Major Newspaper Dumps George Will over rape claim

[Disir]

The problem you have with George Will is that he is right. I know that offends you, and upsets your victim status, but that is your fucking problem, not mine.

Want to try and explain why he is wrong so I can shove your incredible ignorance down your throat, or do you just want to point to the facts he is slamming you idiots with and cry because you can't deal with the truth?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...-george-will-over-rape-claim.html#post9296368


What's the problem, again?


This is two.

Two what? Stupid attempts to prove that all you can do is quote other people, and not defend your position? I already knew that, which is why I challenged you to tell me what you think is wrong with what he said, not point to other people who are wrong about what he said. Try thinking, and speaking, for yourself for once in your pathetic life.

And that's three. You didn't know what you were talking about before. You have no idea what you are talking about now. Every encounter with you consists of you taking shit out of context and then scurrying across the floor trying to locate anything to prove that you had a point to begin with. You didn't challenge me. You took a fucking hit off your crack pipe and started to run your mouth.

So, here's the deal my little narcissistic, psychopathic, sadistic commentator for the lulz-since you are too ignorant to formulate an actual argument and what you lack in intelligence you attempt to make up for in machismo. Let me put this into language that you can understand. Your big mouth will never make up for your little dick.

No more lulz for you. Welcome to ignore.

 

[martybegan]

if a woman can't consent, it's rape.

if she says no... it's rape.... even if she got naked first.

Being drunk is not being unable to give consent. Being passed out is unable to give consent.

The 2nd standard is completely judgmental if the sex was initially consensual. So you are asking men to be listen distinctly during coitus, or repeatedly ask a woman IS THIS OK IS THIS OK IS THIS OK during penetration from start to finish.

Sorry, the good ole days of getting a coed drunk and you and your buddies fucking the shit out of her are gone

Now, if she is unable to make a conscious decision....you will be up on rape charges

One guy, one girl, both drunk. Who is talking about a gang-bang?

Most of these cases being counter-sued by the guys involve a single encounter. You are changing the topic.

 

[martybegan]

Conservatives need to learn that when the subject of rape comes up.......just say "Rape is bad"

Rape is bad. But two people being drunk and having sex, and the woman later regretting it is not rape.

 

[Katzndogz]

A woman saying "I let him finish because I was tired" is not rape. About the only inference that could be drawn is that she said no, then changed her mind and didn't object further.

 

[Disir]

Are there different degrees of rape? This is from the George Will column:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

This is rape if rape is simply lack of consent; however, this case of rape seems much less severe than what one would consider to be forcible rape. Usually people think of rape as being a horrible crime, but in the case described above there is very little damage suffered by the rape victum. The incident seems to be more of an inconvenience than a brutality.

And the 500 pound gorilla in the room is that all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent. According to the narrative, going to sleep was more important to her at this time than not being "raped".

Well, the problem with that is that if you rely on "forcible rape" then you go back a good 100-150 years ago where it was believed that if a woman did not fight hard enough then it wasn't rape. I am going to try to do this from memory. There is a case from California in the 1800s, about 20 years before Grover Cleveland became rapey, that involved a woman and her sister that were traveling on horseback. They had both gotten off the horses and were walking with them. A man came up on his horse, got off and raped one but he was not convicted because she had not gotten on her horse and rode away.

This is why there was such an initial backlash recently on twitter on this attitude. She shouldn't have to. No? Means no. And this is the truth.

Having said that, I agree with what you are saying to an extent. It doesn't change the rape. That is pretty much what I was trying to say earlier about frank discussions about hookups, relationships etc. It's real hard not to make comparisons between something that we would or would not have done when looking at someones situation. And we need to have these conversations without the puritanical streak.

all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent.

All of this could have been avoided had the moment that they decided that they were going to be friends that she dropped his ass like a hot potato and didn't look back. Friends on the other side of the door to her living space and simply to keep the peace and avoid a bunch of drama. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[BobPlumb]

Are there different degrees of rape? This is from the George Will column:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

This is rape if rape is simply lack of consent; however, this case of rape seems much less severe than what one would consider to be forcible rape. Usually people think of rape as being a horrible crime, but in the case described above there is very little damage suffered by the rape victum. The incident seems to be more of an inconvenience than a brutality.

And the 500 pound gorilla in the room is that all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent. According to the narrative, going to sleep was more important to her at this time than not being "raped".

Well, the problem with that is that if you rely on "forcible rape" then you go back a good 100-150 years ago where it was believed that if a woman did not fight hard enough then it wasn't rape. I am going to try to do this from memory. There is a case from California in the 1800s, about 20 years before Grover Cleveland became rapey, that involved a woman and her sister that were traveling on horseback. They had both gotten off the horses and were walking with them. A man came up on his horse, got off and raped one but he was not convicted because she had not gotten on her horse and rode away.

This is why there was such an initial backlash recently on twitter on this attitude. She shouldn't have to. No? Means no. And this is the truth.

Having said that, I agree with what you are saying to an extent. It doesn't change the rape. That is pretty much what I was trying to say earlier about frank discussions about hookups, relationships etc. It's real hard not to make comparisons between something that we would or would not have done when looking at someones situation. And we need to have these conversations without the puritanical streak.

all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent.

All of this could have been avoided had the moment that they decided that they were going to be friends that she dropped his ass like a hot potato and didn't look back. Friends on the other side of the door to her living space and simply to keep the peace and avoid a bunch of drama. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The guy was definitely in the wrong for raping the girl. My main points are that the girl in this narrative always had the power to stop the sexual act because each time she told the guy to stop he did, even if only for a few minutes. This being the case, she should be at least somewhat responsible for allowing this event to take place. It's not so much hindsight when she still had the power to kick his ass out the door the next time he initiated sex, but she was "tired". And since she decided to simply lie there because she was tired, the sexual act must not have been such a traumatic event for her. Taking all of this into consideration, this is a case of a very low degree of rape. The guy deserves some sort of punishment for this but nowhere near the amount of punishment that a 1st degree rapist would deserve. I would hate to see this guy put on a sex offender list for life for this crime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if a woman can't consent, it's rape.

if she says no... it's rape.... even if she got naked first.

Is it rape if she says no and they stop?

Of course not.

Then the example in the OP wasn't rape, thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are there different degrees of rape? This is from the George Will column:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

This is rape if rape is simply lack of consent; however, this case of rape seems much less severe than what one would consider to be forcible rape. Usually people think of rape as being a horrible crime, but in the case described above there is very little damage suffered by the rape victum. The incident seems to be more of an inconvenience than a brutality.

And the 500 pound gorilla in the room is that all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent. According to the narrative, going to sleep was more important to her at this time than not being "raped".

Here's the thing.

Men are vastly stronger than women.

One on one? Resistance is essentially futile.

That's why this really needs to be something that is codified and enforced.

No means no.

At whatever point.

Here's the thing, only a few idiots disagree, but the idiots still want men to apologize for a culture that only exists inside their demented minds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Major Newspaper Dumps George Will, Apologizes For 'Offensive' Rape Column | ThinkProgress

Early this month, Washington Post columnist George Will wrote a column claiming that being a rape victim is now a “coveted status” that college women seek out. Will argued that complaints of rape and sexual assualt on college campus were overblown. He also suggested that women claiming to be raped were “delusional.”

Will’s column is syndicated in newspapers across the country by the Washington Post, which bills him as “the most influential writer in America.” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has published Will’s column for a number of years, has had enough. In a message today to readers, the paper announced they were dropping Will from their paper and apologized for running his column on sexual assault:

The change has been under consideration for several months, but a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it.

Doesn't matter. The right will go right on lying about rape, rapists and the victims of rape. We see the willful ignorance from the right here every day.

It looks like George Will is the delusional one.

People keep saying that, yet not a single person has been able to show me what he is wrong about. To me, that makes the delusion all on you idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...-george-will-over-rape-claim.html#post9296368


What's the problem, again?


This is two.

Two what? Stupid attempts to prove that all you can do is quote other people, and not defend your position? I already knew that, which is why I challenged you to tell me what you think is wrong with what he said, not point to other people who are wrong about what he said. Try thinking, and speaking, for yourself for once in your pathetic life.

And that's three. You didn't know what you were talking about before. You have no idea what you are talking about now. Every encounter with you consists of you taking shit out of context and then scurrying across the floor trying to locate anything to prove that you had a point to begin with. You didn't challenge me. You took a fucking hit off your crack pipe and started to run your mouth.

So, here's the deal my little narcissistic, psychopathic, sadistic commentator for the lulz-since you are too ignorant to formulate an actual argument and what you lack in intelligence you attempt to make up for in machismo. Let me put this into language that you can understand. Your big mouth will never make up for your little dick.

No more lulz for you. Welcome to ignore.

I love it.

I keep asking what your opinion is, and you keep crying about me not getting the problem based on other people who I have already debunked. this, somehow, makes me the crazy one.

No wonder you put me on ignore, you are afraid of the truth.

 

[Disir]

Are there different degrees of rape? This is from the George Will column:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

This is rape if rape is simply lack of consent; however, this case of rape seems much less severe than what one would consider to be forcible rape. Usually people think of rape as being a horrible crime, but in the case described above there is very little damage suffered by the rape victum. The incident seems to be more of an inconvenience than a brutality.

And the 500 pound gorilla in the room is that all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent. According to the narrative, going to sleep was more important to her at this time than not being "raped".

Well, the problem with that is that if you rely on "forcible rape" then you go back a good 100-150 years ago where it was believed that if a woman did not fight hard enough then it wasn't rape. I am going to try to do this from memory. There is a case from California in the 1800s, about 20 years before Grover Cleveland became rapey, that involved a woman and her sister that were traveling on horseback. They had both gotten off the horses and were walking with them. A man came up on his horse, got off and raped one but he was not convicted because she had not gotten on her horse and rode away.

This is why there was such an initial backlash recently on twitter on this attitude. She shouldn't have to. No? Means no. And this is the truth.

Having said that, I agree with what you are saying to an extent. It doesn't change the rape. That is pretty much what I was trying to say earlier about frank discussions about hookups, relationships etc. It's real hard not to make comparisons between something that we would or would not have done when looking at someones situation. And we need to have these conversations without the puritanical streak.

all of this could have been avoided if the girl had asserted herself and kicked the boy out of her bed and made him go home when he was persistent.

All of this could have been avoided had the moment that they decided that they were going to be friends that she dropped his ass like a hot potato and didn't look back. Friends on the other side of the door to her living space and simply to keep the peace and avoid a bunch of drama. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The guy was definitely in the wrong for raping the girl. My main points are that the girl in this narrative always had the power to stop the sexual act because each time she told the guy to stop he did, even if only for a few minutes. This being the case, she should be at least somewhat responsible for allowing this event to take place. It's not so much hindsight when she still had the power to kick his ass out the door the third time he initiated sex, but she was "tired". And since she decided to simply lie there because she was tired, the sexual act must not have been such a traumatic event for her. Taking all of this into consideration, this is a case of a very low degree of rape. The guy deserves some sort of punishment for this but nowhere near the amount of punishment that a 1st degree rapist would deserve. I would hate to see this guy put on a sex offender list for life for this crime.

It has to go to court and he has to be convicted before he can even make the list. She waited a month and a half before coming forward and took her case to the individual that she was supposed to according to the resource list for sexual assault: Elverson. He was a fraternity adviser, alcohol and drug counselor and a sexual assault counselor. She says that he told her that he didn't believe her. Other allegations towards Elverson surfaced with similar results. His job as a fraternity adviser was in conflict with his role as a sexual assault counselor. At that time it was not reported to the police. Nobody knows what has happened with the investigation. They have both graduated. Elveson lost his job and come to find out didn't have the credentials that he was supposed to have had. Swarthmore has had four expulsions, two federal investigations and two student filed federal lawsuits.

We have a paragraph and a half of her version of events. We can't even really say that he deserves to be punished. We could, can and just did but really? I feel hypocritical carrying on about due process and then turning around and denying it.

Check out § 3125. Aggravated indecent assault and § 3126. Indecent assault.
Chapter 31 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES