court and prosecutors aren't being "blind", they are following the pressure feminist have put on society to get this kid convicted, or at least tried, or else they will be called part of the "patriarchy" and voted out of office. Same public lynch mob that got George Zimmerman tried for something that should have never been brought to a grand jury.


What do you mean "got your kid?" Of course I got custody of my daughter - I'm the only parent with a stable job, a home, who takes her to all her doctor's appointments, who has health insurance to cover it and so on. But yes I got custody of her because I have a vagina. Not because her father is a now homeless drug addict with no job, no car, no license, nothing. Thanks vagina! You are one of the few. Most of the time when the woman doesn't have the job, they still get custody. Especially in liberal lands like CA and NY.


No I don't use my gender in any way to "get ahead." I don't need to. Most women I know don't either.
You usually hang around people similar to yourself, so if you don't think you do it, then you wouldn't see in from your friends either.

Bos Mutus
09-16-2016, 05:39 AM
I believe they believe its true. That's why the "law" gives women the "right" to cry rape if they were "too drunk to remember". Although the guy could never get away with that line. And it never works if the woman was too drunk to remember she was driving. Feminism is a supremacist movement.

You are confusing being the suspect with the victim.

Being the victim of a rape is like being the person hit by the car, not like being the driver.

Do you think the law should state that drunk women can not file rape charges?...i.e. once a woman gets drunk, you are free to rape her all you want.?


I never understood that. If you get drunk, and you rape someone while you're drunk, will you get off for that?

If someone who is drunk is not responsible for the choices that they make, then it needs to go both ways.

So...you're saying getting raped is a choice the woman makes?

garhkal
09-16-2016, 06:47 AM
Point exactly, women calling rape is taken seriously, men however claiming rape or forced penetration is usually brushed aside.


Heck in some states, the # of times a man has claimed rape and actually had it even go to trial is 0.. And what i find the worse is that in some cases the male victims of rape who did get their rapist pregnant, were THEN further 'raped' by the system by being forced to pay up child support, such as in the case Hermesmann v. Seyer.
http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html


Men get abused about half the time as women in domestic fights, but there are still a total of 0 battered men's shelters.


Heck its not just battered spouse shelters. I have yet to see a SINGLE documentary on abuse against male spouses, compared to the dozens i have seen on female victims...


Over 75% of the time, women win full custody of children in divorces. Prostate cancer research receives less than half of breast cancer research, yet both cancers kill in the same respectable levels of each other.


Try almost 3 to 1 ratio.. Prostate cancer last year had barely 390 mil in funding Federally, compared to 900 or so mil for breast. AND That's not including the well over 30 separate different private charities that raise money for breast cancer.. Compare that to maybe 3 out there for prostate cancer research (i can't find a definitive list)


Women (teachers) who rape their students and are even pregnant with the student get less than half the time in jail than a man would for raping his student.


If any at all.. And its only been recently that has even been happening where they get jail time.


That has everything to do with society and nothing to do with the law. I see how you so easily dismissed how long it took for women to even get equal treatment under the law. It took forever for women reporting rape to be taken seriously. To be being beaten up by their partners to be taken seriously. To being raped by their husbands to be taken seriously. Again 1993 before all 50 states outlawed marital rape.

It has everything to do with the law.. When its the LAW that decides whether someone's prosecuted for breaking a law.. BUT admittedly society does have a big chunk of the blame as its US who push for laws to get made..

And its the same reason why those who make false rape claims don't get charged. ITS THE LAW that protects them as they (IMO) wrongfully feel that it would make real victims not come forward.. BUT again that is all imo cause of society's pressure on them to take rape of women serious..


You are confusing being the suspect with the victim.

Being the victim of a rape is like being the person hit by the car, not like being the driver.

Do you think the law should state that drunk women can not file rape charges?...i.e. once a woman gets drunk, you are free to rape her all you want.?

Certainly not. BUT by the same logic, if a woman gets a guy drunk for the purposes of having sex with him cause she knows he wouldn't shag her with some one ELSES dick if he was sober, shouldn't SHE be done for rape..??!

Rusty Jones
09-16-2016, 12:54 PM
So...you're saying getting raped is a choice the woman makes?

No, I'm saying having sex is a choice the woman makes.

But now, they're saying that being drunk means that one can't consent. Which is garbage. By that standard, it should be impossible to commit a crime while under the influence. DUI's should be perfectly legal.

sandsjames
09-16-2016, 01:23 PM
No, I'm saying having sex is a choice the woman makes.

But now, they're saying that being drunk means that one can't consent. Which is garbage. By that standard, it should be impossible to commit a crime while under the influence. DUI's should be perfectly legal.

Absolutely...if I can't "make a choice" to have sex while I'm drunk then how can I be held responsible when I get into a car. I was impaired, under the influence. I wasn't in my right mind.

I had a plan not to drive before I went out, then I drove anyway. Obviously it wasn't me who made the choice because the alcohol altered my original, smart plan.

Bos Mutus
09-16-2016, 02:33 PM
Certainly not. BUT by the same logic, if a woman gets a guy drunk for the purposes of having sex with him cause she knows he wouldn't shag her with some one ELSES dick if he was sober, shouldn't SHE be done for rape..??!

The law should allow any victim to press charges...whether they were drunk or not.

You seem to be implying that the law shouldn't allow women to cry rape if they were drunk when raped....what did you mean by that then?



No, I'm saying having sex is a choice the woman makes.

But now, they're saying that being drunk means that one can't consent. Which is garbage. By that standard, it should be impossible to commit a crime while under the influence. DUI's should be perfectly legal.


Absolutely...if I can't "make a choice" to have sex while I'm drunk then how can I be held responsible when I get into a car. I was impaired, under the influence. I wasn't in my right mind.

I had a plan not to drive before I went out, then I drove anyway. Obviously it wasn't me who made the choice because the alcohol altered my original, smart plan.

You all are still a little murky in the victim vs. suspect thing.

Voluntary intoxication is not an excuse for committing a crime. The only time intoxication is an excuse is when you were involuntarily intoxicated...i.e. someone drugged you.

Rainmaker
09-16-2016, 02:55 PM
The law should allow any victim to press charges...whether they were drunk or not.

You seem to be implying that the law shouldn't allow women to cry rape if they were drunk when raped....what did you mean by that then?






You all are still a little murky in the victim vs. suspect thing.



if you're drunk and get involved in an accident, It's generally assumed that you caused the accident (Whether you actually caused it or not).
This is because, drunk driving is considered to be Reckless and Negligent behavior.

sparks82
09-16-2016, 03:18 PM
Heck in some states, the # of times a man has claimed rape and actually had it even go to trial is 0.. And what i find the worse is that in some cases the male victims of rape who did get their rapist pregnant, were THEN further 'raped' by the system by being forced to pay up child support, such as in the case Hermesmann v. Seyer.
http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/67-978-3.html



Heck its not just battered spouse shelters. I have yet to see a SINGLE documentary on abuse against male spouses, compared to the dozens i have seen on female victims...



Try almost 3 to 1 ratio.. Prostate cancer last year had barely 390 mil in funding Federally, compared to 900 or so mil for breast. AND That's not including the well over 30 separate different private charities that raise money for breast cancer.. Compare that to maybe 3 out there for prostate cancer research (i can't find a definitive list)



If any at all.. And its only been recently that has even been happening where they get jail time.



It has everything to do with the law.. When its the LAW that decides whether someone's prosecuted for breaking a law.. BUT admittedly society does have a big chunk of the blame as its US who push for laws to get made..

And its the same reason why those who make false rape claims don't get charged. ITS THE LAW that protects them as they (IMO) wrongfully feel that it would make real victims not come forward.. BUT again that is all imo cause of society's pressure on them to take rape of women serious..



Certainly not. BUT by the same logic, if a woman gets a guy drunk for the purposes of having sex with him cause she knows he wouldn't shag her with some one ELSES dick if he was sober, shouldn't SHE be done for rape..??!


The laws don't decide who gets prosecuted - the prosecutor decides who gets charged and who doesn't. It's the people who decide based on their interpretation of the law. Sometimes the prosecution and the judges fuck up. That's pretty damn obvious. That case you posted they fucked up but it is Kansas so I didn't expect much from them.

Here are documentaries on male domestic violence victims:
UK Channel 4 the documentary program, Dispatches - 1999: 100 male victims were surveyed. "Breaking Our Silence" and "Battered Men." There was another link in this article I found but I can't access it that stated several other documentaries on male victims. There are a couple on same sex relationships where abuse happens.

Also there are women who have been charged with murder for killing their abusive partners and spent significant jail time for taking matters into their own hands.


Tell me how many cases there are where they 100% proved that the person made up a rape or assault story. How many cases are there out there that it was absolutely proven it was false? Not many. I know of the one when I was at Riley and that happened before I was a SARC.

Did she make the guy drink? Did she force the alcohol down his throat? Can you prove she forced him to drink in order to have sex? No. If someone doesn't want to have sex, they won't. Now if a woman slips something into a drink to violate that other person THAT is illegal. Or if he tells this woman "No I don't want to have sex with you" and she ends up taking advantage of him passed out, that's illegal too. But if both people willingly consent and are coherent and of sound mind, that is consensual sex regardless of the gender of the two people. As long as you are two, consenting adults, it's legal.

The issue isn't about which gender gets assaulted more. If people really want to stop rape, sexual assault and domestic violence we have to start addressing it as a gender neutral problem. We have to help everyone regardless of gender or ethnicity or social status. There should be more shelters that cater to both men and women. There should be less of a stigma on male victims coming forward. But you know who the majority of people are who attack male victims? Other men. If a guy gets raped and his so called friends find out, they make fun of him. If his wife beats him up, they make fun of him. So we need to stop focusing on the gender of the victims and start focusing ON the victims and helping them.

sparks82
09-16-2016, 03:22 PM
Absolutely...if I can't "make a choice" to have sex while I'm drunk then how can I be held responsible when I get into a car. I was impaired, under the influence. I wasn't in my right mind.

I had a plan not to drive before I went out, then I drove anyway. Obviously it wasn't me who made the choice because the alcohol altered my original, smart plan.

There is a legal limit for intoxication. Also driving while drunk is a lot different than someone taking advantage of an intoxicated, incoherent, irrational person.

No one says you can't have drunk sex. You can't FORCE someone else to have sex with you. If both people say yes, it's consensual. If at any point that person says "no" you stop. It's not difficult to grasp.

For those who say "What about those girls who wake up the next day and can't remember and cry rape?" That's why they investigate. Just because someone can't remember doesnt' mean they are lying about rape. If it is unfounded or unsubstantiated it gets dropped.

Who make a choice to get behind the car knowing that it's wrong if you're intoxicated. You also make a choice to have sex with someone who is passed out, barely able to stand, incoherent, etc knowing it's wrong (general you not specific you).

Rusty Jones
09-16-2016, 03:44 PM
You make a choice to get behind the car knowing that it's wrong if you're intoxicated. You also make a choice to have sex with someone knowing fully well what would could happen when you're intoxicated.

There, fixed it for you.

sparks82
09-16-2016, 04:16 PM
There, fixed it for you.

No you didn't. I know what I said and what I meant. Getting drunk to the point you pass out is NOT an invitation for someone else to come along and sexually assault or rape you. So by what you did to my comment you make it seem like it's the passed out person's fault for getting violated. It's not. If you think it's okay for someone to have sex with an unconscious person, or incoherent barely able to stand drunk person, you have some serious fucking issues you need to deal with.

Rusty Jones
09-16-2016, 04:33 PM
No you didn't. I know what I said and what I meant. Getting drunk to the point you pass out is NOT an invitation for someone else to come along and sexually assault or rape you. So by what you did to my comment you make it seem like it's the passed out person's fault for getting violated. It's not. If you think it's okay for someone to have sex with an unconscious person, or incoherent barely able to stand drunk person, you have some serious fucking issues you need to deal with.

LOL, you're the queen of straw man arguments.

The reason I "fixed" what you said is because you chose to address something that wasn't being discussed (i.e., being unconscious), so you wouldn't have to address what WAS being discussed.

I'm going to put this another way, so that maybe your pea brain can understand this time: if you have to take responsibility for getting behind the wheel when you're drunk, then you can take responsibility for having sex when you're drunk.

sparks82
09-16-2016, 04:58 PM
LOL, you're the queen of straw man arguments.

The reason I "fixed" what you said is because you chose to address something that wasn't being discussed (i.e., being unconscious), so you wouldn't have to address what WAS being discussed.

I'm going to put this another way, so that maybe your pea brain can understand this time: if you have to take responsibility for getting behind the wheel when you're drunk, then you can take responsibility for having sex when you're drunk.

It's not the same thing. Driving drunk and someone being sexually assaulted while drunk are two very different things.

Rusty Jones
09-16-2016, 05:37 PM
It's not the same thing. Driving drunk and someone being sexually assaulted while drunk are two very different things.

See, you're fucking up again.

In both scenarios, I'm talking about the decisions that the DRINKER made.

However, you are talking about the drinker's decision in one scenario and someone else's decision in the other.

Of course, as usual, this is your way of not addressing what's being discussed.

garhkal
09-16-2016, 06:33 PM
The law should allow any victim to press charges...whether they were drunk or not.

You seem to be implying that the law shouldn't allow women to cry rape if they were drunk when raped....what did you mean by that then?

No, i am saying that the laws as applied currently are discriminatory in that there is an overt double stadnard. BOTH the guy and gal drunk, its all HIS fault. She's drunk he's not, its all HIS fault. HE's drunk she's not, Its NOT her fault...



For those who say "What about those girls who wake up the next day and can't remember and cry rape?" That's why they investigate. Just because someone can't remember doesnt' mean they are lying about rape. If it is unfounded or unsubstantiated it gets dropped.


This is, in today's society, in those investigations the guy(s) will get pulled in very publicly to get quizzed.. So get labeled a rapist, even when there ARE No charges filed due to no evidence.. So whether he's guilty or not, he's LABELED as one.. AND that does follow him around.

Bos Mutus
09-17-2016, 05:19 AM
No, i am saying that the laws as applied currently are discriminatory in that there is an overt double stadnard. BOTH the guy and gal drunk, its all HIS fault.

Can you give a specific example? I'm not sure what you are talking about. If both are drunk and the guy rapes the girl...yes, it's his fault...because intoxication is not a defense for his crime and intoxication does not make her any less of a victim.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...they had consensual sex and it was his fault? His fault for what? What was the crime if they had consensual sex? Can you give a specific case that illustrates your point?


She's drunk he's not, its all HIS fault. HE's drunk she's not, Its NOT her fault...

You are throwing out hypothetical scenarios that is difficult to discuss...what cases are you talking about? Is there a case where the guy claimed he was raped by a woman and she was exonerated? What are you talking about?

garhkal
09-17-2016, 07:08 AM
[QUOTE=Bos Mutus;367726]Can you give a specific example? I'm not sure what you are talking about. If both are drunk and the guy rapes the girl...yes, it's his fault...because intoxication is not a defense for his crime and intoxication does not make her any less of a victim.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...they had consensual sex and it was his fault? His fault for what? What was the crime if they had consensual sex? Can you give a specific case that illustrates your point?
[/quuote]

Norfolk Va, 98 time frame while attending a new C school, one of the other students in a different class was done for sexual assault. BOTH him and his at the time live in GF got blast drunk (at a party i went to but was the DD at the time so i didn't imble booze). He dumped her later on and she claimed he raped her when they did the deed at said party. BOTH were inebriated, but cause SHE was drunk the lawyers felt she could not consent, even though HE was also drunk, and some how WAS able to consent..

sandsjames
09-17-2016, 01:52 PM
Can you give a specific example? I'm not sure what you are talking about. If both are drunk and the guy rapes the girl...yes, it's his fault...because intoxication is not a defense for his crime and intoxication does not make her any less of a victim.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...they had consensual sex and it was his fault? His fault for what? What was the crime if they had consensual sex? Can you give a specific case that illustrates your point?



You are throwing out hypothetical scenarios that is difficult to discuss...what cases are you talking about? Is there a case where the guy claimed he was raped by a woman and she was exonerated? What are you talking about?

Why do yo act like you don't know what's being said here?

If a man and a woman are both intoxicated and they have consensual sex, it can still be considered rape, if the woman decides to make a complaint...AND...as far as the military is concerned (can't speak for the rest of the country) it is the guys fault because the woman couldn't legally consent (though neither can the guy). So, the guy is required to take responsibility and blame, even though he was also intoxicated.

Now, you can continue to pretend this isn't happening and you can continue to pretend you didn't understand the point garhkal was trying to get across but we all know you're smarter than that.

Bos Mutus
09-17-2016, 11:48 PM
Norfolk Va, 98 time frame while attending a new C school, one of the other students in a different class was done for sexual assault. BOTH him and his at the time live in GF got blast drunk (at a party i went to but was the DD at the time so i didn't imble booze). He dumped her later on and she claimed he raped her when they did the deed at said party. BOTH were inebriated, but cause SHE was drunk the lawyers felt she could not consent, even though HE was also drunk, and some how WAS able to consent..

Since SHE claimd rape....her consent was the only thing at issue.

Since HE is the suspect...his consent is not an issue and his intoxication is not a defense.

Bos Mutus
09-17-2016, 11:50 PM
Why do yo act like you don't know what's being said here?

If a man and a woman are both intoxicated and they have consensual sex, it can still be considered rape, if the woman decides to make a complaint...AND...as far as the military is concerned (can't speak for the rest of the country) it is the guys fault because the woman couldn't legally consent (though neither can the guy). So, the guy is required to take responsibility and blame, even though he was also intoxicated.

I know what's being said...what I'm trying to point out is that the consent of the suspected rapist is not an issue and his intoxication is not a defense.

You guys keep bringing up the guy's consent...it doesn't matter, unless it's the guy claiming he was raped.


Now, you can continue to pretend this isn't happening and you can continue to pretend you didn't understand the point garhkal was trying to get across but we all know you're smarter than that.

sandsjames
09-18-2016, 02:16 AM
I know what's being said...what I'm trying to point out is that the consent of the suspected rapist is not an issue and his intoxication is not a defense.

You guys keep bringing up the guy's consent...it doesn't matter, unless it's the guy claiming he was raped.

Right...that's the law...absolutely....but that's not the question being asked. The question is simple. If a woman can't consent if she's been drinking, because her decision making is impaired...then why is the guy held responsible for his decisions?

garhkal
09-18-2016, 07:23 AM
Since SHE claimd rape....her consent was the only thing at issue.

Since HE is the suspect...his consent is not an issue and his intoxication is not a defense.

Which basically means any woman who wants to fuck over a guy can get drunk WITH HIM getting drunk also, and then claim rape afterwards..

Bos Mutus
09-18-2016, 03:42 PM
Right...that's the law...absolutely....but that's not the question being asked. The question is simple. If a woman can't consent if she's been drinking, because her decision making is impaired...then why is the guy held responsible for his decisions?

Yes, the same question keeps getting asked, so the answer is he same...

Because one is a suspect and the other is a victim.

Why hey is held responsible for his actions?....because intoxication is not a defense.

why isn't she held responsible? She isn't being accused of anything

Bos Mutus
09-18-2016, 03:44 PM
Which basically means any woman who wants to fuck over a guy can get drunk WITH HIM getting drunk also, and then claim rape afterwards..

I advise young men not to have sex for the first time with a woman when she's drunk.

sandsjames
09-18-2016, 04:21 PM
I advise young men not to have sex for the first time with a woman when she's drunk.

I would agree with that advice, though for totally different reasons, I'm sure.

sandsjames
09-18-2016, 04:24 PM
Yes, the same question keeps getting asked, so the answer is he same...

Because one is a suspect and the other is a victim.

Why hey is held responsible for his actions?....because intoxication is not a defense.

why isn't she held responsible? She isn't being accused of anything

Ridiculous...if one person cannot legally make a decision when intoxicated, nobody can. He can't be a suspect because he's not responsible for his actions. He's impaired, and impairment removes the responsibility of poor decision making.

garhkal
09-18-2016, 11:56 PM
Yes, the same question keeps getting asked, so the answer is he same...

Because one is a suspect and the other is a victim.

Why hey is held responsible for his actions?....because intoxication is not a defense.

why isn't she held responsible? She isn't being accused of anything

So if both are drunk, then the first person who cries is safe.

sparks82
09-19-2016, 03:45 PM
No, i am saying that the laws as applied currently are discriminatory in that there is an overt double stadnard. BOTH the guy and gal drunk, its all HIS fault. She's drunk he's not, its all HIS fault. HE's drunk she's not, Its NOT her fault...



This is, in today's society, in those investigations the guy(s) will get pulled in very publicly to get quizzed.. So get labeled a rapist, even when there ARE No charges filed due to no evidence.. So whether he's guilty or not, he's LABELED as one.. AND that does follow him around.

Example? Do you have an actual case? What is her or his fault? You have made no point and this makes no sense.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 04:31 PM
Which basically means any woman who wants to fuck over a guy can get drunk WITH HIM getting drunk also, and then claim rape afterwards..

I suppose if you want to fuck over a girl, you can get drunk with her, have her stick a carrot in your ass and then claim rape afterwards.

sandsjames
09-19-2016, 04:34 PM
I suppose if you want to fuck over a girl, you can get drunk with her, have her stick a carrot in your ass and then claim rape afterwards.

Technically, if a chick gives you a BJ while you are drunk you could claim assault.

Oh, and I wouldn't recommend using that carrot in a cake.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 04:36 PM
Ridiculous...if one person cannot legally make a decision when intoxicated, nobody can. He can't be a suspect because he's not responsible for his actions. He's impaired, and impairment removes the responsibility of poor decision making.

Voluntary Intoxication is not a defense. Her's would not be either if she was fucking accused of something! As many of you have mentioned...it's no excuse for her driving drunk, or stabbing him while drunk, etc.

I think you're just intentionally playing dense.

Like...hey, you know what is NOT fair. If the guy goes to trial HE has the right to remain silent and not testify..while SHE can be compelled to testify. Oh, what a double standard...NOT.

Silly.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 04:41 PM
Technically, if a chick gives you a BJ while you are drunk you could claim assault.

So, you're saying there's not a double standard then?


Oh, and I wouldn't recommend using that carrot in a cake.

sandsjames
09-19-2016, 04:57 PM
So, you're saying there's not a double standard then?

There is a double standard, clearly, but not with the way the law is written. Just with the way the law is executed. There's zero chance that the guy would win that case.

sandsjames
09-19-2016, 05:02 PM
Voluntary Intoxication is not a defense. Her's would not be either if she was fucking accused of something! As many of you have mentioned...it's no excuse for her driving drunk, or stabbing him while drunk, etc.

So why, then, does voluntary intoxication take away a person's ability to "consent"? You can keep playing semantics all day long, if you'd like, but the discussion isn't about victim/accused...it's about should intoxication be a valid excuse for not taking responsibility for choices made at the time of intoxication...and it can't be case by case. It either takes away your responsibility or it does not.

sparks82
09-19-2016, 05:37 PM
I have a fictional example from a TV show that's female on male. Anyone watch Shameless? The episode where Lip is asleep in his dorm room and his roommates girlfriend climbs into his bed, under his sheet while he's asleep and starts giving him a BJ. He wakes up shortly into it...looks surprised...looks at his roommate who is asleep and lets her continue.

He didn't initially consent but then he does allow her to continue. What would any of you call this? No alcohol (I don't think) was involved. Not in that episode.

The bottomline is that if you are incoherent, irrational, unconscious, asleep you can't consent. If the other person at some point says no, and you keep going, it's not consensual anymore. If two people consent through the entire event and both are coherent, of sound mind, rational, etc, it's consensual.

Here's an example of non consensual sexual act. This was back in college. I was not the victim. My ex's friend (male) was the victim.

We went to my friend's brother's house. She has a few siblings much older than her as her mom has married three times. Her oldest brother was the guy who always bought beer for minors. I think he's likely in his late 40s by now. He was always kind of weird. Well what we found out is that he would basically molest guys while they were drunk and passed out. He never did come out that he was gay and in fact denied it when confronted. I don't know why as another brother is gay and came out (we all knew he was anyway). One night we were at his apartment drinking. My friend, my ex (we were like fwb then), his friend and her brother. Well my friend left and told us not to stay there. My dad lived like six blocks away. It got later - and my ex's friend was passed out. This guy you can't wake up for anything. I said well let's go. My friend's brother says "oh no you guys can't leave. She told me to not let you drive." I said it's only six blocks (still shouldn't have driven) I can make it. I haven't drank for awhile. He kept pressuring us to stay and saying "you two can sleep in my bed. I'll just stay out here." I knew something was weird about that. But we went and passed out in the bed.

Later on I heard something so I glance up and see the brother crawling into the room to the OTHER side where my ex is lying. I'm like wtf is he doing? So I coughed and moved around and he scurried out of the room.

That morning the friend comes in "We gotta get the fuck out of here." We're hungover and like why? "I woke up and (the brother) was sucking my dick!" My ex was like "I'm not ready to leave." His friend says "Then give me your car keys. I can't stay in here." So I let him have the keys. We got up, went to the car, and he's got all the doors locked and in the fetal position. He lets us in and then starts talking shit how he's gonna kick his ass. I said go do it right now. He's asleep. You guys aren't going to do shit.

I felt bad for him somewhat. I told my ex we should have just left and dragged him out of there. No one listens to me. Of course he didn't report it. No one ever did. Especially not guys. Over the years - that shit has come up again and my ex and their other friends have made fun of him. But that is clear cut, no shit sexual assault. His friend should have called him in because who knows how many drunk guys have been assaulted and never even knew it.

I'm not kidding about when that guy passes out. I saw a video where they threw one of those giant candles at his dick and he didn't flinch. He slept in my car one night I tried and tried to get him up. He's still a huge drunk too.

But that's where it comes into play with the law about being intoxicated you can't consent. Not "oh I had a beer I'm drunk I couldnt' consent."

sparks82
09-19-2016, 05:39 PM
So why, then, does voluntary intoxication take away a person's ability to "consent"? You can keep playing semantics all day long, if you'd like, but the discussion isn't about victim/accused...it's about should intoxication be a valid excuse for not taking responsibility for choices made at the time of intoxication...and it can't be case by case. It either takes away your responsibility or it does not.

It's about how coherent someone is. Not one law states that if you have had any alcohol you can't consent. Not one. In civilian law or UCMJ. Consent is very clearly laid out in law and UCMJ.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 06:31 PM
I have a fictional example from a TV show that's female on male. Anyone watch Shameless? The episode where Lip is asleep in his dorm room and his roommates girlfriend climbs into his bed, under his sheet while he's asleep and starts giving him a BJ. He wakes up shortly into it...looks surprised...looks at his roommate who is asleep and lets her continue.

He didn't initially consent but then he does allow her to continue. What would any of you call this? No alcohol (I don't think) was involved. Not in that episode.

The bottomline is that if you are incoherent, irrational, unconscious, asleep you can't consent. If the other person at some point says no, and you keep going, it's not consensual anymore. If two people consent through the entire event and both are coherent, of sound mind, rational, etc, it's consensual.

Here's an example of non consensual sexual act. This was back in college. I was not the victim. My ex's friend (male) was the victim.

We went to my friend's brother's house. She has a few siblings much older than her as her mom has married three times. Her oldest brother was the guy who always bought beer for minors. I think he's likely in his late 40s by now. He was always kind of weird. Well what we found out is that he would basically molest guys while they were drunk and passed out. He never did come out that he was gay and in fact denied it when confronted. I don't know why as another brother is gay and came out (we all knew he was anyway). One night we were at his apartment drinking. My friend, my ex (we were like fwb then), his friend and her brother. Well my friend left and told us not to stay there. My dad lived like six blocks away. It got later - and my ex's friend was passed out. This guy you can't wake up for anything. I said well let's go. My friend's brother says "oh no you guys can't leave. She told me to not let you drive." I said it's only six blocks (still shouldn't have driven) I can make it. I haven't drank for awhile. He kept pressuring us to stay and saying "you two can sleep in my bed. I'll just stay out here." I knew something was weird about that. But we went and passed out in the bed.

Later on I heard something so I glance up and see the brother crawling into the room to the OTHER side where my ex is lying. I'm like wtf is he doing? So I coughed and moved around and he scurried out of the room.

That morning the friend comes in "We gotta get the fuck out of here." We're hungover and like why? "I woke up and (the brother) was sucking my dick!" My ex was like "I'm not ready to leave." His friend says "Then give me your car keys. I can't stay in here." So I let him have the keys. We got up, went to the car, and he's got all the doors locked and in the fetal position. He lets us in and then starts talking shit how he's gonna kick his ass. I said go do it right now. He's asleep. You guys aren't going to do shit.

I felt bad for him somewhat. I told my ex we should have just left and dragged him out of there. No one listens to me. Of course he didn't report it. No one ever did. Especially not guys. Over the years - that shit has come up again and my ex and their other friends have made fun of him. But that is clear cut, no shit sexual assault. His friend should have called him in because who knows how many drunk guys have been assaulted and never even knew it.

I'm not kidding about when that guy passes out. I saw a video where they threw one of those giant candles at his dick and he didn't flinch. He slept in my car one night I tried and tried to get him up. He's still a huge drunk too.

But that's where it comes into play with the law about being intoxicated you can't consent. Not "oh I had a beer I'm drunk I couldnt' consent."

Here's one of a girl raping a guy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/chantae-gilman-woman-rapes-man-seattle_n_5824456.html

A little different than what we're talking about, I suppose...

garhkal
09-19-2016, 06:32 PM
There is a double standard, clearly, but not with the way the law is written. Just with the way the law is executed. There's zero chance that the guy would win that case.

Unfortunately that is da truth.. Even though the prosecution of gals raping guys is not just rare, but the amount of convictions is rarer still.


I have a fictional example from a TV show that's female on male. Anyone watch Shameless? The episode where Lip is asleep in his dorm room and his roommates girlfriend climbs into his bed, under his sheet while he's asleep and starts giving him a BJ. He wakes up shortly into it...looks surprised...looks at his roommate who is asleep and lets her continue.

He didn't initially consent but then he does allow her to continue. What would any of you call this? No alcohol (I don't think) was involved. Not in that episode.

It started out legally as rape, but since he woke up, saw it and let it continue, it would not be rape after..

sparks82
09-19-2016, 07:41 PM
Here's one of a girl raping a guy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/chantae-gilman-woman-rapes-man-seattle_n_5824456.html

A little different than what we're talking about, I suppose...

Women can and do rape men. I tell people that all the time and they argue "how can a woman rape a man?" Same way a man rapes a woman or a woman rapes a woman or a man rapes a man."

And in this case that is rape in the article. That woman is sick as fuck. I don't care if she has mental issues and is a drug addict - disgusting. Violating someone is just vile.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 08:56 PM
So why, then, does voluntary intoxication take away a person's ability to "consent"?

There is no hard a fast line like a DUI, though. So, it's sort of a judgement call and it is case by case.



You can keep playing semantics all day long, if you'd like, but the discussion isn't about victim/accused...it's about should intoxication be a valid excuse for not taking responsibility for choices made at the time of intoxication...and it can't be case by case. It either takes away your responsibility or it does not.

Okay, let's go to the extreme then.

If a woman is barely coherent, slurring words and nearly passed out...you would agree that she does not consent to a guy having sex with her, right? Or do you think it should be legal to have sex with her?

If a woman in that condition gets into a car and drives...would you still think she is not responsible for DUI? Or is she guilty of a crime?

So, yes, it makes a difference whether the person is the suspect or the victim.

sandsjames
09-19-2016, 09:31 PM
There is no hard a fast line like a DUI, though. So, it's sort of a judgement call and it is case by case.




Okay, let's go to the extreme then.

If a woman is barely coherent, slurring words and nearly passed out...you would agree that she does not consent to a guy having sex with her, right? Or do you think it should be legal to have sex with her? Depends. Is this a girlfriend? Wife? Someone you just met? I'll assume, for the sake of this argument, that it's someone you just met. No, it shouldn't be legal, if she was drunk when you picked her up. If she was sober, you and her were flirting, drinking, and it was clear that it was leading to sex, then it's a different story. Consent had already taken place, in my opinion, prior to all the alcohol. Is it tasteless? Sure. Is it rape? Nope.


If a woman in that condition gets into a car and drives...would you still think she is not responsible for DUI? Or is she guilty of a crime? Is she driving under the influence? Yes. Is it her fault? Maybe she had a plan, when she was sober, to call a taxi...then she got drunk and made the mistake of getting behind the wheel. Her judgment was hindered because of her intoxication. Should she receive the same punishment as someone who knowingly got behind the wheel and never had a plan? Not a chance.


So, yes, it makes a difference whether the person is the suspect or the victim.No, it depends on the circumstances...or it should, at least.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 09:39 PM
Depends. Is this a girlfriend? Wife? Someone you just met? I'll assume, for the sake of this argument, that it's someone you just met.


Does it matter?


No, it shouldn't be legal, if she was drunk when you picked her up.

Why is she no longer "responsible" if she got drunk before you picked her up?



If she was sober, you and her were flirting, drinking, and it was clear that it was leading to sex, then it's a different story.

Well, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.


Consent had already taken place, in my opinion, prior to all the alcohol. Is it tasteless? Sure. Is it rape? Nope.

kinda creepy, dude.



Is she driving under the influence? Yes. Is it her fault? Maybe she had a plan, when she was sober, to call a taxi...then she got drunk and made the mistake of getting behind the wheel. Her judgment was hindered because of her intoxication. Should she receive the same punishment as someone who knowingly got behind the wheel and never had a plan? Not a chance.

Yes, of course she should.


No, it depends on the circumstances...or it should, at least.

Yes...circumstances can be mitigating factors, for sure.

sandsjames
09-19-2016, 09:52 PM
Does it matter? Absolutely matters. I've had sex with my wife several times when she was slurring her words...and she was consenting.




Why is she no longer "responsible" if she got drunk before you picked her up? Because her inhibitions are already lowered. However, if she gets drunk while I'm with her then she is making the decisions to allow her inhibitions to be lowered while she's around me. Don't get me wrong...if she says no, then it's still an no...but if she doesn't say no then she has no right to be claiming rape when she has buyers remorse.








kinda creepy, dude. If you say so. I guess you've never had sex with anyone while you're both wasted. I suppose you are one of not very many people who can say this.

Bos Mutus
09-19-2016, 10:33 PM
Absolutely matters. I've had sex with my wife several times when she was slurring her words...and she was consenting.

Because her inhibitions are already lowered. However, if she gets drunk while I'm with her then she is making the decisions to allow her inhibitions to be lowered while she's around me. Don't get me wrong...if she says no, then it's still an no...but if she doesn't say no then she has no right to be claiming rape when she has buyers remorse.

If you say so. I guess you've never had sex with anyone while you're both wasted. I suppose you are one of not very many people who can say this.

Well, I didn't say that...

sandsjames
09-20-2016, 01:29 AM
Well, I didn't say that...And I feel confident you don't feel like there was a sexual assault taking place and I'm sure you didn't feel "kinda creepy, dude". However, the law states otherwise, and the military trains otherwise.

Rainmaker
09-20-2016, 04:15 PM
If the other person at some point says no, and you keep going, it's not consensual anymore.

What if she starts out saying no. But, then after a few minutes, she really gets into it, starts saying yes and has an orgasm? Is that consensual?

sparks82
09-20-2016, 05:12 PM
What if she starts out saying no. But, then after a few minutes, she really gets into it, starts saying yes and has an orgasm? Is that consensual?

Why would you keep going if a woman told you no?

Rainmaker
09-20-2016, 05:16 PM
Why would you keep going if a woman told you no?
You didn't answer the question. Or Maybe, you're just "playing hard to get"?

sparks82
09-20-2016, 05:52 PM
You didn't answer the question. Or Maybe, you're just "playing hard to get"?

Well I'm not sure what would happen because I don't know of many cases where that happens. But again why would you keep having sex with someone who said "no?"

You honestly sound like the type of guy who would take "no" as "yes" and keep having sex with an unwilling participant.

Rainmaker
09-20-2016, 07:24 PM
Well I'm not sure what would happen because I don't know of many cases where that happens.

It's a very common phenomenon. Lots of chicks enjoy being physically taken control of, in bed.

In-fact, studies even show that, Somewhere between 30 and 50% of women have so called "rape fantasies".

http://www.care2.com/causes/rape-ranked-as-third-most-popular-sexual-fantasy-for-women.html

Mjölnir
09-21-2016, 02:12 PM
Generally, if both parties are drunk the male is considered the aggressor because the act of penetration is done by the male.

So, there is a lot of rumor and urban legend on the issue of alcohol and sexual consent. Mostly I hear about someone who knew someone (who had a friend who knew someone etc.) who got busted based on the rumor. I would argue if you know or have heard of someone who has, take some time and FOIA a copy of the trial transcript, I would be a paycheck that the rumor doesn't match the facts of the case. I do know that at lower echelons of the military this is being bantered about, this is incorrect and not in line with the current direction from the Secretary

Item: Any alcohol = no ability to consent. Iffy, and from a legal perspective that is false. There is not a legal clause that provides that if an individual ingests alcohol they cannot consent to sexual activity. Some organizations (mostly universities) have adopted a policy that has this clause, which has resulted in students being expelled. One notable case from Occidental College in CA, both the male and female were drunk, they had sex, the female made a sexual assault claim, the male was expelled (based on the policy) and the civil legal authorities declined to prosecute. The male is currently suing the university for a gender biased policy. For the military, the military legal system has started defining alcohol as a weapon that can be used in sexual assaults based on the propensity of a predator to use alcohol as a method of incapacitating the victim.


Three potential charging theories exist for proving sexual assault
of a voluntarily intoxicated victim. First, sexual assault can be proven in
the traditional way by demonstrating that the defendant had intercourse
with a victim without consent by using force or the threat of force. In
these cases, the victim is intoxicated but proof of the level of intoxication is
not an element of the crime. Intoxication is only relevant to the victim’s
credibility and vulnerability. Second, sexual assault can be proven by showing
that the victim was unconscious at the time of the rape and therefore
could not consent. Third, sexual assault can occur when the victim was
too intoxicated to consent. Regarding the latter cases, the victim’s level of
intoxication must be proven; however,“rape law essentially dispenses with
the force requirement by finding that the force necessary for penetration is
sufficient.” Thus, the issue at trial will generally be whether the victim
was incapacitated to the point of not being able to consent.

Incapacitated is the key word ... there is a difference between inebriated and incapacitated. An individual (male or female) who is incapacitated cannot consent; an individual who is inebriated can consent. From al legal perspective, inebriated doesn't equal inability to consent. In the case of an assault complaint, each incident has to be looked at and evaluated. In the military, generally ... generally the PIO and Art. 32 process get it right. The legal process may seem to favor females, but that is probably a skew in perception since females are the predominant complainants in assault cases.

I won't / can't argue that there are individuals (male and female) that abuse the legal system to satisfy a vendetta, but that is truly rare and when discovered it is prosecutable if the complainant made a false sworn / official statement. The perception that there are hoards of females out there falsifying claims is a false and it is disturbing how many people wish/want to blame a victim of a sexual assault.

sparks82
09-21-2016, 02:51 PM
It's a very common phenomenon. Lots of chicks enjoy being physically taken control of, in bed.

In-fact, studies even show that, Somewhere between 30 and 50% of women have so called "rape fantasies".

http://www.care2.com/causes/rape-ranked-as-third-most-popular-sexual-fantasy-for-women.html

Studies that don't poll every single woman. "Most" women don't have rape fantasies. It is not a common phenomenon. I'm not sure what kind of women you hang out with...

I can't open that link at work for some reason. It just keeps loading but based on the URL I'm not going to expect much from it. I mean really? "Somewhere" between 30-50%? Smh. Justify rape all you want man. Still makes you a creeper.

sparks82
09-21-2016, 02:56 PM
Depends. Is this a girlfriend? Wife? Someone you just met? I'll assume, for the sake of this argument, that it's someone you just met. No, it shouldn't be legal, if she was drunk when you picked her up. If she was sober, you and her were flirting, drinking, and it was clear that it was leading to sex, then it's a different story. Consent had already taken place, in my opinion, prior to all the alcohol. Is it tasteless? Sure. Is it rape? Nope.

Is she driving under the influence? Yes. Is it her fault? Maybe she had a plan, when she was sober, to call a taxi...then she got drunk and made the mistake of getting behind the wheel. Her judgment was hindered because of her intoxication. Should she receive the same punishment as someone who knowingly got behind the wheel and never had a plan? Not a chance.

No, it depends on the circumstances...or it should, at least.

It doesn't matter if someone is a spouse, partner or a stranger when it comes to sex and consent. Consent does not take place before the alcohol unless you both say "Let's go somewhere and have sex." Even if you start having sex with someone, if they change their mind and say "stop" and you don't stop that's rape. Even if it's your spouse, partner, friend, whatever. No means no. Being incoherent means no. Unconscious means no.

Driving while you're drunk is a choice. But there is a legal limit for a reason because not everyone reacts the same when drinking alcohol. Some people can drink for hours and are not stumbling, are coherent and so on. Some people have a couple drinks and they're passed out on the floor.

I don't know why anyone wants to justify taking advantage of someone who is incoherent, can't stand, barely conscious or unconscious.

sandsjames
09-21-2016, 03:04 PM
It doesn't matter if someone is a spouse, partner or a stranger when it comes to sex and consent. Consent does not take place before the alcohol unless you both say "Let's go somewhere and have sex." Even if you start having sex with someone, if they change their mind and say "stop" and you don't stop that's rape. Even if it's your spouse, partner, friend, whatever. No means no. Being incoherent means no. Unconscious means no.

Driving while you're drunk is a choice. Having sex while you're drunk is your choice...but not according to SARC/SAPR training.


I don't know why anyone wants to justify taking advantage of someone who is incoherent, can't stand, barely conscious or unconscious.

I don't want to be vulgar here, but my wife is much more apt to participate in oral sex when she's wasted. Now, from all my training, letting her do so would be rape, because she can't consent when she's drunk. However, we all know that it's bullshit and that she IS consenting.

Don't misunderstand and think I'm banging my wife while she's passed out...not something I'd ever do...but "taking advantage" when she's drunk is a different story, and that's why it's far different if it's a spouse or if it's just some chick at a bar.

And just so I've got this straight, are you saying I shouldn't have sex with my wife when she's wasted because she's unable to consent?

sparks82
09-21-2016, 03:08 PM
Having sex while you're drunk is your choice...but not according to SARC/SAPR training.



I don't want to be vulgar here, but my wife is much more apt to participate in oral sex when she's wasted. Now, from I'll my training, letting her do so would be rape, because she can't consent when she's drunk. However, we all know that it's bullshit and that she IS consenting.

Don't misunderstand and think I'm banging my wife while she's passed out...not something I'd ever do...but "taking advantage" when she's drunk is a different story, and that's why it's far different if it's a spouse or if it's just some chick at a bar.

And I have already said I disagree with SHARP training. They have been having us teach it wrong for years. In fact, initially when SHARP came out the focus of the training was basically victim blaming and in the last couple years it has shifted.

The LAW says you have to be incapacitated - not intoxicated. Even UCMJ doesn't say that you can't consent if you are intoxicated. I have been in a joint unit for a year and a half so I don't know what SHARP training is like. When I do it for the Army Element here I do more discussion training and stay away from slides. Now they have the Academy for SARCs and VAs so I would have to see what they teach there. But the law says you cannot consent if you are incapacitated, unconscious, etc. Nothing in any law - civilian or military - does it say if you have had a few drinks you can't consent.

It's quite obvious in your case that your wife consented. It would be different if she was nearly passed out and you had sex with her. Or if you made her perform oral sex on you.

There is no difference between a spouse, partner or stranger when it comes to rape or sexual assault.

Rainmaker
09-21-2016, 03:30 PM
For the military, the military legal system has started defining alcohol as a weapon that can be used in sexual assaults based on the propensity of a predator to use alcohol as a method of incapacitating the victim. .

We used to be honest with our women and tell them, that just maybe if they got shit faced and dressed in see thru yoga pants, acted like degenerate sluts, grinding on random strangers & going home with them at 3AM.... bad things could happen to them, that they would likely regret.

But, that was before Feminized America began glorifying the avoidance of personal responsibility and embracing the victimhood culture.



I won't / can't argue that there are individuals (male and female) that abuse the legal system to satisfy a vendetta, but that is truly rare.

False rape accusations happen all the time.

The primary reason being that they don't want to be caught cheating. With a close second, being the embarrassment/ social stigma they'll encounter for getting hammered and just giving it up to some loser , that they don't find desirable (after they've sobered up).




It is disturbing how many people wish/want to blame a victim of a sexual assault.

Just as disturbing is how many people wish/want to take whatever BS story that any chick throws out as the gospel truth. and then go off half cocked on some witch hunt, that'll end up, worst case with a man's life or best case, his reputation being destroyed (even if the charges get dropped)

Mjölnir
09-21-2016, 04:44 PM
We used to be honest with our women and tell them, that just maybe if they got shit faced and dressed in see thru yoga pants, acted like degenerate sluts, grinding on random strangers & going home with them at 3AM.... bad things could happen to them, that they would likely regret.

But, that was before Feminized America began glorifying the avoidance of personal responsibility and embracing the victimhood culture.

True, we used to say that, I don't agree with that. But, like it wor not, being drunk, being incapacitated, dressing like a slut, acting like a slut ... Even being a slut does not make it in any way acceptable for some to sexually assault someone else. I will agree, too many in our society self- identify as a victim; when someone is sexually assaulted they truly are a victim.


False rape accusations happen all the time.

The primary reason being that they don't want to be caught cheating. With a close second, being the embarrassment/ social stigma they'll encounter for getting hammered and just giving it up to some loser , that they don't find desirable (after they've sobered up).

Undoubtedly there are false allegations. The DoD and/or DoJ statistics don't support that they happen "all the time". I am sure there are false allegations that can't be / aren't proven, rape is almost always a he-said / she-said scenario; I am equally sure there are many rapists who are not convicted for the same reason / burden of proof.



Just as disturbing is how many people wish/want to take whatever BS story that any chick throws out as the gospel truth. and then go off half cocked on some witch hunt, that'll end up, worst case with a man's life or best case, his reputation being destroyed (even if the charges get dropped)

sad that you seem to think any allegation is a BS story. Leadership has a responsibility to investigate each allegation and evaluate them separate and distinct of our personal bias. I have yet to see someone presumed guilty prior to facts being gathered, evaluated and adjudicated. There are protocols in place to separate alleged victims & perpetrators but those same protocols also are supposed to protect the rights of the alleged perpetrator. It may create a disruption, but not doing something to protect both of the individual's rights would be stupid and likely undermine a case either to dismiss, prosecute or acquit.

sparks82
09-21-2016, 05:05 PM
We used to be honest with our women and tell them, that just maybe if they got shit faced and dressed in see thru yoga pants, acted like degenerate sluts, grinding on random strangers & going home with them at 3AM.... bad things could happen to them, that they would likely regret.

But, that was before Feminized America began glorifying the avoidance of personal responsibility and embracing the victimhood culture.




False rape accusations happen all the time.

The primary reason being that they don't want to be caught cheating. With a close second, being the embarrassment/ social stigma they'll encounter for getting hammered and just giving it up to some loser , that they don't find desirable (after they've sobered up).





Just as disturbing is how many people wish/want to take whatever BS story that any chick throws out as the gospel truth. and then go off half cocked on some witch hunt, that'll end up, worst case with a man's life or best case, his reputation being destroyed (even if the charges get dropped)

Please tell me how a "degenerate slut" acts. I would love to hear this - especially when I hear about the apparent uniform that exists for a "slut" and how she or he "asks" to get raped by wearing said outfit.

What I find sad is that there are people like you who still exist and who still want to blame a victim of sexual assault or rape for being assaulted or raped. So tell me then how do men get raped? How do they dress like sluts? What about women who are "modestly" dressed? What about same gender rape and assault?

False rape accusations do NOT happen "all the time." They are very rare - 2% if that of all accusations.

You realize that rape and sexual assault are not a gender specific crime right? Men get raped. Women get raped. Sometimes men rape women. Sometimes women rape women. Sometimes women rape men and sometimes men rape women. Usually the rapist is someone the victim knows. It's very rarely the stranger lurking in the alley.

I notice that you never mention male victims and seem to think they don't exist. You seem to think that EVERY woman is "out to get" EVERY man in the world. How about you take a step into the 21st century with the rest of the world? Just because a case gets dropped doesn't mean it was false asshole.

The first time my ex hit me I stopped cooperating after 2 months because the cops were inept and he was never going to admit it or take a lie detector test. Add on top of that the female officer I initially reported to began to tell him information I was telling her, meeting him off duty for lunch and believing him. So they reassigned it to a male detective. He wanted to get him in for a lie detector. I told him he would never do it. Yes I was stupid to drop the protection order, to give him multiple chances after that. I get it. I wouldn't have my daughter had I not dropped it but hindsight. But I got tired of it. It wasn't that it didn't happen. It wasn't that he didn't beat me and keep me restrained in a hotel for at least an hour while he was drunk and quite possibly coming off meth. I just got tired of the circus. That's what usually happens with people who are victims of sex crimes or domestic violence. It doesn't mean they lied. But when we still have police who interrogate victims about their sexual history, their clothing, how do they have sex, do they like oral...do you really blame people for saying "fuck this I'm done?"

You are one of the most disturbing people I've ever seen comment on this topic.

sparks82
09-21-2016, 05:11 PM
For those saying that the Army still teaches that one drink means you can't consent - wrong. I don't know about the other branches but I'm going over training that I was asked to give for a small group of soldiers and the most current PPT specifically says this:

"It is NOT true that consuming one alcoholic drink makes a person unable to consent to sex or sexual activity.

The idea that consuming one alcoholic drink makes a person unable to consent to sex or sexual activity is not based in reality or law and although a popular statement or “urban legend”, to repeat, it is wrong."

They used to say that any alcohol meant you can't consent. I remember hearing that. Now they call it an "urban legend." I'm glad they finally changed and updated the training. There are a lot of things in this new SHARP slide that never used to be there. This one of them.

So no it is not rape if you have sex with someone after one alcoholic drink. It's only nonconsensual when the following happen (pretty sure I already posted this):

IAW (Article 120(g)(8), UCMJ:

(A) The term ‘consent’ means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person.
•An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent.
•Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent.
•A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

IAW (Article 120(g)(8), UCMJ pg IV-69:

(B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious. A person cannot consent while under threat or fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (b)(1).

(C) Lack of consent may be inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

So if someone is incapacitated they can't consent. If you need to know what is incapacitated then you need help.

garhkal
09-21-2016, 06:50 PM
Generally, if both parties are drunk the male is considered the aggressor because the act of penetration is done by the male.


So blame the guy, even when both are drunk? That's screwy..

Rainmaker
09-21-2016, 08:06 PM
True, we used to say that, I don't agree with that.

Agree or not. Doesn't matter. Because, when a woman drinks herself into an impaired state of mind and then puts herself into a compromising position to be taken advantage of (i.e alone in the wee hours of the morning, with a guy She's been leading on all night) then her character not only will. But, SHOULD be called into question.



like it not, being drunk, being incapacitated, dressing like a slut, acting like a slut ... Even being a slut does not make it in any way acceptable for some to sexually assault someone else.


Agree. It doesn't make it acceptable. But, after a generation of having a "hookup culture", we're now being told that we have a "rape epidemic". So, maybe society had it right before?

Now, As a Father of 2 daughters (and 3 sons) I say we've done a generation of our young people a disservice.

By telling them that women can ride the dick merry-go-round till their 30's and then all of sudden turn herself into a respectable woman and the good guys are just gonna be lining up to make a family with them, we've sold them a bill of goods

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever, to be gained by a man in marrying a sexually experienced woman.



sad that you seem to think any allegation is a BS story.

Not only is this statement untrue Commander, It's disingenuous and Rainmaker's not sure why you made it? (Other than to intentionally use it as a red herring).

There are consequences for bad decisions.

If you go out tonight and get blasted and walk through the hood at 3AM in a 3 piece suit with a rolex on your wrist. Then your chances of getting mugged are going to go up exponentially. Doesn't make it right. But, no amount of BS 'training' is going to change the Laws of Nature.



I have yet to see someone presumed guilty prior to facts being gathered, evaluated and adjudicated.

Then you probably have your head in the sand.

Rainmaker personally witnessed several instances over his 24 years of the accused being what amounted to ostracized, from the unit over allegations that later turned out to be false. Seen Reputations, careers and personal relationships ruined.

Also personally had an Army female (E6) subordinate make a false official statement that she'd been a victim of drink spiking (after Passing out in some guys billeting room and missing an Aircraft movement)

However, it's possible that the toxicology report was just being a sexist.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 08:36 PM
If you go out tonight and get blasted and walk through the hood at 3AM in a 3 piece suit with a rolex on your wrist. Then your chances of getting mugged are going to go up exponentially.

Great analogy.

And no matter how drunk he is or how nice that suit and rolex are...the guy that mugs him is still a mugger and belongs in prison....and it does not matter how drunk the mugger was.

Rainmaker
09-21-2016, 08:44 PM
Great analogy.

And no matter how drunk he is or how nice that suit and rolex are...the guy that mugs him is still a mugger and belongs in prison....and it does not matter how drunk the mugger was.


Thanks. And Rainmaker also said:


Doesn't make it right. But, no amount of BS 'training' is going to change the Laws of Nature.


Now, Do you also agree with this statement?


when a woman drinks herself into an impaired state of mind and then puts herself into a compromising position to be taken advantage of (i.e alone in the wee hours of the morning, with a guy She's been leading on all night) then her character not only will. But, SHOULD be called into question

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 08:55 PM
Thanks. And Rainmaker also said:

Now, Do you also agree with this statement?

I'm not sure I would say it SHOULD be called into question...but, would agree that it probably will...but the whole thing SHOULD be irrelevant.

It SHOULD not matter how comprised or vulunerable the woman made herself, or what her character is...it is still rape if you have sex without her consent. Simple as that.

It should be illegal to rape women of low character...just as it is to rape women of high character. T

he character of the woman is not relevant as to whether or not a rape occurred.

How many times would Mjolner have to walk down the street in the hood to make that mugger not guilty?

Rainmaker
09-21-2016, 09:14 PM
It should be illegal to rape women of low character...just as it is to rape women of high character

It already is.


the character of the woman is not relevant as to whether or not a rape occurred.

Wrong. Character evidence is Relevant.

The fact that a women drank herself into an impaired mental state has to be relevant . Because, that calls in to question whether or not her recollection of the events are correct. Just as if She goes home alone with a guy at 2 Am and makes out with him in her bed. It's relevant to the case, because it demonstrates, the intent to Fuck the accused.


How many times would Mjolner have to walk down the street in the hood to make that mugger not guilty?

How many times would Mjolner have to walk down the street in the hood before we SHOULD acknowledge that he was being a dumbass?

sandsjames
09-21-2016, 09:18 PM
Great analogy.

And no matter how drunk he is or how nice that suit and rolex are...the guy that mugs him is still a mugger and belongs in prison....and it does not matter how drunk the mugger was.

So go ahead and take that walk then. Don't worry, nobody will mug you because they aren't supposed to and it would make them criminals.

Oh, wait, criminals are going to break the law anyway? Well, damn, maybe we should do our best to protect ourselves from them, like not walk through that neighborhood or not go to that frat party dressed like a ho.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 10:12 PM
It already is.

Wrong. Character evidence is Relevant. As it should be.

The fact that she drank herself into an impaired mental state has to be relevant . Because, that calls in to question whether or not her recollection of the events are correct.

Getting into a different territory...you are now talking about her credibility as a witness...yes, her intoxication, her character, her eyeglass prescription...can be used to challenge that credibility as far as who is to be believed.

That is a different issue.

Just like Mjolnir's intoxication would be an issue in how well he can remember what the guy looked like...but, no level of intoxication would excuse the guy from taking his watch.


Just as if She goes home alone with a guy at 2 Am and makes out with him in her bed. It's relevant to the case, because it demonstrates, the intent to Fuck the accused.

Not everyone who makes out with you agrees to fuck you.


How many times would Mjolner have to walk down the street in the hood before you acknowledged that he was a dumbass?

It is still illegal to rob a dumbass.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 10:14 PM
So go ahead and take that walk then. Don't worry, nobody will mug you because they aren't supposed to and it would make them criminals.

Oh, wait, criminals are going to break the law anyway? Well, damn, maybe we should do our best to protect ourselves from them, like not walk through that neighborhood or not go to that frat party dressed like a ho.

..sigh..

At no time did I suggest women and Mjolnir should not be careful, protect themselves, be wise, etc. etc.

Their failure to do so, however, does not remove any culpability from the perpetrator.

sandsjames
09-21-2016, 10:37 PM
..sigh..

At no time did I suggest women and Mjolnir should not be careful, protect themselves, be wise, etc. etc.

Their failure to do so, however, does not remove any culpability from the perpetrator.

Don't think anybody is saying it does. The problem is the failure of people to realize that they can avoid most situations that put them in danger. Should they have to? Of course not. In an ideal world we'd all be able to go anywhere and do anything.

However, what we are teaching people now is dangerous. We're teaching young girls that they can dress how they want and act how they want. Of course they SHOULD be able to but that's not the reality. To continue to tell them that it's not their fault is a failure on the part of those who are protecting them. Teach them, instead, that their actions have consequences. If someone's daughter, or someone's friend, dresses slutty and goes out, don't describe it as the woman being "empowered"...describe it as the woman being stupid and putting herself in danger.

Mjölnir
09-21-2016, 10:48 PM
Agree or not. Doesn't matter. Because, when a woman drinks herself into an impaired state of mind and then puts herself into a compromising position to be taken advantage of (i.e alone in the wee hours of the morning, with a guy She's been leading on all night) then her character not only will. But, SHOULD be called into question.

You mean with a guy you assume she has been leading on all night. Even if a female was leading a man on all night, if she doesn't consent, it doesn't make an assault any less criminal.



Agree. It doesn't make it acceptable. But, after a generation of having a "hookup culture", we're now being told that we have a "rape epidemic". So, maybe society had it right before?

Now, As a Father of 2 daughters (and 3 sons) I say we've done a generation of our young people a disservice.

By telling them that women can ride the dick merry-go-round till their 30's and then all of sudden turn herself into a respectable woman and the good guys are just gonna be lining up to make a family with them, we've sold them a bill of goods

I don't disagree, on the same line: by telling men it is okay to try to bang every girl out there that we have also tainted the mentality, character or responsible decision making of men. The problem you describe is not only left in the lane of females of this generation.

Even when I was a teenager, a sexually promiscuous male was a hero, a sexually promiscuous female was a slut, it was/is a double standard. One that has existed for a long, long time and one that perpetuates a mentality that a sexually promiscuous female 'has it coming'.


Not only is this statement untrue Commander, It's disingenuous and Rainmaker's not sure why you made it? (Other than to intentionally use it as a red herring).

Because you said this:


Just as disturbing is how many people wish/want to take whatever BS story that any chick throws out as the gospel truth. and then go off half cocked on some witch hunt, that'll end up, worst case with a man's life or best case, his reputation being destroyed (even if the charges get dropped)


There are consequences for bad decisions.

If you go out tonight and get blasted and walk through the hood at 3AM in a 3 piece suit with a rolex on your wrist. Then your chances of getting mugged are going to go up exponentially. Doesn't make it right. But, no amount of BS 'training' is going to change the Laws of Nature.

I don't disagree. We should teach people how to be safe. And if people make a decision that is less than safe, it may be ignorant or stupid ... but it doesn't lessen the fact that they weren't the ones breaking the law. I have no problem telling people "you shouldn't do [pick a thing]", but, once they are possibly the victim of a crime, to say "you shouldn't have done [perfectly legal thing]" is shifting accountability from the alleged criminal to the victim.


Then you probably have your head in the sand.

Rainmaker personally witnessed several instances over his 24 years of the accused being what amounted to ostracized, from the unit over allegations that later turned out to be false. Seen Reputations, careers and personal relationships ruined.

I would argue that I don't have my head in the sand but we have had very different service backgrounds. I spent my 12 years in the Marine Corps in the infantry, very little interaction with females, none in our companies or battalions. I was familiar with a handful of sexual assault cases in that time. I had a fellow Marine in my Platoon who was accused of sexual assault by a female Marine from a different unit so he stayed in our unit, the command was neutral about the issue. He was acquitted, went on with his career. He retired as a 1stSgt ... he wasn't ostracized. Knowing I am opening up a bee's hive when I say this, I think part of it may be that based on my experiences with the Marines and the other services, the Marines tend to be very professional vice a lot of what I saw from Air Force commands.

In the Navy, there are fewer females than in the Air Force as well. My first 9 years were all on operational tours, so a lower percentage of females. I have been privy to 5 incidents in 13 years, none as the XO so far. Three times one of the Sailors had to be relocated because they worked in close proximity, but both were treated respectfully and fairly by their chains of command, none were adversely impacted by an unproven allegation, the one that was proven got a competitive evaluation after the accusation but before it was proven, he moved up in his promotion recommendation / stratification ... hardly what I would call unfair by the chain of command, once he was found guilty a special evaluation was submitted revoking the promotion recommendation. What individuals do IRT their personal relationships is beyond the system to influence or control.


How many times would Mjolner have to walk down the street in the hood before we SHOULD acknowledge that he was being a dumbass?

I figured you guys came to that conclusion circa 2013.

Mjölnir
09-21-2016, 11:02 PM
Don't think anybody is saying it does. The problem is the failure of people to realize that they can avoid most situations that put them in danger. Should they have to? Of course not. In an ideal world we'd all be able to go anywhere and do anything.

However, what we are teaching people now is dangerous. We're teaching young girls that they can dress how they want and act how they want. Of course they SHOULD be able to but that's not the reality.

Young girls should be able to dress how they want. Young girls should be able to dance how they want etc. Yes, there are things that we can hope they don't do because of the world we live in. Utopia and reality collide with very harsh consequences. I don't like it that some women lead men on, but if a young woman says "no" or is incapacitated and cannot say "no" absolutely no amount of how slutty she dresses or dances makes the actions of someone assaulting her after that point okay.


To continue to tell them that it's not their fault is a failure on the part of those who are protecting them.

It isn't their fault that someone else broke the law and made them the victim. There could have been better decision making up to that point, but it in no way makes it their fault.


Teach them, instead, that their actions have consequences.

So tell them to take a shower, clean up, shrug it off and move on ... cause, you know ... you wore a miniskirt. Maybe we solve the problem by encouraging women to wear burkas, since that works to solve the sexual assault issue in the Middle East so well.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 11:06 PM
Don't think anybody is saying it does.

I'm not so sure of that.


The problem is the failure of people to realize that they can avoid most situations that put them in danger. Should they have to? Of course not. In an ideal world we'd all be able to go anywhere and do anything.

I'm not one of those people...


However, what we are teaching people now is dangerous. We're teaching young girls that they can dress how they want and act how they want.

I've never said that...I tell my daughters all the time to be careful of their surroundings, don't get drunk, go in a group, etc.


Of course they SHOULD be able to but that's not the reality. To continue to tell them that it's not their fault is a failure on the part of those who are protecting them. Teach them, instead, that their actions have consequences. If someone's daughter, or someone's friend, dresses slutty and goes out, don't describe it as the woman being "empowered"...describe it as the woman being stupid and putting herself in danger.

You seem to keep replying to some mythical point that I'm not making...nowhere in any of comments have I said any of this.

All I'm saying is...if a girl is passed out in the middle of an alley naked with sexy red lipstick on...and some guy comes and puts his penis in her...the guy is guilty of rape.

Of course, I would advise women not to do that...but the guy is still a rapist.

sandsjames
09-21-2016, 11:27 PM
Young girls should be able to dress how they want. Young girls should be able to dance how they want etc. Agree...they SHOULD be able to...and I should be able to walk through Compton and feel safe...but it's not gonna happen...so I avoid walking through Compton.


I don't like it that some women lead men on, but if a young woman says "no" or is incapacitated and cannot say "no" absolutely no amount of how slutty she dresses or dances makes the actions of someone assaulting her after that point okay. We also agree 100% on this.




It isn't their fault that someone else broke the law and made them the victim. There could have been better decision making up to that point, but it in no way makes it their fault. Semantics.




So tell them to take a shower, clean up, shrug it off and move on ... cause, you know ... you wore a miniskirt. Maybe we solve the problem by encouraging women to wear burkas, since that works to solve the sexual assault issue in the Middle East so well.Nobody is saying this.

Being in the position you've been in in the military, you realize that there are places that Commanders make "off limits", right? And if troops go in those areas and something happens to them, they are still punished for being in an off limits area. Now, why should you have to create those off limits areas? And if something happens to them in that area, why should the troop receive that discipline/punishment?

sandsjames
09-21-2016, 11:28 PM
All I'm saying is...if a girl is passed out in the middle of an alley naked with sexy red lipstick on...and some guy comes and puts his penis in her...the guy is guilty of rape.

Of course, I would advise women not to do that...but the guy is still a rapist.Again, I don't see anybody disagreeing with any of this.

Bos Mutus
09-21-2016, 11:46 PM
Again, I don't see anybody disagreeing with any of this.

Okay...so since you agree with me, you figured you'd just keep replying to disagree with a point I didn't make?

SeaLawyer
09-22-2016, 01:09 AM
Key Word: "TV Show." Of course they are going to slant the story to draw the most attention. Likewise, why in the heck would this baffoon have any reason to run (as the police report states) if he didn't do anything wrong???

sandsjames
09-22-2016, 02:22 AM
Okay...so since you agree with me, you figured you'd just keep replying to disagree with a point I didn't make?

No...I agree that rape is wrong and there is never an excuse to do it...where we disagree is you seem to think that there is no situation where the victim plays a role in the assault.

Bos Mutus
09-22-2016, 03:01 AM
No...I agree that rape is wrong and there is never an excuse to do it...where we disagree is you seem to think that there is no situation where the victim plays a role in the assault.

im not sure we even disagree, really....if anything it's just a disagreement on the nuance....you seem to push a little more of the blame on the victim while I push more of it to the perpetrator.

The phrase "plays a role in the assault" is a bit problematic, I think. Not sure what that means, exactly.

Should women excercise caution in getting drunk....absolutely. Should they exercise ,ore caution around frat boys then they do at a girls home party...of course

ive said this many times.

Is being vulnerable "playing a role" in an assault? If you choose not to carry a concealed firearm, did you "play a role" in being held up at knifepoint? I know some people who always carry....I suppose it's a matter of quantifying the risk and what we deem acceptable vs unacceptable risk

If you choose not to have a home security system or a big dog....do you "play a role" in a home break in? What if you live in s good or bad neighborhood?

I suppose there is a reasonable level of self protection we all expect to take....we don't see it at the same place.

None of it makes the bad guy any less guilty. Yes, any thinking person should consider the level of risk in bad guys being around. I'm much more careful getting drunk in Tijuana than I am in my home town. It would indeed be dumb to in Tijuana what I do at home,let's say.

sandsjames
09-22-2016, 11:33 AM
im not sure we even disagree, really....if anything it's just a disagreement on the nuance....you seem to push a little more of the blame on the victim while I push more of it to the perpetrator.

The phrase "plays a role in the assault" is a bit problematic, I think. Not sure what that means, exactly.

Should women excercise caution in getting drunk....absolutely. Should they exercise ,ore caution around frat boys then they do at a girls home party...of course

ive said this many times.

Is being vulnerable "playing a role" in an assault? If you choose not to carry a concealed firearm, did you "play a role" in being held up at knifepoint? I know some people who always carry....I suppose it's a matter of quantifying the risk and what we deem acceptable vs unacceptable risk

If you choose not to have a home security system or a big dog....do you "play a role" in a home break in? What if you live in s good or bad neighborhood?

I suppose there is a reasonable level of self protection we all expect to take....we don't see it at the same place.

None of it makes the bad guy any less guilty. Yes, any thinking person should consider the level of risk in bad guys being around. I'm much more careful getting drunk in Tijuana than I am in my home town. It would indeed be dumb to in Tijuana what I do at home,let's say.


Yep, our biggest disagreement is always semantics...

Rainmaker
09-22-2016, 02:26 PM
I would argue that I don't have my head in the sand but we have had very different service backgrounds. I spent my 12 years in the Marine Corps in the infantry, very little interaction with females, none in our companies or battalions. I was familiar with a handful of sexual assault cases in that time. I had a fellow Marine in my Platoon who was accused of sexual assault by a female Marine from a different unit so he stayed in our unit, the command was neutral about the issue. He was acquitted, went on with his career. He retired as a 1stSgt ... he wasn't ostracized. Knowing I am opening up a bee's hive when I say this, I think part of it may be that based on my experiences with the Marines and the other services, the Marines tend to be very professional vice a lot of what I saw from Air Force commands.

In the Navy, there are fewer females than in the Air Force as well. .



.


Well, Rainmaker's started out in Field Artillery at Fort Hood TX. (all male MOS). After 3 1/2 years, Separated following his return from Desert Storm and then spending the next 6 months changing tires in a shithole garage in Waco and Mrs. Rainmaker getting pregnant

.........Rainmaker somehow managed to hoodwink the AF recruiter into taking him & then spent The next 6 years as an Airborne Radio Operator, in Operational Sqs that were probably > 95% male.......


So, To make a long story longer..........Got permanently DNIF'd for an irregular heartbeat (proving I have one?!) then, Re-trained and did 13 more in a largely civilianized career field.......

However, did deploy 6 more times for OEF/OIF (4 of them joint), including 2 as a first sergeant, so I'm quite familiar with the effects women can and do have on esprit de corps and the multitude of benefits they'll provide to a unit's cohesion and mission effectiveness (just by the very act of, being around).

Now, My OPINION (& take it FWIW) Is that any senior leader that thinks putting Women in Combat Arms is actually a good idea, Is either A: a PC hack bootlicking kiss ass, posing as a General Officer or B: Has had their lips wrapped around the Koolaide cup, so fucking far and for so fucking long, that they've inadvertently turned themselves into a special breed of Moron.

Rainmaker
09-22-2016, 04:41 PM
Not everyone who makes out with you agrees to fuck you.


The burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, with standard for conviction being hard evidence that leads you to conclude BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

So, right or wrong or indifferent.... If a floosey goes out and gets sloppy drunk, wearing a pair of pants so tight that you can see the little man in the boat thru them, Goes home at 2AM, with a dude she's been dry humping all night, (who's also impaired)......... Well then there's gonna be REASONABLE DOUBT when she wakes up tomorrow and suddenly cries rape.

Bos Mutus
09-22-2016, 04:48 PM
Yep, our biggest disagreement is always semantics...


I would say it's more nuance than semantic.

:-)
197

sandsjames
09-22-2016, 05:01 PM
I would say it's more nuance than semantic.

:-)
197

I see what you did there...

Mjölnir
09-23-2016, 09:19 AM
Well, Rainmaker's started out in Field Artillery at Fort Hood TX. (all male MOS). After 3 1/2 years, Separated following his return from Desert Storm and then spending the next 6 months changing tires in a shithole garage in Waco and Mrs. Rainmaker getting pregnant

.........Rainmaker somehow managed to hoodwink the AF recruiter into taking him & then spent The next 6 years as an Airborne Radio Operator, in Operational Sqs that were probably > 95% male.......


So, To make a long story longer..........Got permanently DNIF'd for an irregular heartbeat (proving I have one?!) then, Re-trained and did 13 more in a largely civilianized career field.......

However, did deploy 6 more times for OEF/OIF (4 of them joint), including 2 as a first sergeant, so I'm quite familiar with the effects women can and do have on esprit de corps and the multitude of benefits they'll provide to a unit's cohesion and mission effectiveness (just by the very act of, being around).

Now, My OPINION (& take it FWIW) Is that any senior leader that thinks putting Women in Combat Arms is actually a good idea, Is either A: a PC hack bootlicking kiss ass, posing as a General Officer or B: Has had their lips wrapped around the Koolaide cup, so fucking far and for so fucking long, that they've inadvertently turned themselves into a special breed of Moron.

I did not know you had been a red leg, good shit. May Saint Barbara's blessing land true.

So, oir background are not as different as I thought. Why do you suppose our experiences with alleged assaulted a being ostracized and/or ruined by the system (can't control interpersonal actions) are so different?

Rainmaker
09-24-2016, 03:32 AM
Why do you suppose our experiences with alleged assaulted a being ostracized and/or ruined by the system (can't control interpersonal actions) are so different?

I think your observation is for the most part correct. Over the last 20 years or so the AF has gone from around 10% female to almost 20%. As a result, all sorts of problems have manifested, not the least of which is political correctness run amok.