Category: Writers Block
Now, THIS, MORE THAN LIKELY, JUST MIGHT CAUSE AN AVALANCHE OF FEEDBACK, but if SO, or if NOT, SO BE IT, EITHER WAY: what I would wanna know is THIS: let's say that it's a situation where a woman approaches a man, and WITHOUT WARNING, starts continuously flirting with him, KNOWING FULLY WELL, on HER part, that she "WASN'T GIVING UP THE GOODIES," if you will, but the DUDE, on the OTHER hand, is TOTALLY UNAWARE of the unfortunate fact that he's "yankin' his chain," and he's TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS to, not only what's happening NOW, but what'll NOT be happening, after he's gotten her back to HIS place, and is about to "DROP HIS DRAWERS," the VERY MOMENT she FINALLY, SUDDENLY "DROPS THE ""NO-BOMB"" on him, which CONSEQUENTLY, he DOESN'T GO FOR SUCH REJECTION, and with TOTAL DESPERATION AND DETERMINATION, RAPES HER. COUNTER-CONSEQUENTLY, if there could ever be such, THE LADY, now a RAPE VICTIM, FINALLY BREAKS FREE from his angry grip, QUICKLY DRESSES, after having had her clothes yanked off of her, runs away, allerts the authorities, the dude's arrested, and ONLY BECAUSE the law, ONE-SIDED, AS IT IS, ONLY PROTECTS the WOMAN, WHETHER she's RIGHT OR WRONG, he's put away, PROBABLY FOR LIFE, as the lady is PROBABLY REHABILITATED, with the attempt, SUCCESSFUL OR NOT, to heal from what's happened to her. COMMENT: Just as the DUDE was punished for rape, the WOMAN should've been punished for "PRE-MEDITATED FLIRT FRAUD," if you will. She should've NEVER started what she ABSOLUTELY KNEW that she WASN'T GONNA FINISH, and HE should've NEVER violated HER, just because HE was violated. Since we AUTOMATICALLY ALREADY KNOW what the MAN DESERVINGLY GETS for RAPE, if there EVER WAS such a crime as "FLIRT FRAUD," what should be the punishment for the WOMAN, that should be NO MORE OR LESS SEVERE than the man's? If you feel that the way the law is NOW, which is ONE-SIDED, in favor of the WOMAN, as the ONLY victim, even though SHE was the one that KNOWINGLY, with ALL OF HER FACULTIES INTACT, AND DELIBERATELY provoked the situation, in the FIRST place, is the way that it should stay, instead of changing to the HYPOTHETICAL WAY, as above-described, why?
For starters, this question is so biased that my screen is now upside down. Now that I've got that out of the way, perhaps the question can be restated so that it's not so one sided.
If not mistaken, the question is: should women, who put themselves at a risk of being raped, be held legally responsible for the crime being committed against them?
No wait, still biased. See, the problem with the question is that it assumes that there is an activity that a woman can be held responsible for, which so arouses a man to the point where he must have sexual gratification, regardless of law and consequences.
Rape, is not about sexual gratification. It is about control, violence, anger... This has been shown in psychological studies over and over.
But let's say that there is a point of arousal at which a male simply cannot help himself, and must and shall continue in his pursuit of pleasure, without concern for the female involved.
Well, there might be such a point, but you already have to be engaged in sex to get there, as it has been suggested that this point is about a second before the male orgasm. At this point, everything is instinct, but seriously, by then, the deed is done, and this point of no return theory doesn’t really go well in the court room.
So, what I am saying is that the scenario described above does not really exist. It could happen, as anything could possibly happen, but it’s not likely to. If a man and woman are together, and the woman has no intent on having sex with that man, but she has flirted, and kissed and cuddled and maybe done other things which could suggest that she is interested in sex with that man, and then she turns him down; tough luck. It happens, it’s happened to me and to every guy who has ever had a female over at his home. It happens every day, in fact, it's probably happening right now. In fact, unless you usually have one night stands, or sleep with everyone you are intimate with on a first date, it’s happened to you.
As for the legal part of the question?
The answer is: there is no responsibility for the woman, the rape victim, because, well, she is the victim? No, means no? As stated earlier, rape is not about sex, it's about control? You can't tease a person into rape. I strongly suggest some reading on the subject.
First of all, why do you always post your rambling nonsense in "Writer's Block"? It'd be better suited to ... well, not being posted at all, but if you must, to a different board.
That said, I'm not even sure how to answer your question, although for once I do understand what you're asking. And it's ridiculous and disgusting. There is absolutely no justification for rape, none, whether the man was led on or not. Nothing a woman can do gives a man a reason to rape her, and if it happens, there should be consequences for him. This is like the people who say that girls who dress promiscuously are just asking to be raped. As adults, the subject of sex should be approached before it gets to that point, and even if her previous actions were sending a different message, no means no. When it's made clear that she doesn't want any sexual involvement, it should never be forced. I don't even want to contemplate what went wrong in your mind to make you think the woman should receive equal punishment, or any punishment at all. I think it's a good thing you don't believe a man and a woman can be 'just friends' without something physical at some point. I'd pity any girl who had you for a friend.
I swear there should be some kind of a law about the severely insane being allowed to run free.
You have far too many issues. You are wrong in so many ways. i basically diddo what Chelsea has already said. And I'm shutting up to spare the severe rant that is working it's way out of me.
Get some fucking help already. You are way too far beyond disturbed and for fuck's sake, get some fucking help.
WELL, as I ALWAYS HAVE SAID, AND WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO SAY, IT WORKS EVERY TIME! YOU, who JUST WON'T ANSWER ANY CHALLENGE, HEAD-ON, that are PERHAPS PUSHED, BEYOND ANY/ALL LIMITS, are the VERY ONES that just GOTTA be looking forward to the next post that I post, OTHERWISE, if you DIDN'T, you would've NEVER RESPONDED to ANY MORE, after the VERY FIRST POST, since I've BEEN a "ZONE-BONE," and the VERY REASON that I POST in "WRITERS' BLOCK," not that I even OWE you any explanation, but I'll be nice, THIS TIME: I'm grown, and WILL post in "WRITERS' BLOCK, SHOCK, DOCK, CROCK," any FATHER-FUCKED-UP TIME that I so CHOOSE! Get the picture?
Now, what DEFINITELY seems to CONSTANTLY BE MISSING, is WHAT INDICATION has EVER BEEN GIVEN that RAPE was JUSTIFIED in the question that I asked? THINK about it ...!
The better question would be, what about your post implies that rape is not justified? As I stated above, your question is extremely biased. It's based on an assumption, which is false, and then expects an answer based on that false assumption.
look nob hed, in my oppinion rape is one of the worst crimes committed, some times worse than murder because the girl or guy has to live with that afterwords, whereas if murdered yeah family and friends will have too but the person who was killed wouldn't. in reguards to your question a guy has self control, well some of us do anyway doesn't matter how much a girl flirts, if she says no she fucking means no and if he can't take no for an answer then he should be strung up and his dick and balls cut off.
just my oppinion
Well, VERY SIMPLE: the way that I handle such a situation, that EVEN I, MYSELF, have had the misfortune of being mislead into, but DEFINITELY got the HELL OUT OF, IMMEDIATELY, is that I just tell that person that I want ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any cock-tease, and have ABSOLUTELY NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONAL CONVERSATION, or CONVERSATIONAL DISCUSSION (WHATEVER) with her, EVEN IF SHE CONTINUES to HOUND ME, such as in this case of SHANA, who thought that SHE was the winner, when pulling the "FLIRT FRAUD" routine--SHANA, by the way, is one that I met on a local phone chatline a few years ago, around 2001ish, and when she told me ALL THAT SHE KNEW that I wanted to hear, which I ALREADY KNEW, from the word "JUMP" that she was NO MORE than a COCK-TEASE, it came as ABSOLUTELY NO SURPRISE TO ME when she DID pull it, by inviting me to her house, and waited until I got to her front gate, before opening the door, and saying: "You MAY AS WELL BEAT YOUR MEAT, SUCKER! I'm NEVER lett'n' you in!" The REAL SURPRISE to HER, came when I just CALMLY REPLIED: "Ok, cock-tease!", and JUST AS CALMLY, turned around, walked back to the bus stop, and went elsewhere; to this VERY DAY, she CONSTANTLY CALLS, DEMANDING that I take back the "COCK-TEASE" remark, to which I told HER that SHE would have to "take it back FOR me, by giving ME what you promised me; OTHERWISE, you'll ALWAYS proove me ABSOLUTELY RIGHT." To THAT, she SLAM-HANGS UP THE PHONE, but NOT BEFORE I hear: "YOU FUCKIN' PERVERT!", but STILL calls back, either IMMEDIATELY, or OVER TIME, and EACH TIME I ANSWER, and it's HER, all I have to say is: "Remember what I TOLD YOU," in that singsong, taunting tone, JUST TO PISS HER OFF, CALL ME "FUCKIN' PERVERT," and slam-hang up again--either SHE'S got a WHOLE MOUNTAIN OF "DOUGH-RAY-ME-BUCKS" to afford to buy a new phone, EVERY TIME SHE DOES THAT, IF they ever BREAK, or the very phone that she STILL MIGHT HAVE is VIRTUALLY INDESTRUCTABLE (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!)!
NOW, if this had ACTUALLY BEEN the VERY HYPOTHESIS as what initiated this TOPIC, I would've had the LEGAL AUTHORITY to call the cops and have charges of "FLIRT FRAUD" pressed against her. Although such legal availability is unfortunately NON-EXISTENT, who, but GOD, of course, is to decide that SUCH SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T exist, which I REALLY HOPE that there WOULD come a time that such WOULD--if ANY OF US is "big enough to do the CRIME, we're JUST AS BIG ENOUGH to do the time," whether it's "FLIRT FRAUD," on the part of the WOMAN, OR "RAPE," on the part of the MAN.
Well, now, what I DARE TO CHALLENGE, in response to POST 7 to this topic, is that if there are any WOMEN SUPPORTERS, TOTALLY AGAINST "FLIRT FRAUD, ONLY," just as there are MEN SUPPORTERS, TOTALLY AGAINST "RAPE," ONLY, don't be afraid to post YOUR feedback.
As I said in the IMMEDIATE-ABOVE POST to ANY WOMAN, who ACTUALLY SUPPORT being against "FLIRT FRAUD," ONLY, just as the MEN, who SUPPORT being against "RAPE," ONLY, as well as if there any WOMEN AND/OR MEN, in TOTAL SUPPORT for being against BOTH, this is YOUR SPOT, ALSO. LIFE, as we ALL know, HAS NEVER BEEN, IS NEVER NOW, NOR WILL EVER BE, as far as THIS life goes, ALL ONE-SIDED, ALL THE TIME. YOU have JUST AS MUCH SAY as the REST OF US, in this discussion. Don't just let US be the ONLY ONES to post.
agree with posts three, four, six, and seven.
Ah, and post two. lol
you really are a complete wank stain aren't you? you've probably made all the latest shit up just so you can try and put your point across (notice i said try?) think you may aswell take your worthless oppinionated shit for brains elsewhere because I doubt anyone will agree with you.
again just my oppinion
What would be your opinion if anyone DOES?
ANYWAY, here's the rest of this EXTREMELY LONG MESSAGE:
LET'S FACE IT, whether you WANT TO OR NOT--"FLIRT FRAUD," AS WELL AS "RAPE," ARE EQUAL in ONE SENSE, AT LEAST--they're BOTH VIOLATIONS; and whether it's PHYSICAL, MENTAL, or EMOTIONAL, NEITHER are ANY MORE OR LESS THAN THE OTHER. Although the woman, JUST AS THE MAN, DOES have the FULL AUTHORITY to decide that it's either "YES" or "NO," THERE SHOULD BE A BOUNDARY as to HOW FAR, ESPECIALLY for ANY WOMAN that has the PROPENSITY to commit "FLIRT FRAUD" at ANY GIVEN, ARBITRARY MOMENT--and this is DEFINITELY a reasonable stippulation, TO SAY THE BEST--if you GENUINELY, HONESTLY DON'T WANT to be apart of a sexual involvement, you're NEVER, EVER, EVER to do ANYTHING that's DELIBERATELY LEADING IN THAT DIRECTION. In OTHER words, I'm gonna tell you this ABSOLUTELY SICK, FAR-FETCHED-BUT-ACTUAL STORY of this woman that I met, who's VERY OVERT about flirting, and claims that it's "HER RIGHT" to do so, REGARDLESS--she has this EXTREMELY SICK IDEA that if she's at home, either by herself, or with her man, that since she DOES get naked, which THAT, OF COURSE, is no problem, SHE would tell ANYONE that she might invite over, that would be visiting for the first time, that this is what she does, which ALSO isn't a problem, as she's TOTALLY FREE this way. Now, where it STARTS to get JUST A BIT STRANGE, to the VERY EXTREME OF ULTRA-SICK-A-LICK-A-LICK, is if she HAD a man, and that they BOTH agreed to have ANOTHER MALE (friend of her man's) over, but NOT for any THREE-SOME, she would STILL parade around, NAKED, and it would be as if she WASN'T--THE FRIEND, SUPPOSEDLY, would respect the "LOOK-BUT-DON'T-TOUCH" bull shit ... but THAT'S NOTHING, because it gets even MORE SICK--what I THOROUGHLY SUGGEST is if you HADN'T EATEN before reading THIS PART, I WOULDN'T EAT, YET, if I were you--ANYWAY, THIS PERSON that I'm describing, IS, NO DOUBT, in DIRE NEED OF ALL 51 OF 52 CARDS to FINALLY complete HER deck, which even THEN, it STILL wouldn't be enough--she claims that if ANY of her female friends, who have either boyfriends or husbands are PERFECTLY FINE with TELLING them to come on over to HER house to meet them there, after a period of taking care of whatever, KNOWING, FULLY WELL, that she's there alone, naked, going about her household routine, and THEY'D pay her ABSOLUTELY NO ATTENTION, while watching TV, EVEN THOUGH she could be either STANDING OR SITTING RIGHT THERE, IN THEIR FACE, STOCK-ASS-TITS-SUNDAY-AND-ALL NAKED; OF COURSE, it would be the SAME SITUATION, if SHE had a man, and HE was to meet HER at any of HER female friend's house, WHO, IRONICALLY, are into LIVING HARD-CORE NAKED, and that JUST AS SUPPOSEDLY, there's this "TRUST" that "NOTHING that's NOT supposed to happen, WON'T, NO MATTER WHAT."
Now, OF COURSE, I had to DEFINITELY say something, WHICH I DID, and for those of you that ALREADY KNOW ME, ALREADY KNOW the VERY "REALITY-CHECK" I gave HER, and for those that DON'T, I just BASICLY CHALLENGED HER, with ANY AVAILABLE QUESTION, STATEMENT, PHRASE, SARCASM, ETC., that I could POSSIBLY GRAB AND THROW AT HER: OBVIOUSLY, I told HER that I would NEVER come to HER house, when the man she's with ISN'T ME, and she's ALL-ASS-+ NAKED, and I don't have any woman in MY life, and I'M REQUIRED to respect HER and HER man--HELL TO THE NO! NOT ONLY THAT, if WE were involved, INSTEAD, and she wanted ME to go AHEAD OF HER to a female friend's house, whose ALSO of the "NICK-NACK-NAKED-ATTACK PACK," and SHE ACTUALLY WOULD THOROUGHLY BELIEVE that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COULD, much more WOULD KICK OFF, because she trusts (GET THIS) HER--nothing about trusting ME, as you notice--ALL BRIDGES, GLOBALLY, would be goin' at SUPER-MONSTEROUS DISCOUNTS, if I ever had anything to do with selling them, and to HER, I, out of TOTAL PITY, would GIVE one, as AWSOMELY ILL that SHE is!
I tell you: even though I can't think of ANY MORE of her stuff that she told me, THAT, I'm TOTALLY SURE, is WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH! But the WHOLE, ENTIRE, COMPLETE, OVERALL JIST of this ENTIRE MATTER is that THOSE WOMEN that DELIBERATELY ENTICE GUYS that THEY KNEW, ALL ALONG, that they WEREN'T going to surrender ANY/ALL to the very guy/guys that they're teasing, and should happen to have CROSSED THE VERY GUY/GUYS that would SO HAPPEN TO SNAP and loose ALL SELF-CONTROL, AS WELL AS RESPECT, IF there was EVER ANY, ALTHOUGH she DOESN'T DESERVE to be raped, she DID BRING IT ON HERSELF, BECAUSE OF HER BLATANT BEHAVIOR, which COULDN'T'VE BEEN BLATANT, without being deliberate, as it's ALL THE SAME, in the FIRST place.
MEN, LET'S NOT EVER DARE TO THINK WE'RE off the hook, while the WOMEN are the only group on the "HOT SEAT," which is REALLY a "HOT COUCH," making PERFECT ROOM for EVERYBODY. JUST as "FLIRT FRAUD" SHOULD BE INEXCUSABLE, but unfortunately ISN'T, "RAPE," HOWEVER, IS. NO MAN deserves to be teased, but if WE allow OUR HURT EMOTIONS, as a result of having BEEN, drive us to commit "RAPE," and are CONSEQUENTLY ARRESTED, INDICTED, PROSECUTED, and SO ON, THAT'S ENTIRELY on US, NOT THE COCK-TEASE WOMAN.
HOW TO BEWARE OF A COCK-TEASE. Even though this isn't ALWAYS %100, the VERY THING to ALWAYS DO is to TRY to LISTEN TO, and not just HEAR, what the woman's ALL ABOUT, and what MIGHT be helpful, as it was for ME, in the interaction between me and the WHOLE-LOT-OF-CARDS-MISSING woman, is to TRY, although DIFFICULT, AT TIMES, to think of, WITHOUT BEING OBVIOUS, MOTIVE-TEST QUESTIONS, and the VERY TOUGH THING, because it's CERTAINLY THIS WAY for ME, is "THE KISS ("KEEP IT SIMPLE" SYSTEM), because the VERY OBJECTIVE is to be TOTALLY PREPARED to be JUST AS MUCH, OR EVEN MORE, ahead of HER, as SHE'S determined to be JUST AS, or MORE THAN, of YOU, ESPECIALLY with "HOT-SEAT QUESTIONS" that seem to be the ABSOLUTE ADVERSARY to MEN, either COLLECTIVELY or GENERALLY. TESTING, as well as BEING TESTED, is the ONLY SUREFIRE WAY to proove, as well as be prooven, either way. How I prepared, WITH QUITE A BIT OF DIFFICULTY, combined with EQUALLY AS MUCH-SMOOTHE-SAILING, for this two-way test was to PRIMARILY KNOW that although there COULD be the PROBABILITY/POSSIBILITY that "SUNDAY-SAUSAGING" LOOKED LIKE it was "IN THE CARDS," so was the PROBABILITY/POSSIBILITY that it WOULDN'T be. Amongst her sharing with me some VERY INTERESTINGLY WEIRD EXPERIENCES, SHE told ME that she wanted me to do her, doggy-style, which I HAVE done, with women in the past, but what she ALSO wanted, which the "TEST" REALLY KICKED IN, BIG-TIME, was that SHE wanted ME to pull out at the VERY MOMENT that I'm at the VERY CLIMAX, READY TO EXPLODE, which EVEN SHE, as RELATIONSHIP-VALUE-DEFICIENT as she either REALLY WAS, or might've been PUTTING ON THE ACT OF BEING, knew that THAT was just TOTALLY "REDICKLELOUS," as I heard someone pronounce "REDICULOUS," which sounded VERY FUNNY. When I told her that that WAS crazy, that ANYONE should be subjected to such SEXUAL TORTURE, EVEN WITH A CONDOM ON, which, in MY observation, there ARE no such things as "TOTALLY-INTACT-FOREVER-NO-MATTER-WHAT" condoms, NATURALLY, she was QUITE LIVID, ESPECIALLY when she ONLY wanted me to SEXUALLY RELIEVE HER, without ME being relieved, MYSELF, WITH HER, and I refused to do it. ADMITTEDLY, I USUALLY, which IS foolish, on MY part, DON'T use condoms, PRIMARILY because of THAT reason, SECONDARILY, because to struggle with it, when I'm EXTREMELY AROUSED, by the time that I THINK that I FINALLY conquered the challenge of GETTING THE DAMN THING ON, the VERY WELL-KNOWN USUAL ALWAYS HAPPENS; not meaning to digress TOO far, but in case if there might've been ANY MIXED-MESSAGED DISCREPANCIES, as far as ME AND CONDOMS are concerned, I wanted to BE SURE to clear it up.
BACK TO THE MAIN POINT: the tables, indeed, were turned on HER, as I ALREADY KNEW that she wanted, SO MUCH, to start with ME what she had SOLELY PURPOSED to NOT let me FINISH with HER, and at ONE OTHER POINT, she wanted me to "JERK OFF" in
front of her, which I BLATANTLY REFUSED, and will ALWAYS REFUSE TO DO, for ANY woman--even though it's MINE to HAVE, other than when I have to PISS, it's ONLY for the WOMAN to touch, which I TOLD her, and it was THEN that she told ME that since I didn't wanna go by HER rules ... which I was ALREADY AT THE DOOR, JUST ABOUT TO OPEN IT, before she had the chance to finish that line, which she was MAD about THAT, since SHE didn't like that I pre-judged what she was going to say, before EVER getting the chance to, and as I STILL continued out the door, I said: "Goodbye, Cock-tease!" and SHE just growled: "WHATEVER" in response.
Now, let me clear up ANOTHER probable/possible discrepancy. FLIRTING, ITSELF, isn't what SHOULD be criminal, because ONLY when YOU'RE SPONTANEOUSLY DESIRING your partner, and that INTICEMENT, if there's such a wording, is DEFINITELY GUARANTEED to go ALL THE WAY, AND NO LESS, WOULD you want to, WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION of ANY FORM, WHATSOEVER, FROM THAT. It's when you've PRE-MEDITATEDLY REFUSE to COMPLETE what you've started, by not allowing your SUPPOSED-TO-HAVE-BEEN PARTNER to reap the VERY REWARDING BENEFITS of your FLIRTATIOUS BEHAVIOR, that it THEN, AND ONLY THEN, should be "LEGALLY CRIMINALIZED" as "FLIRTATION FRAUDULENCE," or "FLIRT FRAUD."
What this ALL SAYS is: "Do unto OTHERS (EACH OTHER) as YOU would WANT to have done unto YOU." TOO OFTEN, WE, as NON-FLAWLESS HUMAN BEINGS take THAT to mean: "If you don't want ME to do evil to YOU, you BETTER NOT do it to ME!" How DEFINITELY GUILTY I AM for THAT one. INSTEAD, it means that FIRST, we would CERTAINLY need our attitude of "BETTER YOU THAN ME" re-adjusted to "THIS COULD'VE BEEN ME, instead of YOU," whenever it involves ANY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION that ANY of the OTHER OF US, INSTEAD OF US, whether it's through ANY FAULT, which ALL OF US HAVE FAULTS, or NOT, might be experiencing. The VERY SAME goes for the WOMAN AND THE MAN--just as HE wouldn't wanna be violated by HER "FLIRT FRAUD" BEHAVIOR, neither should HE violate HER DECISION of "NO MEANS NO," and vice versa. NEITHER BEHAVIOR is acceptable TO ME, AND OTHERS, I'm sure, which like I said BEFORE, by LAW, ONLY ONE, which is"FLIRT FRAUD," IS accepted, WHICH IT SHOULDN'T BE.