Funny bit.

If you can’t laugh at Republicans trying to redefine rape what can you laugh at?

Maybe he should have called on Whoopi Goldberg to define “rape-rape” as in the Polanski case wasn’t, according to Whoopi – despite the girl being under-age, drugged, and didn’t consent. I guess the definition of “rape-rape” depends on the gross receipts of your last movie?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/29/views-whoopi-goldberg-polanski-it-wasnt-rape-rape

Then she explained what she REALLY meant a few days later:

http://tv.popcrunch.com/whoopi-goldberg-clarifies-the-view-rape-rape-roman-polanski-comment-today-show-video/

“In 1977, Polanski drugged a 13-year-old girl and had sex with her… he plead guilty to the charges and fled the country to avoid a prison sentence”

Ken Hansen said:
Maybe he should have called on Whoopi Goldberg to define “rape-rape”

You didn’t even watch the clip.

This is shameful.

There are two questions here. First is FUNDING. If you want to make the argument that it doesn’t cost a lot, that cuts both ways. For this tiny amount of money, private charity could cover it in a heartbeat.

The second question is the Orwellian abuse of language. “Date rape” for instance, has been defined on many occasions NOT as anything forcible, but as two people getting hammered, having consensual sex (both under the influence), and the woman waking up with regrets. The word “rape” should not be allowed in the term for this, and there is no crime here. You ply yourself with alcohol and change your behavior, YOIU are responsible.

This is muddled into the same term as that used to describe deliberate drugging with rufalin, often called the date-rape drug. Drugging someone, unbeknownst to the victim, is FORCE. But is has nothing to do with the “regret rape” that is also mislabeled “date rape.”

Last is pure forcible rape by someone who was with the victim on a date. Other than the acquaintence, this is no different from forcible rape by a stranger. There is no reason to sticfk the “date-rape” label on it. The reality is, there should be two terms for two different crimes. “Rape” (forcible) and “statutory rape” (under the age of consent or mentally incompetent for consent.)

But the “regrets” situation is lumped into the group by Orwellian language, and the totalitarian left brought this one about. This is the shameful and senseless crap that waters down the word for the victims of the real thing, and wrongly tosses the innocent into a category where they don’t belong. In the same way a drunk taking a leak in an alley can be classifed as a “sex offender” and be forced to deal with the wrath that should be reserved for pedophiles and rapists.

Confusion over the term “date rape” should go directly where it belongs: on the leftist fascists on college campuses with their speech codes and thoughtcrimes.

Just_MC said:
This is shameful.

There are two questions here. First is FUNDING. If you want to make the argument that it doesn’t cost a lot, that cuts both ways. For this tiny amount of money, private charity could cover it in a heartbeat.

The second question is the Orwellian abuse of language. “Date rape” for instance, has been defined on many occasions NOT as anything forcible, but as two people getting hammered, having consensual sex (both under the influence), and the woman waking up with regrets. The word “rape” should not be allowed in the term for this, and there is no crime here. You ply yourself with alcohol and change your behavior, YOIU are responsible.

This is muddled into the same term as that used to describe deliberate drugging with rufalin, often called the date-rape drug. Drugging someone, unbeknownst to the victim, is FORCE. But is has nothing to do with the “regret rape” that is also mislabeled “date rape.”

Last is pure forcible rape by someone who was with the victim on a date. Other than the acquaintence, this is no different from forcible rape by a stranger. There is no reason to sticfk the “date-rape” label on it. The reality is, there should be two terms for two different crimes. “Rape” (forcible) and “statutory rape” (under the age of consent or mentally incompetent for consent.)

But the “regrets” situation is lumped into the group by Orwellian language, and the totalitarian left brought this one about. This is the shameful and senseless crap that waters down the word for the victims of the real thing, and wrongly tosses the innocent into a category where they don’t belong. In the same way a drunk taking a leak in an alley can be classifed as a “sex offender” and be forced to deal with the wrath that should be reserved for pedophiles and rapists.

Confusion over the term “date rape” should go directly where it belongs: on the leftist fascists on college campuses with their speech codes and thoughtcrimes.

Do you actually think that there’s a great number of women who wake up regretful and decide to cry rape and put themselves through that scrutiny (sometimes worse than the act itself when people try to minimize what happened to them)? That’s exactly the thinking that’s taking place in the mind of the (mostly men) people that want to change what is accepted as our definition of rape. That is what is shameful. This whole thing….is it meant to create jobs? Way to go Republicans….this is what the people asked for in 2010.

Just_MC said:
For this tiny amount of money, private charity could cover it in a heartbeat.

You mean the same PRIVATE CHARITIES like the CATHOLIC CHURCH who have more than their fair share of RAPE CASES of their own to tend to.

And BTW, the bulk of these PRIVATE CHARITIES actually receive sizable chunks of their funding from the government. That would still mean that GOVERNMENT FUNDS still pay for these abortions.

Just_MC said:
“Date rape” for instance, has been defined on many occasions NOT as anything forcible, but as two people getting hammered, having consensual sex (both under the influence), and the woman waking up with regrets. The word “rape” should not be allowed in the term for this, and there is no crime here.

Sorry, but the LEGAL SYSTEM disagrees with you. There have been numerous cases where DATE RAPE has been constituted as LEGAL RAPE.

Not only are you not an expert on where PRIVATE social services actually get the bulk of their funds, but you’re also not a legal expert. You are a professional dumba$$ though.

Just_MC said:
But the “regrets” situation is lumped into the group by Orwellian language, and the totalitarian left brought this one about. This is the shameful and senseless crap that waters down the word for the victims of the real thing, and wrongly tosses the innocent into a category where they don’t belong. In the same way a drunk taking a leak in an alley can be classifed as a “sex offender” and be forced to deal with the wrath that should be reserved for pedophiles and rapists.

Can you explain what this has to do with the bill, and why they are spending money and time trying to get it passed?
How many cases of what you call regret rape actually result in pregnancy , and then asked to be covered by federal funds? It sounds like the GOP is putting time, money and effort into denying legitimate rape cases to to prevent the rare ‘regret” rape.

Where are the jobs?!!!??

nighean donn said:
Do you actually think that there’s a great number of women who wake up regretful and decide to cry rape and put themselves through that scrutiny (sometimes worse than the act itself when people try to minimize what happened to them)? That’s exactly the thinking that’s taking place in the mind of the (mostly men) people that want to change what is accepted as our definition of rape. That is what is shameful. This whole thing….is it meant to create jobs? Way to go Republicans….this is what the people asked for in 2010.

That’s fine to say, but the inventors of “regret rape” who dubbed it date rape want to have it both ways. These are the people who used this noncrime to spread ridiculous statistics, all lumped in the category of “rape.” Something like, one in 5 women will be raped in college, etc. Which is why I said it waters down the real meaning of the word “rape”, which is forcible (including unwitting drugging).

What do you consider the true definition of the term “rape” and to what new definition do you think “mostly men” want to change it?

A Kim Bo said:
You mean the same PRIVATE CHARITIES like the CATHOLIC CHURCH who have more than their fair share of RAPE CASES of their own to tend to.
And BTW, the bulk of these PRIVATE CHARITIES actually receive sizable chunks of their funding from the government. That would still mean that GOVERNMENT FUNDS still pay for these abortions.

No, I don’t mean any such thing. What I am saying is that there IS such a thing as private charity, that is not a FORCIBLE taking of money from taxpayers. And the kind of tiny numbers they are talking about are such that people who wish to fund such abortions as charity could EASILY raise the money, without even blinking. My comment had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, which I agree has its own problems of rape, The point is that there are lots of places where taxpayer dollars SHOULD not go. And plenty of people are rightly disgusted that their tax dollars go to kill the innocent unborn, and they rightly resist this.

A Kim Bo said:
Sorry, but the LEGAL SYSTEM disagrees with you. There have been numerous cases where DATE RAPE has been constituted as LEGAL RAPE.
Not only are you not an expert on where PRIVATE social services actually get the bulk of their funds, but you’re also not a legal expert. You are a professional dumba$$ though.

The legal system disagrees with WHAT? First, you need to define your terms. When you say “many cases” when “DATE RAPE has been constituted as LEGAL RAPE”, what definition of “DATE RAPE” and “LEGAL RAPE” are you using? Vitrually my whole point was about the abuse of language, and you are making my point for me with your abuse of it.

I defined what I was talking about in these cases, and my primary complaint in my post was about people twisting language in Orwellian ways. I referred to what I defined as “regret rape” which is not any kind of rape at all, it is a misnomer to call it “rape” . An even better term would be “sexual regret.” And I made clear that when a woman gets herself hammered and goes to bed with someone only to wake up regretful, she is the victim of NO CRIME. Yet plenty of college campus fascists say she is and call it “date rape.” Where she can change her mind after the fact and the guy she slept with is still criminally liable. This is crap.

It is also crap used by the unprincipled and unprofessional among the sexual assault lobbies to boost the stats. There are pleny of occasions where such non-rape “crimes” are used to boost alarmist stats about the actual number of rapes. This CONCEPT should not be controversial. Anyone should be able to agree that labeling this non-crime a crime is wrong, regardless of the extent to which it happens. Then there may be room for debate about how much it actually does happen, but that is a different debate.

My point again, is that regardless of whether the rapist and the victim know each other or not, the proper definition of “RAPE” is forceful. REAL threat of physical harm or secret drugging fit this definition. Two people getting drunk and losing inhibitions does not and should not, regardless of what ANY law might say. And if there are laws that do, it does not disprove my point, it only shows there are bad laws. Just as I pointed out that classifying a public urinator in the same bucket of “sex offender” along with pedophiles and rapists is bad law.

CosmosDan said:
Can you explain what this has to do with the bill, and why they are spending money and time trying to get it passed?How many cases of what you call regret rape actually result in pregnancy , and then asked to be covered by federal funds? It sounds like the GOP is putting time, money and effort into denying legitimate rape cases to to prevent the rare ‘regret” rape.

It has little or nothing to do with the bill. It has lots to do with the misleading abuse of language employed by Jon Stewart (somewhat) and the Conchords’ groupie (a lot).

My point never was never about how many cases of what I called “regret rape” (which is even better called “sexual regret” ) end up in pregnancy where tax dollars are used. My point was about the abuse of language for cheap jokes and bad policies, where the terms are not consistent, twisted by the same people for one meaning here and a different meaning there. Whoopi Goldberg was being intellectually honest about definitions where Stewart and Mel were not.

Federal funds have no business being spent on ANY abortion for ANY reason, including rape, incest, whatever. The Constitution defines very limited powers for government and taking tax dollars for abortions is COMPLETELY out of the scope of the enumerated powers. Period. Furthermore, in this case, the scope of the problem described on Stewart’s show is so small that it’s not like there is a difficult financial hurdle here. The bill is small, and PLENTY of money could be raised by true private charity, from those who want to see those abortions paid for.

CosmosDan said:
It sounds like the GOP is putting time, money and effort into denying legitimate rape cases to to prevent the rare ‘regret” rape.

I’m no fan of the GOP, but I think their point in pursuing this, while to some extent pandering *may* be to some extent principled. Because NO federal money has any business paying for ANY abortion. It’s completely out of scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress. So, given all the crap the GOP does that abuses the Constitution, it is probably pandering. But given the reality of the enumerated powers, the shutting off of federal tax dollars to pay for ANY abortions is a *tiny* step toward following the Constitution.

However, if you want to make the argument that it’s not much money, that argument cuts both ways. It it’s not a lot of money, why are the advocates of spending that money so resistive to having it cut off?

Again, I DO think the true motivation for it is largely pandering. But the abuse of language here was worth noting. And idiot responses like Akimbo’s illustrate that quite well.

By the way, I regret using the term “regret rape” when instead I should have used “sexual regret.” “Sexual regret” follows my rules about NOT sneaking the word “rape” in where it has no business.

You people should now be convicted of a crime because I regret what I did.

I have some personal experience in this issue.

This isn’t a subject that should ever be taken lightly or made into a joke. Real rape is a devastating thing for any human being to go through. I’ve seen the personal destruction it brings.

That being said, I’ve seen how the mantra of the left that ALL rape accusations must be true can be devatstating to the accused, too.

This is my politically incorrect monent of the day: Many rape accusations really do originate through guilt, or getting caught in an affair. I’ve seen it. And those accusations come without regard to what they’ll do to the accused.

The news media won’t publish a victim’s name, but if you get accused of rape your name will be on the front page when you are arrested, WAY before adjudication. And the impact on your life will be a crushing, terrible thing. your marriage, you family, your career all suffer. Not to mention that people can’t help but look at you and think “rapist.”

I hated working sex crimes because my heart would break for people who were truly victims. Rape is horrible. But when some girl casually accused someone of rape because she was now mad at him or regretted sex with him – or got caught by hubby, it really, REALLY pissed me off.

I think there should be legislation passed that ensures that false accusations of rape are a felony with severe penalties. False accusations destroy as surely as the real thing.

Anyway…there should be no federal funding for abortion unless the rape is reaql, with a real victim. Anyone who cries rape to get an abortion needs to go to jail.

Harry Flashman said:
I have some personal experience in this issue.

the left that ALL rape accusations must be true

Evidence of this?

Sorry I was asking for evidence to support the contention that the left believes ALL rape accusations must be true. Because that sure reads like a crock of sh*t and a sweeping generalization.

paul:

Ever dealt with women’s groups when it comes to the issue of rape? I have. And until you’ve actually investigated this sort of thing for a living I would suggest you step back.

If you want empiricism on the left’s treatment of rape accusations you need look no further than the Duke case. Thay had those kids convicted, drawn, and quartered before they had the first chance to defend themselves.

The left in that case included the 80-odd professors at Duke who, signed a petition demanding their livers on a stick before all the facts were in, the usual lafty race pimps. the media, and the list goes on and on.

She should have gione to jail for that false accusation, and it should have been felony charges, not just filing a false report.

Paul, you’re generally a fairly reasonable voice from the ft. With respect you’re out of your depth on this one.

Sorry. Should be “from the left”.

Harry Flashman said:
paul:

Ever dealt with women’s groups when it comes to the issue of rape? I have. And until you’ve actually investigated this sort of thing for a living I would suggest you step back.

If you want empiricism on the left’s treatment of rape accusations you need look no further than the Duke case. Thay had those kids convicted, drawn, and quartered before they had the first chance to defend themselves.

The left in that case included the 80-odd professors at Duke who, signed a petition demanding their livers on a stick before all the facts were in, the usual lafty race pimps. the media, and the list goes on and on.

She should have gione to jail for that false accusation, and it should have been felony charges, not just filing a false report.

Paul, you’re generally a fairly reasonable voice from the ft. With respect you’re out of your depth on this one.

Don’t be so condescending Harry. I am not “out of my depth.” I realize that many were too quick to judge in the Duke case, and of course there are false accusations of rape. I never argued otherwise in either case. But how is it true that “the left” believes every single rape accusation is true? How is that not an overly broad generalization completely removed from reality?

Just_MC said:
However, if you want to make the argument that it’s not much money, that argument cuts both ways. It it’s not a lot of money, why are the advocates of spending that money so resistive to having it cut off?

It cost money to pass measures like this and more money to enforce it so the chances are it’s a loss rather than a savings. I don’t know all the particulars but if federal money is available for medical procedures under certain circumstances , the fact that it’s an abortion shouldn’t matter.

We won’t have a perfect system. Mistakes are made and loopholes exist and we have to set priorities wisely.

The other thing that bothers me about this bill is the seeming push to get private insurers to not cover abortions. That seems like a complete contradiction of the concept of less government interference.
Not to mention a side run around the law of the land, against those who can afford it the least.

Harry Flashman said:
paul: Ever dealt with women’s groups when it comes to the issue of rape? I have. And until you’ve actually investigated this sort of thing for a living I would suggest you step back. If you want empiricism on the left’s treatment of rape accusations you need look no further than the Duke case. Thay had those kids convicted, drawn, and quartered before they had the first chance to defend themselves. The left in that case included the 80-odd professors at Duke who, signed a petition demanding their livers on a stick before all the facts were in, the usual lafty race pimps. the media, and the list goes on and on. She should have gione to jail for that false accusation, and it should have been felony charges, not just filing a false report. Paul, you’re generally a fairly reasonable voice from the ft. With respect you’re out of your depth on this one.

Well said.

BTW, if someone objects to how you worded it, I would offer that there are plenty of sexual assault lobbies and such who make a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and would like to see the same in the law.

Someone made an interesting list of NFL domestic battery cases (especially involving husbands/wives and boyfriends/girlfriends and regardless of the truth, I think about 75% of the accusers came back later and said they invented the accusation out of anger over affairs or other things. I suspect at least some of those recants were actually lies and the crime did happen, but to several people”s points, the waters are far murkier than some of the advocacy groups would like you to believe.

Just_MC said:
By the way, I regret using the term “regret rape” when instead I should have used “sexual regret.” “Sexual regret” follows my rules about NOT sneaking the word “rape” in where it has no business.

I’m guessing those cases are pretty rare.

Just_MC said:
Well said.

BTW, if someone objects to how you worded it, I would offer that there are plenty of sexual assault lobbies and such who make a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and would like to see the same in the law.

Someone made an interesting list of NFL domestic battery cases (especially involving husbands/wives and boyfriends/girlfriends and regardless of the truth, I think about 75% of the accusers came back later and said they invented the accusation out of anger over affairs or other things. I suspect at least some of those recants were actually lies and the crime did happen, but to several people’’s points, the waters are far murkier than some of the advocacy groups would like you to believe.

And too many still believe “boys will be boys.” Like you said, it’s a murky issue.

CosmosDan said:
I’m guessing those cases are pretty rare.

Thankfully so if they are. There was a huge push in late 80s and early 90s in coleges to classify after-the-fact regret/shame as grounds for prosecuting men.

CosmosDan said:
I’m guessing those cases are pretty rare.

And how many sexual assaults go unreported still? It’s a pretty high percentage. Way too high.

Just_MC said:

“BTW, if someone objects to how you worded it, I would offer that there are plenty of sexual assault lobbies and such who make a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and would like to see the same in the law.”

That was one of the points I was trying to make. Thanks.

Harry Flashman said:
Just_MC said:

“BTW, if someone objects to how you worded it, I would offer that there are plenty of sexual assault lobbies and such who make a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and would like to see the same in the law.”

That was one of the points I was trying to make. Thanks.

Who out there vocally advocates for sexual assault laws that would go by an assumption of guilt?

paulmdoro said:
Who out there vocally advocates for sexual assault laws that would go by an assumption of guilt?

Pretty much everyone who was yelling about it when I was in college. Advocacy groups of students and the national lobbies they were tied into.

BTW, the whole notion of “sexual regret” being prosecutable as a crime is predicated on an assumption of guilt, wouldn’t you say?

Just_MC said:
Pretty much everyone who was yelling about it when I was in college. Advocacy groups of students and the national lobbies they were tied into.

BTW, the whole notion of “sexual regret” being prosecutable as a crime is predicated on an assumption of guilt, wouldn’t you say?

OK “pretty much everyone” is really vague. I was familiar with advocacy groups during my college days and participated in domestic violence awareness activities. I never heard a single mention of making it so that legally in all instances of an alleged sexual assault, guilt is automatically assumed. Hence my belief that overly broad generalizations not based in reality are being used here. I think that’s a grave mistake when discussing such a serious issue.

Harry Flashman said:
That being said, I’ve seen how the mantra of the left that ALL rape accusations must be true can be devatstating to the accused, too.

I’m with Paul on this one. labeling “the left” as all thinking one way is pure BS.

Harry Flashman said:
The news media won’t publish a victim’s name, but if you get accused of rape your name will be on the front page when you are arrested, WAY before adjudication. And the impact on your life will be a crushing, terrible thing. your marriage, you family, your career all suffer. Not to mention that people can’t help but look at you and think “rapist.”

I agree with you on this. There are limits to what we can do but is it possible to not release the name of the accused? I also agree that false accusations should be prosecuted. I assume there is already recourse for for a private lawsuit.

Harry Flashman said:
I hated working sex crimes because my heart would break for people who were truly victims. Rape is horrible. But when some girl casually accused someone of rape because she was now mad at him or regretted sex with him – or got caught by hubby, it really, REALLY pissed me off.

So a false accusation of rape is is worse than an actual rape? I guess that’s one way of looking at it.

Harry Flashman said:
If you want empiricism on the left’s treatment of rape accusations you need look no further than the Duke case. Thay had those kids convicted, drawn, and quartered before they had the first chance to defend themselves.

The left in that case included the 80-odd professors at Duke who, signed a petition demanding their livers on a stick before all the facts were in, the usual lafty race pimps. the media, and the list goes on and on.

One case does not make the kind of extreme mantra you described. It’s also true in that case that the the system itself that the public is supposed to trust was corrupt. The evidence was not presented honestly, which may account for people believing what they did.

People can jump to conclusions and judge, but it isn’t just the left.

Disturbing statistics. 60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to police. Factoring in unreported rapes, only 6% of rapists ever serve a day in jail. This is according to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cosmos Dan asks:

“So a false accusation of rape is is worse than an actual rape? I guess that’s one way of looking at it.”

That’s not what I meant by that. I would go after the perpetrators like a shark in all cases. When, after investigation, I began to smell a rat and suspect that the accusation was bogus, yeah, I got pissed.

Little in life will give you the satisfaction that putting a rapist behind bars will. The fact that someone will accuse someone else of something as heinous as rape and will get someone like me to go after an innocent man is, um, annoying.

That’s what I meant.

Harry Flashman said:

Little in life will give you the satisfaction that putting a rapist behind bars will. The fact that someone will accuse someone else of something as heinous as rape and will get someone like me to go after an innocent man is, um, annoying.

Very easy to believe. And I agree, a false accusation is beyond horrifying.

paulmdoro said:
OK “pretty much everyone” is really vague. I was familiar with advocacy groups during my college days and participated in domestic violence awareness activities. I never heard a single mention of making it so that legally in all instances of an alleged sexual assault, guilt is automatically assumed. Hence my belief that overly broad generalizations not based in reality are being used here. I think that’s a grave mistake when discussing such a serious issue.

Student advocacy groups of all sorts. Not only women’s interests/rights groups but all their buddies in the race advocacy groups. Student government. Student newspaper staff. A few in the administration who were cozied up with them. And national sexual awareness advocacy groups who the local advocacy groups tied into. They ran whole campaigns making the case that what I have described as sexual regret should be a punishable crime, both for expusion from school and for criminal prosecution. Yelling “date rape is rape.” But if you look at what they were describing, it was sexual regret. Which is why I say the language is important here. Rape is one of the most despicable crimes on Earth. Up there approaching murder and torture. A foolish college girl with a hangover and regret about what she willingly did is HER fault. Shifting the blame for that onto someone else is bad enough. Putting it in the same bucket with RAPE is a crime against rational thought everywhere.

Just_MC said:
Student advocacy groups of all sorts. Not only women’s interests/rights groups but all their buddies in the race advocacy groups. Student government. Student newspaper staff. A few in the administration who were cozied up with them. And national sexual awareness advocacy groups who the local advocacy groups tied into. They ran whole campaigns making the case that what I have described as sexual regret should be a punishable crime, both for expusion from school and for criminal prosecution. Yelling “date rape is rape.” But if you look at what they were describing, it was sexual regret. Which is why I say the language is important here. Rape is one of the most despicable crimes on Earth. Up there approaching murder and torture. A foolish college girl with a hangover and regret about what she willingly did is HER fault. Shifting the blame for that onto someone else is bad enough. Putting it in the same bucket with RAPE is a crime against rational thought everywhere.

You’re talking about one university though right? As I said, the experience at my college was different. One college hardly represents an entire nation’s worth of student advocacy groups.

Paul:

“Disturbing statistics. 60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to police”

That is a disturbing stat all right, but I have to wonder just how they gathered a stat like that. The only way to do that would be anecdotally. Empiricism wopuld be impossible.

So…while disturbing, I’d take that one with a grain of salt.

Gosh, I keep forgetting how it is the MEN who get the short stick with rape. Not the WOMEN, the men.

I mean, what’s the harm in redefining rape? It’s pretty obvious that most of the posters on this thread have no clue what they are talking about but they’ll just type like there is no tomorrow.

Poor men.

You’re right – women everywhere should suffer because of that horrible girl who accused those Duke players of rape. Oh, and because it was okayed in the Bible and stuff.

You poor, poor men.

Harry Flashman said:
Paul:

“Disturbing statistics. 60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to police”

That is a disturbing stat all right, but I have to wonder just how they gathered a stat like that. The only way to do that would be anecdotally. Empiricism wopuld be impossible.

So…while disturbing, I’d take that one with a grain of salt.

Typically how reliable are statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice? That isn’t the first time I have come across similar statistics either. I don’t find it difficult to believe.

avoidswork said:

“Gosh, I keep forgetting how it is the MEN who get the short stick with rape. Not the WOMEN, the men……You poor, poor men.”

How did you get that from any of the comments here?

The discussion from both left leaning and right leaning men in this thread had nothing but empathy and very strong emotions in the favor of the victims of rape.

We poor, poor men are debating an issue, not denigrating the victims or advocating for men in general. and what in the name of sanity does the bible have to do with this?

Avoid work all you want, but try not to avoid thought at the same time.

Good grief.

Paul:

I don’t find it difficult to believe but because of the nature of the stat I would approach it with caution, that’s all.

Harry Flashman said:

Avoid work all you want, but try not to avoid thought at the same time.

I’m sorry but that made me laugh. Nice one.

Harry Flashman said:
Paul:

I don’t find it difficult to believe but because of the nature of the stat I would approach it with caution, that’s all.

Whatever the percentage, it’s too high. It’s also worth noting that the males make up 10% of all sexual assaults and don’t report them at a higher percentage than females (according to statistics of course).

avoidswork said:
Gosh, I keep forgetting how it is the MEN who get the short stick with rape. Not the WOMEN, the men.

Right. That is exactly what we were saying.

avoidswork said:
You’re right – women everywhere should suffer because of that horrible girl who accused those Duke players of rape.

How has anyone said they should suffer? The point is that there is UNCERTAINTY around these accusations. As with any allegation, the uncertainty is unfortunate but REAL, and we must maintain the presumption of innocence.

avoidswork said:
what’s the harm in redefining rape?

Sure, let’s redefine murder also. So, if you punch someone, that’s call “punch murder.” And if you shove someone, that’s called “shove murder.” And if you get drunk, screw someone, and wake up and regret it. The person you slept with is guilty of “date murder.” And all the people who do these things are now “murderers.” And they should be punishable like murder. That would be a great use of language, to redefine things this way.

Harry Flashman said:
That’s what I meant.

I believe you and I agree that a false accusation of a serious crime can really damage an innocent person.

That said, the idea that the left all has the same mantra is partisan BS.

Dan,

As I said on another thread, I have a tendency to tar the left with a single brush because of the vitriolic approach many on the left use. The entire left ahouldn’t be blames for the vile histrionincs of those with the megaphones.

Point taken.

And we both know the vitriolic approach isn’t limited to any one political persuasion.

Harry Flashman said:
Dan,

As I said on another thread, I have a tendency to tar the left with a single brush because of the vitriolic approach many on the left use. The entire left ahouldn’t be blames for the vile histrionincs of those with the megaphones.

Point taken.

Thanks Harry. I’ve seen you make some excellent comments here so that kinda surprised me. I feel the same way about “the right” We see some really stupid and hateful stuff coming from some but I know it’s not true of everyone. There’s that temptation of being pulled in and using broad general language, but I think it’s best to try and stay away from it.

Just_MC~

What I was snidely pointing out is a lot of commentary on this thread has less to do with the redefinition of “forcible” rape and more to do with “left” or “advocacy groups” or poor men getting falsely accused. Blah blah blah.

Why should the term be redefined? Seriously? Why is this such an important thing for the GOP to do when its budgetary impact is teensy and we are talking about a population (women) who are generally poor?

Look, the GOP already has a pretty poor track record with women’s rights. And then I read a significant portion of the commentary on this thread and it kind of has less to do with the proposed law of HR3 and alot to do with either false accusations/regret sex or those poor guys at Duke. Or how harmful it is for a man to be falsely accused.

None of that, btw, has anything to do with this bill. They are separate issues, some very relevant, but not about this proposed law.

Once more:
Why. should. the. definition. of. rape. be. redefined. by. the. GOP?

UPDATE:

apparently the GOP has dropped the “forcible rape” narrowing from their HR3 bill.

(Shaming the frakkers appears to be the only way to make them do anything involving having a conscience)

avoidswork said:
Just_MC~ What I was snidely pointing out is a lot of commentary on this thread has less to do with the redefinition of “forcible” rape and more to do with “left” or “advocacy groups” or poor men getting falsely accused. Blah blah blah. Why should the term be redefined? Seriously? Why is this such an important thing for the GOP to do when its budgetary impact is teensy and we are talking about a population (women) who are generally poor? Look, the GOP already has a pretty poor track record with women’s rights. And then I read a significant portion of the commentary on this thread and it kind of has less to do with the proposed law of HR3 and alot to do with either false accusations/regret sex or those poor guys at Duke. Or how harmful it is for a man to be falsely accused. None of that, btw, has anything to do with this bill. They are separate issues, some very relevant, but not about this proposed law. Once more:Why. should. the. definition. of. rape. be. redefined. by. the. GOP?

This bill seemed like a foolish mess to me. My complaint was about the abuse of the terms by Stewart and Mel on the show.

I defined rape and statutory rape usefully, and dismissed the Orwellian terms like “date rape” which are abused in the ways I listed.

i agree that date rape has been abused.

no doubt that it causes a lot of harm to this already under-appreciated violence. it’s disgusting when one accuses another of rape and it proves false and undermines the issue. i will take issue with your fervor on the topic since that scenario is less prevalent than an actual rape victim AND that false accusations of men are significally less proportionate than villifying a female. especially in acquaintance/date rape situations.

but false accusations are a lot less frequent then the underreporting of the crime in itself. part of it is because of the notion that if you go somewhere with someone OR change your mind, you’ve either asked for it or don’t take responsibility for what may happen.

i also think most on this thread would agree that consent can be withdrawn, thereby constituting rape.

but making a poor woman bear a child borne of rape is simply wrong/misguided. and the care of the victimized female should take precedence. even if they are poor and not white.

“Just_MC says:
February 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm Just_MC(Quote)
0 3
Harry Flashman said:
paul: Ever dealt with women’s groups when it comes to the issue of rape? I have. And until you’ve actually investigated this sort of thing for a living I would suggest you step back. If you want empiricism on the left’s treatment of rape accusations you need look no further than the Duke case. Thay had those kids convicted, drawn, and quartered before they had the first chance to defend themselves. The left in that case included the 80-odd professors at Duke who, signed a petition demanding their livers on a stick before all the facts were in, the usual lafty race pimps. the media, and the list goes on and on. She should have gione to jail for that false accusation, and it should have been felony charges, not just filing a false report. Paul, you’re generally a fairly reasonable voice from the ft. With respect you’re out of your depth on this one.

Well said.

BTW, if someone objects to how you worded it, I would offer that there are plenty of sexual assault lobbies and such who make a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and would like to see the same in the law.

Someone made an interesting list of NFL domestic battery cases (especially involving husbands/wives and boyfriends/girlfriends and regardless of the truth, I think about 75% of the accusers came back later and said they invented the accusation out of anger over affairs or other things. I suspect at least some of those recants were actually lies and the crime did happen, but to several people’’s points, the waters are far murkier than some of the advocacy groups would like you to believe.”

Wow, boys, somebody’s parents forgot to teach them that lying and violence against women are major no-no’s.
Yeah, women just LOVE to cry rape, after all, it’s so much fun? Grow up.

avoidswork said:
UPDATE:

apparently the GOP has dropped the “forcible rape” narrowing from their HR3 bill.

(Shaming the frakkers appears to be the only way to make them do anything involving having a conscience)

this reminded me of when the republicans said they would never forget 9/11 but then forgot when it came to help the workers until they were shamed into doing it by jon stewart and shep smith.

“OK…your bill comes to $740…unless of course, you were raped?”

“Well…what happens if I were raped?”

“Oh well..then it’s free!”

“Ah. I see. I was raped then.”

“Great! Then we just need a little more information for our database. These statistics are devilishly hard to keep in the numbers we like to see here at “Victim’s Services”! Now, how many times were you raped?”

“Um…what do you mean?”

“Well for instance….Have you ever had sex with someone you’d just met, and later turned out to be not the right guy for you?”

“Well, sure.”

“Had you had any kind of alcoholic beverages before getting nasty?”

“Well…I had a glass of wine with dinner.”

“OK. Great! So you were raped!”

“Well….I wouldn’t say that. The guy was cute, and I kind of came on to him. It just didn’t work out.”

“Did you resist?”

“Not really. He was hot! I just found out later he didn’t have any real prospects and I want a man who is going somewhere. I don’t want to end up living in some trailer park!”

“So then…you were too affected by the alcohol to even resist…definitely rape! How many times has something like this happened to you?”

“Geez….I dunno….a few? Half a dozen times over the years? That’s actually how I met my first husband.”

“AHHH! Raped by your husband! Definitely a pattern of abuse here! You qualify for the Battered Spouse Program, where you get free counselling and assistance payments!”

“Well, I’m divorced now. And the three guys I’ve been seeing and told were the father all gave me some money for an abortion. I wouldn’t have to give that back would I?”

“Of course not. That’ll just be our little secret. Now just sign this affidavit, and we’ll get those payments started!”

FULL STOP.

Are you outraged by my imaginary dialog here? Why? It’s just satire! You know….like Jon Stewart. You were outraged by his though, too…right?

Thomas Drewing said:
Are you outraged by my imaginary dialog here? Why? It’s just satire! You know….like Jon Stewart. You were outraged by his though, too…right?

The difference is you weren’t FUNNY, you’re just an A$$. Don’t quite your day job unless your day job is writing for Rush Limbaugh. There being an a$$ is an asset.

Just_MC said:
What I am saying is that there IS such a thing as private charity, that is not a FORCIBLE taking of money from taxpayers

And none of these PRIVATE CHARITIES have agreed to make it their business to pay for abortions for anyone. Now if you want to actually start a private charity that actually does that, be my guess. Until then, you still are wholly uninformed about what you’re talking about. Typical tea party, offering up PRIVATE SOLUTIONS that don’t even exist.

Just_MC said:
The point is that there are lots of places where taxpayer dollars SHOULD not go

According to WHO, my public dollars go toward fighting illegal wars and propping up dictators and I don’t hear many in the Tea Party or the GOP complaining about that. AGAIN, it’s SUBJECTIVE to think that abortions are out of the bounds of funding. And SUBJECTIVELY I’d rather not pay corporate welfare or have my BLUE STATE tax dollars be constantly sent down to RED STATES who can’t collect a decent tax rate on their highly impoverished citizens but they do and so there you go.

Our tax dollars are constantly funding things we each individually disagree with but even you yourself say these particular funds are miniscule (to everyone but the rape victim) and are hardly the first thing you should be getting your panties in a bunch about. And it’s also hardly the first thing that the “newly fiscally conservative” GOP should be worrying about to actually make a dent in the budget. But if pandering to the remnants of what’s left of the Religious Right or to steer the Tea Party into an equally reactionary Religious Right way of thinking, then the GOP PRIORITIZING this particular funding makes all kinds of sense.

Just_MC said:
my primary complaint in my post was about people twisting language in Orwellian ways

Your primary reaction was to BLAME THE VICTIM because you disagree with ABORTIONS full stop. Your feelings about rape and abortion are two separate issues. But since you’ve linked your hatred of abortion with your suspicions about those who supposedly falsely CRY RAPE, I can only guess that you’re over-riding motive is that you hate or resent women for some reason. That’s an issue between you and your shrink.

Just because John Boehner is pandering to that innate hatred and distrust of women, especially those who have found themselves in a bad spot, doesn’t mean you have LOGIC on your side. Your constant need to affirm Harry Flashman’s rant against women who cry wolf is pathetic and tells me all I need to know. Not even John Boehner can help you with your deep rooted issues against women.

avoidswork said:
but making a poor woman bear a child borne of rape is simply wrong/misguided. and the care of the victimized female should take precedence. even if they are poor and not white.

These people trying to justify rape and then turn around and say that the government should not fund abortions under any circumstances show us what is really behind not only their stance against abortion but also their remedial understandings of the complexities of rape. It’s not the women who cry rape (presumably so they can get a free abortion) that are these people’s problem. They just HATE women and John Boehner is pandering to that irrational hatred with this legislation.

If Boehner cared at all about balancing the budget, this is hardly one of the pre-eminent policies that should be cut. If John Boehner cared about steering his tea party “fiscally conservative” reactionaries toward being more like the Religious Right social conservative reactionaries, then this is his first step toward that goal. It’s easier for NEOCONS (who have been the main proponents of actual government expansion in DEED if not in rhetoric for the last 30 years) to pay lip service to their social conservative base than it is for them to cut the sizable corporate welfare funding that got American into this fiscal mess to begin with.

Where is the equality, where is the fairness, if your ban abortions for the victims of rape how are rapists going to reproduce. Obviously the Republican see an important voter segment it the rapist, more than 95,000 rapes per annum and counting reproduction, that’s significant potential for even more rapist voters.
If rapists aren’t allowed to reproduce where are future rapists to come from. Well the Republicans are big on the second amendment so where do tranquilizer guns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquilizer_gun fit on the apparently ‘not rape’ scale, are the Republicans defining tranquilizer guns as a legitimate pregnancy aid for rapists.