Boyfriend won't stop......
KanDee
say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him from
time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all but yet he keeps going back
to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he does it & even when im
tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop for like a minute then go back
to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad thing for me) so even
still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish cause he wont stop
bothering me.......& I feel horrible later cause of this.does anyone
think that what my BF is doing is wrong or REALLY bad? cause I wish he
would stop obssseing about this KNOWING VERY well that I dont like it,it
hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he doesnt even try to make it any
easier when he does it.What do u think?
Ann
Lady-He...@webtv.net (KanDee) wrote:
I think you should tell him to fuck off!
Ann
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SilvrSpnz3
Ann
silvr...@aol.com (SilvrSpnz3) wrote:
> yes that is rape. he must be reported
No, it is up to her if she reports it or not. Sometimes people want to
and sometimes they don't. No-one should be pressured into doing so.
In a case like this it would, I imagine, be very difficult to prove the
case and she might feel that she would gain no benefit from reporting
it and going to court. It may be better that she sever relations with
him, getting help to do this if she finds it difficult, and find
someone who will care for her and respect her wishes. No-one should be
forced to do anything in sex that they are not comfortable with. That
much is obvious.
Daran
<12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
>say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
>succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him from
>time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all but yet he keeps going back
>to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he does it & even when im
>tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop for like a minute then go back
>to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad thing for me)...
Yes it is.
>...so even
>still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish cause he wont stop
>bothering me...
You could argue this one both ways. By saying "no" you are not
consenting, but by "letting him do it" you are. (I presume he his not
using threats to coerce you into "letting him do it")
>...& I feel horrible later cause of this.does anyone
>think that what my BF is doing is wrong or REALLY bad?...
I don't think anal sex between genuinely consenting adults is bad or
wrong. What is wrong is that he his riding roughshod over your wishes.
Aside from the danger to your physical health, this is likely to undermine
your self-esteem if you allow it to continue.
>...cause I wish he
>would stop obssseing about this KNOWING VERY well that I dont like it,it
>hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he doesnt even try to make it any
>easier when he does it.What do u think?
I think you should leave him.
Regards
Daran
Daran
>In article <20000514094711...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
> silvr...@aol.com (SilvrSpnz3) wrote:
>
>> yes that is rape. he must be reported
>
>No, it is up to her if she reports it or not. Sometimes people want to
>and sometimes they don't. No-one should be pressured into doing so.
>In a case like this it would, I imagine, be very difficult to prove the
>case and she might feel that she would gain no benefit from reporting
>it and going to court...
Even if he were to be convicted and imprisoned, what good woult that do,
over and above her leaving him? We are far to quick to see prison as the
solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of them.
>...It may be better that she sever relations with
>him, getting help to do this if she finds it difficult, and find
>someone who will care for her and respect her wishes...
I don't think you intended it that way, but it reads as though you are
linking 'leaving him' with 'finding someone else'. Of course she should
not wait to find someone else before leaving him. We have seen in another
thread recently the dangers of being to desparate for a partner.
>Ann
Daran
Ann
"Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Ann wrote in message <8fmgt4$jed$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >In article <20000514094711...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
> > silvr...@aol.com (SilvrSpnz3) wrote:
> >
> >> yes that is rape. he must be reported
> >
> >No, it is up to her if she reports it or not. Sometimes people want
to
> >and sometimes they don't. No-one should be pressured into doing so.
> >In a case like this it would, I imagine, be very difficult to prove
the
> >case and she might feel that she would gain no benefit from reporting
> >it and going to court...
>
> Even if he were to be convicted and imprisoned, what good woult that
do,
> over and above her leaving him? We are far to quick to see prison as
the
> solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of
them.
I've seen you say this a few times but you don't say what you would
like to see in the place of prison for rapists. They cannot just be
left unchallenged, they have to be punished and/or prevented from
repeating their crimes. What is your solution?
> Daran
noshame
knowingly hurting you. Sound like you picked the wrong male to be your
friend. Sounds like he found you easy prey. Stand in front of a mirror and
practice saying "no" until you're good at it. Tell him "no. I don't want
you". Then go out and (if you wish) find one of us multitude of
good-hearted and lonely males who would actually care for you and not treat
you like a piece of meat.
KanDee <Lady-He...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
> say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
> succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him from
> time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all but yet he keeps going back
> to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he does it & even when im
> tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop for like a minute then go back
> to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad thing for me) so even
> still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish cause he wont stop
> bothering me.......& I feel horrible later cause of this.does anyone
> think that what my BF is doing is wrong or REALLY bad? cause I wish he
> would stop obssseing about this KNOWING VERY well that I dont like it,it
> hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he doesnt even try to make it any
> easier when he does it.What do u think?
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tekinlasvegas
you are opening yourself to him already if this is something you dont want just
stop having sex with him wich would probably end the relationship
Daran
>In article <8fn7lo$b1cig$2...@fu-berlin.de>,
> "Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
>We are far to quick to see prison as
>the
>> solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of
>them.
>
>I've seen you say this a few times but you don't say what you would
>like to see in the place of prison for rapists...
I do whenever I am asked to (and I see the post).
>...They cannot just be
>left unchallenged,...
Why not? If the statistics are correct then only about 1% of rapists are
convicted and jailed anyway. This hardly suggests that there would be any
great disaster for society if that number decreased to zero.
>... they have to be punished...
Punishment means "/suffering/ inflicted for an offence". The suffering is
the aim. Where suffering is not the aim, but is merely incidental, we do
not class it as punishment. When I was detained in a psychiatric ward, I
was not being punished, even though I suffered greatly.
The suffering inflicted in punishment is either an end in itself, or a
means unto an end. If an end in itself, then we have a major ethical
problem. If inflicting suffering upon another is a Bad Thing - indeed is
the very reason why we consider the criminal to have done wrong - then why
is it not a Bad Thing for us to inflict suffering upon them? Does that
not make us as bad as they? If as a means unto an end, then what end?
Deterrence? Show me some evidence that deterrence works. Explain why the
United States with proportionately the highest prison population in the
world by a wide margin has such a high crime rate. Explain why men, who
are imprisoned thirty times more than women commit more crime than women.
Ditto blacks (I don't know the ratio). Explain why the rate of recidivism
of release prisoners is so high. If deterrence works, explain why we
don't see it.
Or perhaps the suffering is intended to reform, to make the miscreant
realise that s/he has done wrong. Again show me that this works. From
the first playground punch that turns a non-violent child into one that
wants to hit back, to the rape that turns the victims heart toward hatred
towards the perpetrator, or even towards the entire gender, all the
evidence is that brutalising a person makes them more brutal.
>....and/or prevented from
>repeating their crimes...
By placing a physical obstacle - the wall of the prison - between him/r
and the crime s/he wishes to commit? In this case the word "punishment"
is no longer applicable, because inflicted suffering is no longer an aim,
neither as an end, nor a means unto an end. I certainly support
preventative detention in the case of dangerous people. Unfortunately
this isn't what criminal justice does.
With criminal justice, a serious crime might attract a sentence which
(after all the time off) amounts to five years before parole. A less
serious crime might attract a sentence of two years. Why? If the first
crime is so serious that preventative detention is warranted for five
yours, then why not six? or seven? Why is it not important to prevent
this criminal from committing more of these crimes in later years? If the
lesser crime is not considered serious enough to warrant detention after
two years, then why is it serious enough to detain him at all? The
system of sentences proportionate to the (perceived) seriousness of the
crime ONLY makes sense in the retributionist model, where inflicted
suffering is the purpose. A system of purely preventative detention would
have only one sentence - "detention for as long as you remain too
dangerous to be let out".
But while criminal justice is a retributionist wolf, it does wear the
fleece of prevention. We talk about "deterring crime" (without evidence)
and "protecting the public" (which it signally fails to do), and attach
various programs to it - prisoner welfare, parole, therapeutic programs
for offenders etc. These, however laudable, are undermined by the
retributionist heart, while giving a veneer of societal benefit to a
system is wholly harmful. Pardon my mixed metaphors.
Wholly harmful? It is harmful to those it convicts, who must suffer
whatever punishment is meted out to them. While not preventing crime on
the outside it creates enormous criminality inside prison. See
<http://www.spr.org/> for discussion on prison rape, for example. It is
harmful to their families, who may have a loved one and a breadwinner torn
from their home, and then suffer the stigma of it. It is harmful to those
it acquits who must endure the ordeal of a trial. It is harmful to the
falsely accused, who may end up falsely convicted, or, left with a slur on
their character which acquittal does not wipe away. It is harmful to
witnesses and jurors, who may be subject to harassment and threats from
the defendant, his/r supporters, or the court. (What is a summons or a
subpoena, but a threat of punishment if you don't attend?) It is harmful
to victims, who are encouraged to put their faith in a system which all to
often fails to deliver justice to them, and prevents them from putting the
crime aside and getting on with their lives and their recovery. It is
harmful to society because it releases vast numbers of brutalised men and
women back into the community where they go on to commit more crime. It
also consumes huge sums which could otherwise be spent on programs of
education and policing with /demonstrated/ efficacy in reducing crime, and
other benefits, health, welfare, or returned to the people through tax
cuts. It benefits legislators, judges, lawyers, police, and prison
officers who make a fine living from all our misery, but they are the only
people who benefit.
.
>...What is your solution?
The first thing to do is abolish it. When the medicine is so obviously
poisoning the patient, the first thing to do is to stop giving the
medicine. Only then can a proper assessment be made of the patients
condition.
I propose a system of preventative intervention. The police would retain
their current functions of maintaining order, gathering information, and
(when necessary) making arrests. Instead of charging a person with a
crime, they would "charge" them with posing a danger (either to specified
persons or to society at large). This is fundamentally different. A
crime is something which happened in the past. Danger refers to the
persons likely future activities. Instead of a court, there could be an
assessment panel, whose task is not to determine guilt or innocence, but
risk. They would also, if the risk was felt to be high enough, consider
various interventions (including detention, but also including house
arrest, tagging, fines and other penalties of /proven/ deterrent value),
and to assess the costs, benefits and risks of those intervention, giving
equal weight to the costs and benefits to the person charged and their
family as to anybody else. The intervention which is assessed as having
the greatest benefit over costs and risks (including the possibility of no
intervention) would be the one that is enacted. In the event that the
intervention lasts more than a certain time (three months in the first
instance, six months thereafter) or if some significant event occurs that
warrants a review, then one would be called. This model is similar to
that in place for the dangerously mentally disturbed, but without the flaw
in that system, that there is no assessment of the danger to the person if
they are detained.
Compensation would normally be a matter for the civil courts, but it would
be convenient for the assessment panel to award compensation against the
subject to anyone whom they determine was harmed by him/r. Similarly it
would be convenient for the police to be able to apply limited
interventions without reference to the panel, subject to appeal by the
subject.
However much I would like to see it abolished, this isn't going to happen
in the foreseeable future. So what to do? The first priority is not to
let it harm you, Don't take part in any process which is likely to harm
you, and don't invest (emotionally) to the point where you can't just drop
it, or where you 'need' it to go in a particular way. If you can do this,
then I guess the best thing to do is to try to make it work, at least as
far as your part of it goes. This is why I don't criticise those such as
Katie, who do pursue the process. What I say to her, is what I have
already said. Don't build the house of your recovery on the sand of the
legal process.
>> Daran
>
>Ann
Daran
Brother282
>> say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
>> succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him from
>> time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all but yet he keeps going back
>> to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he does it & even when im
>> tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop for like a minute then go back
>> to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad thing for me) so even
>> still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish cause he wont stop
>> bothering me.......& I feel horrible later cause of this.does anyone
>> think that what my BF is doing is wrong or REALLY bad? cause I wish he
>> would stop obssseing about this KNOWING VERY well that I dont like it,it
>> hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he doesnt even try to make it any
>> easier when he does it.What do u think?
Yes this is rape! You must report him to the authorities immediately!!! Plus he
will thank you in the long run as he will have plenty of opportunity in jail to
ride the Hershey Highway.
Katie
>>...They cannot just be
>>left unchallenged,...
>
>Why not? If the statistics are correct then only about 1% of rapists are
>convicted and jailed anyway. This hardly suggests that there would be any
>great disaster for society if that number decreased to zero.
I don't know if it's bad to say this, (or if it's even right) but I think that
some crimes are prevented from the *fear* of prison. And if there was no fear
of that, maybe more crimes would be committed.
Katie
Ann
"Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >...They cannot just be
> >left unchallenged,...
>
> Why not? If the statistics are correct then only about 1% of rapists
are
> convicted and jailed anyway. This hardly suggests that there would
be any
> great disaster for society if that number decreased to zero.
Two wrongs don't make a right. There is already 'disaster' in society
with too many rapists getting away with it. Rather than leave even
more to continue raping we need to stop them so that society is a safer
place.
> >... they have to be punished...
>
> Punishment means "/suffering/ inflicted for an offence". The
suffering is
> the aim. Where suffering is not the aim, but is merely incidental,
we do
> not class it as punishment. When I was detained in a psychiatric
ward, I
> was not being punished, even though I suffered greatly.
The suffering of the prisoner is loss of freedom. That is a just
punishment. Anything else, the raping and brutality that goes on in
prisons is unjust and should be stopped.
> The suffering inflicted in punishment is either an end in itself, or a
> means unto an end. If an end in itself, then we have a major ethical
> problem. If inflicting suffering upon another is a Bad Thing -
indeed is
> the very reason why we consider the criminal to have done wrong -
then why
> is it not a Bad Thing for us to inflict suffering upon them? Does
that
> not make us as bad as they?
No, inflicting suffering on another is a bad thing in general but there
are exceptions and that gives us no ethical problem. Just the same as
I say I will not kill a living thing, there are exceptions, self
defence or the defence of my loved ones. The exceptions do not negate
the principle. So too, I will inflict no suffering on another but
where someone has committed a serious crime such as rape, it is right
that they lose their freedom for a certain period of time.
> If as a means unto an end, then what end?
> Deterrence? Show me some evidence that deterrence works.
<snip>
I don't believe deterrence works either. It is well known that child
rapists will suffer greatly at the hands of the other prisoners but
that does not stop them. I don't think they believe they will get
caught. I don't think getting caught crosses their mind when they rape
the child.
> Or perhaps the suffering is intended to reform, to make the miscreant
> realise that s/he has done wrong. Again show me that this works.
<snip>
No, I don't believe they reform either. There are as yet no real
treatments available for rapists. Perhaps some criminals do reform in
jail, especially when education is available and they are motivated to
learn, but for the rapist, no.
> By placing a physical obstacle - the wall of the prison - between
him/r
> and the crime s/he wishes to commit? In this case the
word "punishment"
> is no longer applicable, because inflicted suffering is no longer an
aim,
> neither as an end, nor a means unto an end. I certainly support
> preventative detention in the case of dangerous people.
<snip>
> have only one sentence - "detention for as long as you remain too
> dangerous to be let out".
Yes, this is what should happen to the rapist. And it does happen to
certain rapists in Britain when they are detained in the Special
Hospitals at Her Majesty's Pleasure, meaning as long as necessary. But
it only happens to those who have committed the most spectacular
crimes, the crimes that were brought to the attention of the public.
The rapist caught raping a for the first time is treated much less
harshly and is soon back out where he can rape again.
> Wholly harmful? It is harmful to those it convicts, who must suffer
> whatever punishment is meted out to them. While not preventing crime
on
> the outside it creates enormous criminality inside prison. See
> <http://www.spr.org/> for discussion on prison rape, for example. It
is
> harmful to their families, who may have a loved one and a breadwinner
torn
> from their home, and then suffer the stigma of it.
It seems to me that by talking of the harm done to the convict and his
family, and wanting to limit it, you are wanting to take on
responsibility which is not yours. It is the prisoner's own actions
that caused him to be convicted and I will not take responsibility for
his actions. Neither should society as a whole. We have to limit our
responsibilities.
> It is harmful ...<list of people>
This is a reason to change things and not abolish them wholesale.
> I propose a system of preventative intervention. The police would
retain
> their current functions of maintaining order, gathering information,
and
> (when necessary) making arrests. Instead of charging a person with a
> crime, they would "charge" them with posing a danger (either to
specified
> persons or to society at large). This is fundamentally different.
But it's not too great a shift. Both your new system and my adjustment
of the old, would result in the rapist being locked away in order to
ensure the safety of the public.
Daran
>I don't know if it's bad to say this,...
Well of course it isn't. This is a discussion group, after all.
>...(or if it's even right) but I think that
>some crimes are prevented from the *fear* of prison. And if there was no
fear
>of that, maybe more crimes would be committed.
That's the "deterence" argument, and it's based upon an assumption about
how people in general react to a fairly vague 'threat' - that they /might/
be reported, and if so they /might/ be arrested, and if so they /might/ be
charged, and if so they /might/ be prosecuted, and if so they /might/ be
convicted, and if so they /might/ be imprisoned, with only a vague notion
of what that actually means. My point is that this assumption is made for
the most part without any evidence, and even if true, is scant
compensation to society for the manisfest harm caused by the system as set
out in my post.
>Katie
Daran
Daran
>In article <8fo2jp$audbp$2...@fu-berlin.de>,
> "Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> If the statistics are correct then only about 1% of rapists
>are
>> convicted and jailed anyway. This hardly suggests that there would
>be any
>> great disaster for society if that number decreased to zero.
>
>Two wrongs don't make a right...
That it part of my case against criminal justice. If it is wrong to hurt
people, then it is wrong. It doesn't become right, becuase they
themselves have hurt someone.
>...There is already 'disaster' in society...
I don't agree that it is a societal disaster, in the sense that it is a
cause of societal breakdown. Society is not breaking down in general. In
those places where it is, one of the major causes is criminal justice. In
some black communities in the US two thirds of all males have been in
prison by the time they are thirty. According to the deterrence theory,
these areas should be largely crime-free.
Of course rape may be a disaster for the individual who suffers it
>with too many rapists getting away with it...
The (individual) disaster is that they "do it". Whether they "get away
with it" is unimportant IMO. Which is better. one hundred rapists
committing one hundred rapes and all going to prison for it, or fifty
rapists committing fifty rapes and all getting way with it? What if the
numbers were "one hundred", and "ninety"? What if "one hundred", and
"ninety-nine"?
>...Rather than leave even
>more to continue raping we need to stop them so that society is a safer
>place.
Agreed. But criminal justice doesn't stop them. It is counterproductive
even if you don't consider the prisons themselves to be part of society.
I do. That we tolerate prison rape is a crime against humanity.
That's a generalised 'we', BTW. I wasn't intending to suggest that you
personally regard prison rape as tolerable.
>> >... they have to be punished...
>>
>> Punishment means "/suffering/ inflicted for an offence". The
>suffering is
>> the aim. Where suffering is not the aim, but is merely incidental,
>we do
>> not class it as punishment. When I was detained in a psychiatric
>ward, I
>> was not being punished, even though I suffered greatly.
>
>The suffering of the prisoner is loss of freedom. That is a just
>punishment. Anything else, the raping and brutality that goes on in
>prisons is unjust and should be stopped.
Should we jail the police, prison officers, and lawyers who allow this to
happen? What about the politicians who do not put prison reform top of
their agendas? Should the voters who put those politicians in power be
punished? Would not that be 'just'
[...]
>No, inflicting suffering on another is a bad thing in general but there
>are exceptions and that gives us no ethical problem. Just the same as
>I say I will not kill a living thing, there are exceptions, self
>defence or the defence of my loved ones...
In this example there is an end (defending yourself or your loved ones)
that justifies the means. It would be wrong of you to kill someone
without such a reason.
>...The exceptions do not negate
>the principle. So too, I will inflict no suffering on another but
>where someone has committed a serious crime such as rape, it is right
>that they lose their freedom for a certain period of time.
This is /mere/ punishment - inflicted suffering as an end in itself. It
doesn't compare with the example you give above.
>> If as a means unto an end, then what end?
>> Deterrence? Show me some evidence that deterrence works.
><snip>
>
>I don't believe deterrence works either. It is well known that child
>rapists will suffer greatly at the hands of the other prisoners but
>that does not stop them...
That does not stop us (in the generalised sense above) from jailing them
either. Should we be punished for this?
>...I don't think they believe they will get
>caught. I don't think getting caught crosses their mind when they rape
>the child.
Agreed. Yet the deterrence argument is trotted out with hardly a thought,
usually in response to a sentence that is viewed as unduly lenient.
"three years (or what have you) is no deterrent", when what the person
really means is "three years doesn't satisfy my desire for revenge"..
>> Or perhaps the suffering is intended to reform, to make the miscreant
>> realise that s/he has done wrong. Again show me that this works.
><snip>
>
>No, I don't believe they reform either. There are as yet no real
>treatments available for rapists. Perhaps some criminals do reform in
>jail, especially when education is available and they are motivated to
>learn, but for the rapist, no.
My points are not just limited to rapists. As far as I can tell, all
prisons do is create more criminality. If there were treatments available
for any disorders, then the appropriate venue is a hospital or a clinic.
Similarly, you can not force people to learn. But if people want and need
education they should go to colleges. I once heard Ann Widdicombe, a UK
politician, on the radio opposing the legalisation of cannabis because
it's criminal status "sends a message to society". I thought the radio
station was doing a fine job of sending her message to society. Why do we
need to jail people to do these things?
[...]
>> have only one sentence - "detention for as long as you remain too
>> dangerous to be let out".
>
>Yes, this is what should happen to the rapist...
It should happen to anyone who poses a /serious/ risk of any kind of harm,
No person who does not pose such a risk should be jailed, even for one
day. Under certain circumstances that /might/ apply to rapist.
>...And it does happen to
>certain rapists in Britain when they are detained in the Special
>Hospitals at Her Majesty's Pleasure, meaning as long as necessary...
"At her majesty's pleasure" is an archaic sentence which dates back, as
the wording suggests, to a time when the monarch's power was absolute, but
it does fill what would otherwise be a hole in the system. It is
deficient because if gives no rights to the prisoner, unlike detentions
under various sections of the Mental Health acts, which are deficient in
other ways.
>...But
>it only happens to those who have committed the most spectacular
>crimes, the crimes that were brought to the attention of the public.
>The rapist caught raping a for the first time is treated much less
>harshly and is soon back out where he can rape again.
Rather than in prison where he can rape again, and again, and again..., or
be raped, again, and again, and again...
What's the intention here? To prevent /one individual/ from committing
rape /outside/ prison? Or to reduce the overall levels of rape and other
crime, both in and outside of detention? I say it should be the latter.
And criminal justice fails disastrously to do this.
>...It s
>> harmful to their families, who may have a loved one and a breadwinner
>torn
>> from their home, and then suffer the stigma of it.
>
>It seems to me that by talking of the harm done to the convict and his
>family, and wanting to limit it, you are wanting to take on
>responsibility which is not yours. It is the prisoner's own actions
>that caused him to be convicted and I will not take responsibility for
>his actions. Neither should society as a whole.
No. It is the criminal's actions which caused harm to his/r victim, for
which s/he must bear responsibility. "Society" must bear the
responsibility for "society"'s response to this, and the harm that is
caused thereby. Individually, we must each bear responsibility for our
own contribution to the societal response.
>...We have to limit our
>responsibilities.
We are responsible for what we are responsible. If we support policies
that increase or sustain crime levels, by voting for hard-line
politicians, then we share the responsibility for the crime so created
with everyone else who supports them. Without that support those
politicians would not be in power. This does not make us responsible for
any individual crime.
>> It is harmful ...<list of people>
>
>This is a reason to change things and not abolish them wholesale.
If the foundations are solid, then the building can be repaired. In this
case the foundations are unsound. Why do you think it is that any reforms
that are made to benefit one interest group invariably are harmful to
another? You can't increase the conviction rate of the factually guilty
without also increasing the misconviction rate of the factually innocent.
You can't protect the accuser from potentially distressing
cross-examination without limiting the defence.
[...]
>But it's not too great a shift. Both your new system and my adjustment
>of the old, would result in the rapist being locked away in order to
>ensure the safety of the public.
I stand by what I said. Criminal justice is wholly harmful, and we would
be better off if it were abolished, even if NOTHING were put in it's
place. But what I propose is a fundamental shift. Your 'adjustment' (by
which I take it you mean greater use of imprisonment 'at her majesty's
pleasure) still requires a determination of guilt before /anything/ is
done. With mine, the verdicts of guilt and innocence are /abolished/ in
favour of a /risk determination/. With the current system, determining
'what they did' is the purpose of the trial. With mine, 'what they did'
is merely evidence to be considered in that risk determination. With the
current system, guilt must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". With mine
it would not be necessary to "prove" to any particular standard, rather
the degree of doubt would just be factored into the final determination of
risk. The current system /punishes/ people for their crimes. My system
would /intervene/ to reduce the /risk/ of their causing harm to others.
Any 'suffering' inflicted would be incidental, and would /always/ mitigate
against applying that intervention. With the current system, there is no
requirement to show that there is any likely benefit to anyone by the
sentence. With mine, the benefits, risks, and costs would have to be
assessed as greater and lower resp., before an intervention could be made.
And I could not have conceived of such a change if I had not first
abolished in my own mind the current system, which allowed me to start
with a blank sheet of paper.
>> Daran
>
>Ann
Daran
Dreamsinger
Daran wrote in message <8fn7lo$b1cig$2...@fu-berlin.de>...
>Ann wrote in message <8fmgt4$jed$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>>In article <20000514094711...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
>> silvr...@aol.com (SilvrSpnz3) wrote:
>>
>Even if he were to be convicted and imprisoned, what good woult that do,
>solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of them.
The good that resulted from me charging my ex (who raped me) was the
confidence I gained from standing up and basically saying 'you did this to
me, it was wrong, and it hurt me and I'm not going to just put up with it' .
He also had mandatory therapy as part of his sentence. I don't know whether
this actually did any good, but in my mind I'm sure it was more effective
than simply being imprisoned (he was not).
Andrea
jo...@hotmail.com
sex but with an unconsented position. If this was rape, then the following
would also be rape:
1) pulling out and blowing your load on her body, when she didn't want you
to cum on her body.
2) changing positions and having intercourese side-by-side, when she only
consented to missionary.
3) eating her out, when she only consented to intercourse.
To put it another way, has there ever even been a prosecution when an
individual consented to one type of sexual intercourse, and another one was
performed. I think not.
SilvrSpnz3 <silvr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000514094711...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
Cldprct
>say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes >CONSTANTLY trying (& even
>succeds half the time) at having anal sex with >me....& ive told him from
>time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all >but yet he keeps going back
>to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he >does it & even when im
>tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop >for like a minute then go back
>to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad >thing for me) so even
>still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish >cause he wont stop
>bothering me.......& I feel horrible later >cause of this.does anyone
>think that what my BF is doing is wrong or >REALLY bad? cause I wish he
>would stop obssseing about this KNOWING >VERY well that I dont like it,it
>hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he >doesnt even try to make it any
>easier when he does it.What do u think?
Yes I do agree that what your boyfriend is doing is raping you. You are not
the only one I have been in that position that you have with my boyfriends or
someone I was messing with. During the time of it happening I didn't consider
it rape, because I was like he is my boyfriend or someone I know really well or
whatever the reason is. The truth is that it is rape no matter who does it. I
have been in that postions with vagina intercourse and with anal. I told my
boyfriend who is now my ex that I didn't want anal or I wanted him to stop and
he wouldn't. I would be crying and cying for him to stop. BUt he didn't till
he was ready. I would let the guy have sex with me anyway because I am like it
is not like he is going to stop anyway so I am wasting my time on saying
anyhting. I think that you should drop that guy, but that is my opinion you
should do what you feel that you should do in your heart. I just let you know
that I would drop that guy if he was my boyfriend. There is much better out
their who will respect your body more than what thay guy did. Good Luck and I
hope everything workes out with you.
Shawn
Katie
>It is not rape. Rape, broadly defined, is unconsented sex, NOT consented
>sex but with an unconsented position.
I would think that rape would be any kind of intercourse that wasn't consented.
No matter what kind of position it was in.
>1) pulling out and blowing your load on her body, when she didn't want you
>to cum on her body.
I don't see that as rape, because it's not intercourse. It's rude if she
doesn't want it, but it's not rape.
>2) changing positions and having intercourese side-by-side, when she only
>consented to missionary.
If you have sex with someone on a friday night in missionary position, and then
on saturday, they want to have sex side by side and force you and you say no
clearly, then it is rape. I don't think it should matter, if you say no to
saying, then I think that it's wrong for the person to continue.
>3) eating her out, when she only consented to intercourse.
If the victim (male or female) doesn't consent to something, isn't it abuse in
some way? Just because someone says yes to sex doesn't mean that it gives you a
free ticket to do other things to them.
>To put it another way, has there ever even been a prosecution when an
>individual consented to one type of sexual intercourse, and another one was
>performed. I think not
How do you know?
Katie
Steve
been doing it for so long without you leaving him. You can either lay there
and take it with love or leave him. If it's going to destroy you emotionally
I think you should leave him.
Scott
"KanDee" <Lady-He...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
gofigure
girls ass to fuck.
Try this. Either break up or give a lot of bj's to satisfy him and avoid the
bum rush.
Good luck
KanDee wrote in message
<12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
wo...@my-deja.com
anyone else for that matter. It's precisely for reasons like this
that, as a man, I feel strongly that the woman should always be on top
during sex, and we as people should never think of the act in any other
terms except with the woman on top. The potential for violence is much
too great when any position in which the man is the active partner in
effecting penetration is used. The idea of "going in" to the female
should instead be replaced by the notion of the female coming around
(or encompasssing) the man. I've even posted an extensive page on why
the woman-on-top position should always be used, giving it a Christian
perspective.
You can find it at
http://www.eingedi.org/j3122-2.html
I would above all suggest that you seriously re-consider ending the
overall relationship with someone with that kind of an attitude.
Vic
"gofigure" <enanti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E52A2980F4B0190B.14E4D70D...@lp.airnews.net...
> Cool. I mean, a bummer for your sore ass, but I can relate to wanting a
hot
> girls ass to fuck.
>
> Try this. Either break up or give a lot of bj's to satisfy him and avoid
the
> bum rush.
I can't decide wether you are a troll or just plain stupid.
either way, killfiling you won't hurt me. It's not like I'll be missing any
intelligent conversations or anything...
Daran
<8fumvc$2md$1...@knot.queensu.ca>...
>>Even if he were to be convicted and imprisoned, what good woult that do,
>>over and above her leaving him? We are far to quick to see prison as
the
>>solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of
them.
>
>
>The good that resulted from me charging my ex (who raped me) was the
>confidence I gained from standing up and basically saying 'you did this
to
>me, it was wrong, and it hurt me and I'm not going to just put up with
it' .
I'm glad that you found it to be a rewarding experience. Many survivors
feel the opposite.
>He also had mandatory therapy as part of his sentence. I don't know
whether
>this actually did any good, but in my mind I'm sure it was more effective
>than simply being imprisoned (he was not).
I'm not a believer in /mandatory/ therapy, although I certainly agree that
it is a lot less harmful than prison.
>Andrea
Daran
Dreamsinger
Daran wrote in message <8gv26h$24usk$1...@fu-berlin.de>...
>>The good that resulted from me charging my ex (who raped me) was the
>>confidence I gained from standing up and basically saying 'you did this
>to
>>me, it was wrong, and it hurt me and I'm not going to just put up with
>it' .
>
>I'm glad that you found it to be a rewarding experience. Many survivors
>feel the opposite.
I was lucky, being underage I think I was probably treated a little more..
"gently"?
...and the end result of the court case was a plea bargin, which meant I did
not actually have to testify.
>>He also had mandatory therapy as part of his sentence. I don't know
>whether
>>this actually did any good, but in my mind I'm sure it was more effective
>>than simply being imprisoned (he was not).
>
>I'm not a believer in /mandatory/ therapy, although I certainly agree that
>it is a lot less harmful than prison.
You're right, it's not the best thing, but if the person really needs it,
and will not go voluntarily (in a situation like this) ...
>Daran
Andrea
Purfect 9
>From: Lady-He...@webtv.net (KanDee)
>Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
>say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
>succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him from
>time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all but yet he keeps going back
>to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he does it & even when im
>tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop for like a minute then go back
>to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad thing for me) so even
>still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish cause he wont stop
>bothering me.......& I feel horrible later cause of this.does anyone
>think that what my BF is doing is wrong or REALLY bad? cause I wish he
>would stop obssseing about this KNOWING VERY well that I dont like it,it
>hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he doesnt even try to make it any
>easier when he does it.What do u think?
Send 'im over here, I'll straighten him out.
Seriously, it doesn't sound like rape, it sounds like he's a bit overly
persistant; and you're a bit too accomodating. You COULD refuse, and if you
really don't like it, then you SHOULD refuse. If he really likes this activity,
he may leave you for someone who likes it more than you do. Meanwhile, you may
find someone who respects the fact that you DON'T like it. Losing this loser
may seem like the end of the world--but someday you'll probably look back upon
it as a good thing. As will he.
---M
Nick Diable
many people dislike the idea of anal sex whilst still enjoying vaginal. At
the end of the day if you are in a loving relationship where you are having
sex with your partner, surely you should have respect for her feelings and
views? Would u re-decorate the living room in bright yellows and greens
without asking what she thought? Just about everyone I know wouldn't, so is
it right to stick something into a part of somebody else's body when they
don't want it there?
Katie <kcgl...@aol.com.net> wrote in message
news:20000518165649...@ng-co1.aol.com...
Nick Diable
isn't going to provide a defence to a crime, if it did it would be
impossible for a wife to report her husband for domestic violence!
Nick
Steve <SHco...@interaxs.net> wrote in message
news:3925...@news.compuvar.com...
> I don't think you'd be able to report him successfully for it since he's
> been doing it for so long without you leaving him. You can either lay
there
> and take it with love or leave him. If it's going to destroy you
emotionally
> I think you should leave him.
>
> Scott
>
> "KanDee" <Lady-He...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Nick Diable
Purfect9!!!!! Although I'm still not convienced as too whether this is rape
or not, I can see arguments on both sides.
Nick
Purfect 9 <purf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000604040609...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Boyfriend won't stop......
> >From: Lady-He...@webtv.net (KanDee)
>
> >Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
> >say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
> >succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him from
> >time to time that I DON"T enjoy thuis at all but yet he keeps going back
> >to it....it does upset me,it hurts alot when he does it & even when im
> >tellng him "NO MORE IT HURTS" he'll stop for like a minute then go back
> >to it again.....now im a passive person (A bad thing for me) so even
> >still now I will "LET" him do it or even finish cause he wont stop
> >bothering me.......& I feel horrible later cause of this.does anyone
> >think that what my BF is doing is wrong or REALLY bad? cause I wish he
> >would stop obssseing about this KNOWING VERY well that I dont like it,it
> >hurts me ALOT during & afterwards,& he doesnt even try to make it any
> >easier when he does it.What do u think?
>
Nick Diable
gives real feminists a bad name!!!! Sexual positions should be decided upon
for the pleasure of both parties not because certain, sickos might just turn
violent if they are on top. Besides which, I think that most average men
would be able to move most average women even if the woman is on top -
which, following your logic leads us to the conclusion that all forms of
sexual coupling should be outlawed and pregancies carried out under licence
by a qualified doctor performing an IVF procedure!!!!
You say that you are a man? Don't you feel that your comments simply
degrade yourself as you are effectivly saying that you are not able to
control your own behaviour? I'm a fairly big lad and if I'd decided to hit
one of my ex-girlfriends none of them would have been able to defend
themselves against me! But, being a normal average guy I've never felt the
need to hit ANYBODY and as I think about it I can't even recall having an
argument with any girl I was seeing.
I get the impression from your message that maybe you are or have been
violent towards women you have been involved with in the past. Am I right
in thinking that?
Nick
<wo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gutc0$4sm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Nick Diable
a believer in mandatory rehab., as prisons rather than providing the
prisoner with anything constructive to do tend to simply hold the prisoners
until their sentence is up and then release them. This means that you are
simply releasing rapists who still have no respect for others on to the
streets. Theives and druggies are released who have no job training, so is
it any wonder that the reconviction rates are so high?
At the end of the day, there are some people who are just sadistic and who
will break the law regardless of what help they are given - but personally,
I think that if one case of child abuse or rape never occurs because the
person who would have committed it has been rehabilitated then the program
is a success!
I'd be interested to hear what others think should be done with criminals.
Rehab? Prison? etc.
Daran <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8gv26h$24usk$1...@fu-berlin.de...
> Dreamsinger <8a...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> <8fumvc$2md$1...@knot.queensu.ca>...
> >
> >Daran wrote in message <8fn7lo$b1cig$2...@fu-berlin.de>...
>
> >>Even if he were to be convicted and imprisoned, what good woult that do,
> >>over and above her leaving him? We are far to quick to see prison as
> the
> >>solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of
> them.
> >
> >
> >The good that resulted from me charging my ex (who raped me) was the
> >confidence I gained from standing up and basically saying 'you did this
> to
> >me, it was wrong, and it hurt me and I'm not going to just put up with
> it' .
>
> I'm glad that you found it to be a rewarding experience. Many survivors
> feel the opposite.
>
> >He also had mandatory therapy as part of his sentence. I don't know
> whether
> >this actually did any good, but in my mind I'm sure it was more effective
> >than simply being imprisoned (he was not).
>
> I'm not a believer in /mandatory/ therapy, although I certainly agree that
> it is a lot less harmful than prison.
>
> >Andrea
>
> Daran
>
>
Daran
>Of course she can report it...
It's doubtful that she could report it /successfully/, if by that he meant
have him charged/prosecuted/convicted. It also wouldn't appear to be
necessary to report it, if her aim is to stop the abuse. She could leave
him.
>Nick
Daran
Daran
>I get the impression from your message that maybe you [wot64] are or have
been
>violent towards women you have been involved with in the past. Am I
right
>in thinking that?
What gives you that impression?
>Nick
Daran
Daran
>I agree with Daran, that prison is not always the answer...
The proportion of cases in which prison might be an answer are vanishingly
small.
>...Personally, I am
>a believer in mandatory rehab., as prisons rather than providing the
>prisoner with anything constructive to do tend to simply hold the
prisoners
>until their sentence is up and then release them...
That is true, although I am not convinced that rehab programs are
effective, or cost effective either. I suspect voluntary rehab would be
more effective, although I have no data on any of this.
[...]
>At the end of the day, there are some people who are just sadistic and
who
>will break the law regardless of what help they are given - but
personally,
>I think that if one case of child abuse or rape never occurs because the
>person who would have committed it has been rehabilitated then the
program
>is a success!
This is a commonly made, and flawed argument. "if there is just one
more/less <foo> then <bar> is a success/worth it". What this argument
neglects is the opportunity cost of spending money on rehab. Every $/Ł
spent is a $/Ł that can't be spent on other things, such as education,
health, other forms of welfare, or tax cuts. These alternatives,
(including tax cuts) may be much more effective.
Rehab, as with all other programs, must demonstrate its effectiveness.
>I'd be interested to hear what others think should be done with
criminals.
>Rehab? Prison? etc.
I don't know how long you've been lurking, but I'll repost my remarks on
this from 15th of last month.
Regards
Daran
Daran
>I'd be interested to hear what others think should be done with
criminals.
>Rehab? Prison? etc.
Reposted from 15 May 2000:-
Ann wrote in message <8fnaqm$e7i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8fn7lo$b1cig$2...@fu-berlin.de>,
> "Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
>We are far to quick to see prison as
>the
>> solution to our problems, when in fact it is the cause of so many of
>them.
>
>I've seen you say this a few times but you don't say what you would
>like to see in the place of prison for rapists...
I do whenever I am asked to (and I see the post).
>...They cannot just be
>left unchallenged,...
Why not? If the statistics are correct then only about 1% of rapists are
convicted and jailed anyway. This hardly suggests that there would be any
great disaster for society if that number decreased to zero.
>... they have to be punished...
Punishment means "/suffering/ inflicted for an offence". The suffering is
the aim. Where suffering is not the aim, but is merely incidental, we do
not class it as punishment. When I was detained in a psychiatric ward, I
was not being punished, even though I suffered greatly.
The suffering inflicted in punishment is either an end in itself, or a
means unto an end. If an end in itself, then we have a major ethical
problem. If inflicting suffering upon another is a Bad Thing - indeed is
the very reason why we consider the criminal to have done wrong - then why
is it not a Bad Thing for us to inflict suffering upon them? Does that
not make us as bad as they? If as a means unto an end, then what end?
Deterrence? Show me some evidence that deterrence works. Explain why the
United States with proportionately the highest prison population in the
world by a wide margin has such a high crime rate. Explain why men, who
are imprisoned thirty times more than women commit more crime than women.
Ditto blacks (I don't know the ratio). Explain why the rate of recidivism
of release prisoners is so high. If deterrence works, explain why we
don't see it.
Or perhaps the suffering is intended to reform, to make the miscreant
realise that s/he has done wrong. Again show me that this works. From
the first playground punch that turns a non-violent child into one that
wants to hit back, to the rape that turns the victims heart toward hatred
towards the perpetrator, or even towards the entire gender, all the
evidence is that brutalising a person makes them more brutal.
>....and/or prevented from
>repeating their crimes...
By placing a physical obstacle - the wall of the prison - between him/r
and the crime s/he wishes to commit? In this case the word "punishment"
is no longer applicable, because inflicted suffering is no longer an aim,
neither as an end, nor a means unto an end. I certainly support
preventative detention in the case of dangerous people. Unfortunately
this isn't what criminal justice does.
With criminal justice, a serious crime might attract a sentence which
(after all the time off) amounts to five years before parole. A less
serious crime might attract a sentence of two years. Why? If the first
crime is so serious that preventative detention is warranted for five
yours, then why not six? or seven? Why is it not important to prevent
this criminal from committing more of these crimes in later years? If the
lesser crime is not considered serious enough to warrant detention after
two years, then why is it serious enough to detain him at all? The
system of sentences proportionate to the (perceived) seriousness of the
crime ONLY makes sense in the retributionist model, where inflicted
suffering is the purpose. A system of purely preventative detention would
have only one sentence - "detention for as long as you remain too
dangerous to be let out".
But while criminal justice is a retributionist wolf, it does wear the
fleece of prevention. We talk about "deterring crime" (without evidence)
and "protecting the public" (which it signally fails to do), and attach
various programs to it - prisoner welfare, parole, therapeutic programs
for offenders etc. These, however laudable, are undermined by the
retributionist heart, while giving a veneer of societal benefit to a
system is wholly harmful. Pardon my mixed metaphors.
Wholly harmful? It is harmful to those it convicts, who must suffer
whatever punishment is meted out to them. While not preventing crime on
the outside it creates enormous criminality inside prison. See
<http://www.spr.org/> for discussion on prison rape, for example. It is
harmful to their families, who may have a loved one and a breadwinner torn
from their home, and then suffer the stigma of it. It is harmful to those
it acquits who must endure the ordeal of a trial. It is harmful to the
falsely accused, who may end up falsely convicted, or, left with a slur on
their character which acquittal does not wipe away. It is harmful to
witnesses and jurors, who may be subject to harassment and threats from
the defendant, his/r supporters, or the court. (What is a summons or a
subpoena, but a threat of punishment if you don't attend?) It is harmful
to victims, who are encouraged to put their faith in a system which all to
often fails to deliver justice to them, and prevents them from putting the
crime aside and getting on with their lives and their recovery. It is
harmful to society because it releases vast numbers of brutalised men and
women back into the community where they go on to commit more crime. It
also consumes huge sums which could otherwise be spent on programs of
education and policing with /demonstrated/ efficacy in reducing crime, and
other benefits, health, welfare, or returned to the people through tax
cuts. It benefits legislators, judges, lawyers, police, and prison
officers who make a fine living from all our misery, but they are the only
people who benefit.
.
>...What is your solution?
The first thing to do is abolish it. When the medicine is so obviously
poisoning the patient, the first thing to do is to stop giving the
medicine. Only then can a proper assessment be made of the patients
condition.
I propose a system of preventative intervention. The police would retain
their current functions of maintaining order, gathering information, and
(when necessary) making arrests. Instead of charging a person with a
crime, they would "charge" them with posing a danger (either to specified
jo...@hotmail.com
cunt, but not in my ass, so I want him charged with rape". I'm sure you'll
them all good laugh.
Nick Diable <ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8hhbso$bpp$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Of course she can report it. Being afraid of (or too in love with)
somebody
> isn't going to provide a defence to a crime, if it did it would be
> impossible for a wife to report her husband for domestic violence!
>
> Nick
>
> Steve <SHco...@interaxs.net> wrote in message
> news:3925...@news.compuvar.com...
> > I don't think you'd be able to report him successfully for it since he's
> > been doing it for so long without you leaving him. You can either lay
> there
> > and take it with love or leave him. If it's going to destroy you
> emotionally
> > I think you should leave him.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > "KanDee" <Lady-He...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Nick Diable
to stop or men who have been violent in the past don't trust themselves to
remain non-violent in future and so they avoid situations where violence may
occur. If we assume a) that this person is or has been violent and that b)
he wants to stop/not start again and c) his violence occured during sex (i
know thats a lot of assumptions) then to avoid sex where he has any position
or feeling of power over another who he previously would have attacked would
be a possible strategy to maintaining his non-violence!
The whole message implies that this man cannot trust himself and so the
logical conclusion seems to be that for some reason he seems himself as
potentially violent and the views expressed in the message suggest a
possible avoidence strategy for preventing a conflict before it occurs.
Daran <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8hi6cg$32gr6$3...@fu-berlin.de...
Nick Diable
I agree that voluntary rehab is always more effective than forced rehab,
however, a defining symptom of the kind of disorder that many (although not
all) child-abuse offenders is a disjunction between reality and their
percieved reality! In other words they may not be entirly in touch with
reality in that they do not see or accept that they have a problem and so
they will refuse to attend rehab as this would be a) admition that they have
a problem and b) it would place them in the same catergory as what society
often calls loonies, wierdos, freeks etc.
I also agree that money may well be better spent on education before an
offence. But, here you have a problem. Do you treat everyone as a
potential offender? Or do you develop a less-effective teaching program
designed to disuade everyone from becoming an offender? I have heard of
some people advocating the identification of likely offenders before any
crime is committed and requiring them to attend some form of education
class. Apart from the obvious human rights issues that this brings up there
is the problem that the type of offender who is most dangerous is the
intelligent one who can easily hide his intentions/crimes, thus making early
detection much harder!
Once again I can see your point that saving the money from rehab and
channeling it into other areas may make a difference. However, I would also
argue that with that same logic it is reasonable to suggest that if the
major contries in the world were to resovle their differences and develop a
single joint defence program then each individual country could make huge
savings, e.g. by scraping Trident, and this moeny could be moved into crime
prevention areas. But it aint going to happen anytime soon!
Daran <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8hi6ch$32gr6$4...@fu-berlin.de...
> >I'd be interested to hear what others think should be done with
> criminals.
> >Rehab? Prison? etc.
>
Nick Diable
I agree that there is no point in having a criminal justice system which
simply locks people up without attempting to rehabilitate them. However,
your suggestion that people should be arrested for something that they MIGHT
do at SOME point in the FUTURE strikes against the whole basis of the
concept of human rights! To detain a person in this fashion would make all
of the ideas you seek to eliminate WORSE!!! Firstly, the Anglo-American
criminal justice system is based on four points in so far as sentencing is
concerned:
1. Retribution - this allows soceity to feel good about itself
for punishing criminals
2. Deterence - the idea that less crimes are committed if people
know something bad will happen to them as a result
3. Prevention - i.e. they can't commit a crime from in prison
4. Rehabilitation - I know it's had to believe but judges are
supposed to take this into account when considering a sentence!
Your arguments deal with points 1, 3 and 4 but you do not seem to seriously
consider deterence. True, crimes are still committed despite the threat of
prison, but imagine what it would be like if there were no consequences to
your actions other than being told that you are naughty and need to be
re-educated! There are loads of women I would love to have sex with, if
there are no consequences other than rehab what's to stop me from doing as I
please? Morals? Without a clearly visible system of punishment I have
little doubt that children's moral development would be impaired, "adults
can do it so what's wrong with it?", pretty soon you'd have a morally
deficient culture not too dissimilar from the Dark Ages, only this time
you'd have big guns instead or broad swords!
I totally agree that there is much room for improvement within the prison
system and the way in which offenders are punished, but your suggestion that
people could be arrested for having a 'potential' to commit crime makes me
feel ill and quite frankly scares the crap out of me!!!!! As I said in the
reply to your previous message (which I wrote before reading this),
detection of such criminals is normally very difficult. By definition a
serial killer or abuser MUST be intelligent enough to hide his crimes and
motivations or else they would be captured before they would become serial
offenders! In fact I think that you will find that serial offenders of this
type generally have a higher IQ than the average man in the street!
Daran <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8hi6ci$32gr6$5...@fu-berlin.de...
Nick Diable
perfectly possible (although I admit tougher) to get a conviction, but I'm
not sure that this would help anyone much in the immediate situation!
I can see that you and I are going to have some interesting conversations
here, Daran! I'm looking forward to them.
Nick
Daran <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8hi6cf$32gr6$2...@fu-berlin.de...
> Nick Diable wrote in message <8hhbso$bpp$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> >Of course she can report it...
>
> It's doubtful that she could report it /successfully/, if by that he meant
> have him charged/prosecuted/convicted. It also wouldn't appear to be
> necessary to report it, if her aim is to stop the abuse. She could leave
> him.
>
> >Nick
>
> Daran
>
Nick Diable
no offence! (if you can help but be offended)
Nick
<jo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KK9%4.878$bj.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Yes, you should report it. Go tell the police that "he could fuck me in
my
> cunt, but not in my ass, so I want him charged with rape". I'm sure
you'll
> them all good laugh.
>
>
> Nick Diable <ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8hhbso$bpp$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Of course she can report it. Being afraid of (or too in love with)
> somebody
> > isn't going to provide a defence to a crime, if it did it would be
> > impossible for a wife to report her husband for domestic violence!
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Steve <SHco...@interaxs.net> wrote in message
> > news:3925...@news.compuvar.com...
> > > I don't think you'd be able to report him successfully for it since
he's
> > > been doing it for so long without you leaving him. You can either lay
> > there
> > > and take it with love or leave him. If it's going to destroy you
> > emotionally
> > > I think you should leave him.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
Emily Titon
6/6/00 10:04 PM, Nick Diable, of ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk,
in a rare flash of inspiration, is alleged to have scrawled across a napkin:
> john, you're a wanker! funny i admit, but still a wanker
>
> no offence! (if you can help but be offended)
>
> Nick
Well, Nick, I don't know about in England, but here in the States John would
have a point.
I think the best thing to do if she wants to do anything is to call a
women's resource center or whatever she has near her that is it's
equivalent. They can help her see the reality of her situation and start her
on the road to a healthier self-esteem, thus she will be able to see her
situation as outsiders do...
Love,
<E>
John James
2000, it was said by Emily Titon <emily...@earthlink.net> that ...
> in article 8hjski$fjq$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk, on the most glorious day of
> 6/6/00 10:04 PM, Nick Diable, of ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk,
> in a rare flash of inspiration, is alleged to have scrawled across a napkin:
>
> > john, you're a wanker! funny i admit, but still a wanker
> >
> > no offence! (if you can help but be offended)
> >
> > Nick
>
> Well, Nick, I don't know about in England, but here in the States John would
> have a point.
>
> I think the best thing to do if she wants to do anything is to call a
> women's resource center or whatever she has near her that is it's
> equivalent. They can help her see the reality of her situation and start her
> on the road to a healthier self-esteem, thus she will be able to see her
> situation as outsiders do...
>
> Love,
> <E>
Are you for real? I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this
newsgroup any more. I don't even know for sure what layer of craziness the
above represents.
Can we agree that the original webtv post was trolling crap? After all, it
was. So we have a fictional lament for fictional anal rape by a
fictional spouse. Then we have a troll-feeder 'being a man' by roasting the
chestnut that you agree to one sex act, you agree to them all. Then we
have someone congratulating him on his unwitting wit. Then we have Emily
telling us that the fictional victim needs therapy for not recognising
that the idiots who believed the story in the first place have no concept
of consent and wouldn't accept that the fictional perp had committed a
fictional crime. And all of this is in the name of recognising the
'reality of the situation'. Am I mad, or is it Usenet? Answers on a
fictional postcard...
John James (JJ)
Daran
>I've only been here a week so I've not seen anything from last month.
>
>I agree that voluntary rehab is always more effective than forced rehab,
>however, a defining symptom of the kind of disorder that many (although
not
>all) child-abuse offenders is a disjunction between reality and their
>percieved reality! In other words they may not be entirly in touch with
>reality in that they do not see or accept that they have a problem and so
>they will refuse to attend rehab as this would be a) admition that they
have
>a problem and b) it would place them in the same catergory as what
society
>often calls loonies, wierdos, freeks etc.
As opposed to the category of what 'society' often calls 'pervs',
'sickos', 'monsters', etc. Perhaps 'society' would do well to reconsider
it's characterisation (fat chance) then we'd be able to make some
progress.
But the reason why offenders won't go to voluntary rehab is only relevant
when considering measures to make it more attractive to them. When
considering compulsory rehab, then quite different questions arise. Does
it work? Is it cost effective? Are there any additional
benefits/counteracting disadvantages? Of course. Those questions apply
to voluntary rehab too.
>I also agree that money may well be better spent on education before an
>offence. But, here you have a problem. Do you treat everyone as a
>potential offender?...
No, you treat everyone as in need of education.
>...Or do you develop a less-effective teaching program
>designed to disuade everyone from becoming an offender?
Why should it be less effective.
>...I have heard of
>some people advocating the identification of likely offenders before any
>crime is committed and requiring them to attend some form of education
>class.
The Perry Pre-school Project identified likely future offenders at age
three. Adult offending rates were reduced by a factor of six. (Actually
the project wasn't specificly targeted at offenders, but at a
predominantly black socially deprived community.)
>...Apart from the obvious human rights issues...
I am at a loss as to how educating children violates their human rights.
[...]
>Once again I can see your point that saving the money from rehab and
>channeling it into other areas may make a difference. However, I would
also
>argue that with that same logic it is reasonable to suggest that if the
>major contries in the world were to resovle their differences and develop
a
>single joint defence program then each individual country could make huge
>savings, e.g. by scraping Trident, and this moeny could be moved into
crime
>prevention areas. But it aint going to happen anytime soon!
Lots of things ain't going to happen soon. I don't see that as a reason
not to advocate them.
Regards
Daran
Daran
>What gives me that impression is that a lot of men who are violent and
want
>to stop or men who have been violent in the past don't trust themselves
to
>remain non-violent in future and so they avoid situations where violence
may
>occur. If we assume a) that this person is or has been violent and that
b)
>he wants to stop/not start again and c) his violence occured during sex
(i
>know thats a lot of assumptions)...
Occam's razor demands that we accept a simpler explanation if there is
one. How about the single assumption that the man is a religious kook?
Regards
Daran
Angilion
<ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree in part.
>
>I agree that there is no point in having a criminal justice system which
>simply locks people up without attempting to rehabilitate them. However,
>your suggestion that people should be arrested for something that they MIGHT
>do at SOME point in the FUTURE strikes against the whole basis of the
>concept of human rights!
I agree. It's a nightmare scenario.
>To detain a person in this fashion would make all
>of the ideas you seek to eliminate WORSE!!! Firstly, the Anglo-American
>criminal justice system is based on four points in so far as sentencing is
>concerned:
> 1. Retribution - this allows soceity to feel good about itself
>for punishing criminals
> 2. Deterence - the idea that less crimes are committed if people
>know something bad will happen to them as a result
> 3. Prevention - i.e. they can't commit a crime from in prison
> 4. Rehabilitation - I know it's had to believe but judges are
>supposed to take this into account when considering a sentence!
>
>Your arguments deal with points 1, 3 and 4 but you do not seem to seriously
>consider deterence. True, crimes are still committed despite the threat of
>prison, but imagine what it would be like if there were no consequences to
>your actions other than being told that you are naughty and need to be
>re-educated!
Doesn't being re-educated scare you as much as being imprisoned?
[..]
--
Modesty is my only imperfection.
Emily Titon
6/8/00 11:11 PM, Angilion, of angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com, in a
rare flash of inspiration, is alleged to have scrawled across a napkin:
>> Your arguments deal with points 1, 3 and 4 but you do not seem to seriously
>> consider deterence. True, crimes are still committed despite the threat of
>> prison, but imagine what it would be like if there were no consequences to
>> your actions other than being told that you are naughty and need to be
>> re-educated!
>
> Doesn't being re-educated scare you as much as being imprisoned?
Depends on what the re-education *is*. If it is brainwashing for political
ends, then yes, it is scary.
Though I suppose one could argue that telling people not to rape or whatever
because its not nice could be considered politically motivated brainwashing.
So I suppose I would try to define the education part.
Education = explaining to someone why something is wrong, and what is right,
in such a way that the person being thus educated will want to act in the
preferred manner of their own free will, with no threats or anything else
influencing that decision.
How's that?
Love,
<E>
--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
free time." --Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"
bassgoesboom
1) this person(women w/abusive boyfriend) Should understand that it is
not love she is getting from him when he forces himself and/or guilts
her into anal sex. it is something much darker and self-fullfilling.2)
she sould act quickly and as much w/out emotion as possiable and leave.
go home, go to a domestic violence shelter, anywhere that you can cut
him offcompletely. deal w/the emotions later in a protected enviroment.
reason? he seems to have the ability to cause you to choose not to honor
your own feelings but to honor his requests no matter what your physcial
or emotoional cost. this is a VERY unhealthy way to live your life and
GET OUT before you have children who accept this unrespectful way as
well. you have learned this behazvor from somewhere, change it before
you teach it to someone else. GET THERAPY, and get on with life!!!
3)as for the ques rehab v straight jail time ': you simply cannot spend
good money or valueable time with people who DO NOT want to change. god
knows i have certainly spent my resourses in that futile attempt, so i
say, if they want help, great if they don't express any intrest or even
remorse to the actions just lock their asses up and let em rape
eachother forever. one strike one chance, two strikes your out of the
game forever!!!
Daran
>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:58:50 +0100, "Nick Diable"
><ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>...your suggestion that people should be arrested for something that
they
MIGHT
>>do at SOME point in the FUTURE strikes against the whole basis of the
>>concept of human rights!
>
>I agree. It's a nightmare scenario.
It's a scenario I have personally faced.
In 1990, I was detained under the Mental Health act then in force in
England, (Can't remember which section, it was for 1 month), because, in
the opinion of a Doctor and a Social Worker, I was suffering from a mental
illness or personality disorder such that I was a danger to myself or
others (paraphrased from memory). The evidence they had for this 'danger'
was that I had attempted suicide. No assessment (or even consideration)
was given to the danger to me or others of said detention. The affair
cost me my home, my job, my girlfriend, and I was pretty much destroyed as
a person for the following two years. It would be another five, I think,
before I could honestly describe myself as having completely recovered
from the trauma of that experience.
However I hope it is clear that this is /not/ what I advocate. Not only
would the assessment panel have to show clear evidence of danger, but they
would also have to show that the danger inherent in imprisonment was
less. Given the prevalence of prison rape, that would be a very hard
standard to meet.
Note also that it would put a great deal of pressure upon the government
to improve prison conditions. Without such measures, if is doubtful that
anyone could be detained at all.
Regards
Daran
Ann
"Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
> In 1990, I was detained under the Mental Health act then in force in
> England, (Can't remember which section, it was for 1 month), because,
in
> the opinion of a Doctor and a Social Worker, I was suffering from a
mental
> illness or personality disorder such that I was a danger to myself or
> others (paraphrased from memory). <snip>
Thanks for this, Daran. I'm sorry you had to go through it.
> Daran
Ann
Daran
>In article <8hrdvp$34j2l$2...@fu-berlin.de>,
> "Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> In 1990, I was detained under the Mental Health act then in force in
>> England, (Can't remember which section, it was for 1 month), because,
>in
>> the opinion of a Doctor and a Social Worker, I was suffering from a
>mental
>> illness or personality disorder such that I was a danger to myself or
>> others (paraphrased from memory). <snip>
>
>Thanks for this, Daran. I'm sorry you had to go through it.
Thank you. As I said, my emotional recovery is complete, in that I rarely
think about these events, and feel no strong emotional reaction when I do.
>> Daran
>
>Ann
Daran
Daran
>in article 39401e3f...@news.enterprise.net, on the most glorious day
of
>6/8/00 11:11 PM, Angilion, of angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com, in a
>rare flash of inspiration, is alleged to have scrawled across a napkin:
>Education = explaining to someone why something is wrong, and what is
right,
>in such a way that the person being thus educated will want to act in the
>preferred manner of their own free will, with no threats or anything else
>influencing that decision.
>
>How's that?
Don't believe it.
All cultural values are a result of brainwashing. The great thing for me
about usenet is that I get to flush my brain in other people's washrooms.
>Love,
><E>
>--
>"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
>because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
>from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
>free time." --Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"
I'd better shut up then.
Regards
Daran
Ann
"Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Thank you. As I said, my emotional recovery is complete, in that I
>rarely
> think about these events, and feel no strong emotional reaction when
>I do.
Can I ask you now, how come you're so interested in the issues of
rape? You seem to have such a good understanding of the subject and
such insight into the feelings and emotions that go with it. If you
don't want to answer then please just ignore the question.
Angilion
wrote:
>in article 39401e3f...@news.enterprise.net, on the most glorious day of
>6/8/00 11:11 PM, Angilion, of angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com, in a
>rare flash of inspiration, is alleged to have scrawled across a napkin:
>
>>> Your arguments deal with points 1, 3 and 4 but you do not seem to seriously
>>> consider deterence. True, crimes are still committed despite the threat of
>>> prison, but imagine what it would be like if there were no consequences to
>>> your actions other than being told that you are naughty and need to be
>>> re-educated!
>>
>> Doesn't being re-educated scare you as much as being imprisoned?
>
>Depends on what the re-education *is*. If it is brainwashing for political
>ends, then yes, it is scary.
>
>Though I suppose one could argue that telling people not to rape or whatever
>because its not nice could be considered politically motivated brainwashing.
>
>So I suppose I would try to define the education part.
>
>Education = explaining to someone why something is wrong, and what is right,
>in such a way that the person being thus educated will want to act in the
>preferred manner of their own free will, with no threats or anything else
>influencing that decision.
>
>How's that?
Fine, but when people are confined and "educated" against their
will on the basis of what they *might* do in the future it is going
*way* beyond that.
Victoria Mbele
Lady-He...@webtv.net (KanDee) wrote:
> Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
> say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
> succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him
> from time to time that I DON"T enjoy this
Lots of women enjoy anal, but if you don't, let him get into position,
then turn and deliver a hard downward slap on the testicles. The most
painful way is to catch one testicle hard on a quick down-swing.
Laurie S.
Gee, I'd suggest that she not let him get into *any* position.
Including anywhere near her.
You have some scary ideas of how to maintain bad relationships.
Laurie
www.geocities.com/tobyneige/life.html
www.geocities.com/tobyneige/pictures.html
--
If you can't believe in yourself,
believe in someone who believes in you.
Shaking Hell [Lan]
Lady-He...@webtv.net (KanDee) wrote:
>> Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
>> say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
>> succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him
>> from time to time that I DON"T enjoy this
> Lots of women enjoy anal, but if you don't, let him get into position,
> then turn and deliver a hard downward slap on the testicles. The most
> painful way is to catch one testicle hard on a quick down-swing.
Thats if you enjoy having someone break your voice box or give you a
blind eye with a nice hard poke.
--
http://members.tripod.com/LanTheBoy
Email: Anti-chaos. ICQ://26027485
doomdoomdoomdoomdoom...................
zink
%%%%%%%The Darkness will love you, the Darkness will take care of you%%%%%%%%
...... . People are poison, the hatred can heal you . ........
Daran
>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:02:47 +0100, "Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net>
wrote:
>
>>Angilion wrote in message <39401e3f...@news.enterprise.net>...
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:58:50 +0100, "Nick Diable"
>>><ni...@omicpowerstation.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>In 1990, I was detained under the Mental Health act then in force in
>>England, (Can't remember which section, it was for 1 month), because, in
>>the opinion of a Doctor and a Social Worker, I was suffering from a
mental
>>illness or personality disorder such that I was a danger to myself or
>>others (paraphrased from memory). The evidence they had for this
'danger'
>>was that I had attempted suicide. No assessment (or even consideration)
>>was given to the danger to me or others of said detention. The affair
>>cost me my home, my job, my girlfriend, and I was pretty much destroyed
as
>>a person for the following two years. It would be another five, I
think,
>>before I could honestly describe myself as having completely recovered
>>from the trauma of that experience.
>>
>>However I hope it is clear that this is /not/ what I advocate. Not only
>>would the assessment panel have to show clear evidence of danger,
>
>As is *supposed* to be the case with people detained against their will
>under "mental health" legislation. What makes you think that your
>proposed procedure would be abused any less?
I can't talk about current MH legislation as I'm not familiar with any
reforms that may have happened during the past decade.
Irrespective of what was "supposed" to happen, there was no legal
requirement for the psych/SW to do anything more than express their
'professional' opinion. They were accountable to no one. I had fewer
rights than if I had been arrested. There was no appeal. I did call a
hearing of the mental health review tribunal, who discharged me after
three weeks, but their determination was only that I should not /at the
time of the hearing/ be detained. They had neither power nor remit to
make a retrospective determination - to say to the psych "you were wrong".
(Of course I don't know that they would have done this if they could).
I don't claim that my proposed procedure would be immune to abuse, but
assessment body would be /legally obliged/ to consider evidence, and to
give written reasons /why/ they have made a particular determination of
risk. They would be accountable for their decisions. They would be a
similar requirement to determine the risk of any intervention.
>>but they
>>would also have to show that the danger inherent in imprisonment was
>>less. Given the prevalence of prison rape, that would be a very hard
>>standard to meet.
>
>That's not the case in the UK. Prison rape is rare, according to
>prisoners who are no longer in jail.
Well I'm glad to hear that, but I would imagine these things are a
function of the prisons policy of the government of the day. Next time we
elect a "Hang 'em. Flog 'em. Incarcerate 'em" government, the rape rate
will soar.
Besides. usenet!=UK. I believe there are a few people in America with
access too. :-) And there, prison rape is commonplace.
>...Asexual assault is commonplace,
>but not sexual assault
That too would be factored into the risk determination.
>The authorities don't seem to believe that prison is dangerous. So why
>would they assume that it is more dangerous than allowing someone
>who has already been assessed as dangerous free to do what they want?
The sentencing authorities can get away with this because they are not
required to consider it, any more than my psych had to consider the harm
to me in detaining me.
>>Note also that it would put a great deal of pressure upon the government
>>to improve prison conditions. Without such measures, if is doubtful
that
>>anyone could be detained at all.
>
>I have no confidence that they would give a damn. It's not a vote-buyer.
Giving alleged rapists and child abusers a legal defence, and acquitting
them if the case is not proved is not a vote-buyer. So why does it
happen? Because there is a legal requirement that they be allowed a
defence.
>The public at large "knows" that prisoners have a cushy life with free
>satellite TV, etc, because they see it in the media all the time.
The proposed system might lead to the better education of the public, if
dangerous people were being released because there was nowhere safe to put
them, they might start asking "why?"
Regards
Daran
Daran
>In article <8htotm$3n0ej$5...@fu-berlin.de>,
> "Daran" <Daran...@lineone.net> wrote:
[...]
>Can I ask you now, how come you're so interested in the issues of
>rape?...
That's two questions. How I came to become interested is a long story,
which I've posted here before. (Perhaps I should write another FAQ) I'll
tack it onto the end of this reply.
Why am I interested in rape? That's harder to answer. I'm interested in
the workings of the human mind, and how it survives in extreme
circumstances.. I'm constantly amazed by its resilience and its
creativity, which I consider to be two of the most admirable qualities of
humanity. In the process of survival, I see people finding creative ways
of being resilient.
There's another, unconnected reason. Part of my... condition... is that
I have a strong and terrible sense of being personally unacceptable to
other people. That my presence is only ever tolerated. Usenet has a
disinhibiting effect. If someone thinks I'm an arsehole, they'll probably
call me one sooner or later, which helps to give me confidence that if
they don't it's likely to be because they don't think it. Rape is such a
sensitive issue that peoples willingness to talk to me about their
experiences is like they're telling me - in a way that I can be sure
they're not pretending - that I'm acceptable, maybe even wanted. And
that's something I still need to hear.
>...You seem to have such a good understanding of the subject and
>such insight into the feelings and emotions that go with it...
Thank you.
But I'm puzzled, and baffled, and scratching my head all the time over one
thing. I understand /that/ 'you' (that's a collective 'you', BTW, not
just you personally) feel guilty, ashamed etc., about what you
did/thought/felt when you were raped/abused. I don't understand /why/.
It seems to me that when it's analysed, 'your' responses are precisely
that admirable creative resilience in action. So why ain't 'you' proud?
>...If you
>don't want to answer then please just ignore the question.
>
>> Daran
>
>Ann
Daran
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>Well it all began when my mum and my dad got together, and they...
>
>But I guess you know that bit already. My problem is that I don't have a
>singular event or circumstance that set me on the path that lead here, so
>I have no idea where to start. I wasn't raped, or sexually abused,
>Neither have I raped or physically abused others.
>
>I was unhappy as a child, although I did not realise it at the time, or
>the impact that this would have upon me as an adult. I never learned to
>socialise properly, and still find it difficult. In my late teens I
>became depressed and suicidal, went to university, but "wasteth it in
>weary undelight" (James Thomson BV. My favourite poet), attempted
>suicide several times and ended up with a poor degree. While there I
met,
>and fell in obsessively in love with a young woman, who was never going
to
>be a more than a friend. That friendship ended in a furious scene two
>years later after which she (quite properly) told me never to try to see
>her again, to which I acceded after initially resisting. On the rebound
>from that I became close to my then future XSO. She too was in adversity
>and we "huddled" like two sheep on a cold day. I fell obsessively in
love
>with her, and somewhat later, and less obsessively, she with me. The
>relationship had its ups and downs, its ons and offs, its triumphs and
its
>bitter betrayals. After seven years we split up, some years later I got
>suicidal, ending up with the significant violation of my civil liberty of
>being detained under the relevant mental heath act, for some weeks. I
was
>discharged after I called a tribunal hearing, moved to Scotland. A
couple
>of years earlier I went voluntarily to a hospital for more group and
other
>therapy than is good for anyone. There I met a woman who had been
>sexually abused as a child. She, together with others set up a survivor
>group which I was subsequently invited to help out with, Hence, when I
>came to usenet, I looked for a /discussion/ group on CSA, couldn't find
>one, so came here instead.
>
>Take care
>
>Daran
Angilion
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:22:04 GMT, Victoria Mbele
><victor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <12023-39...@storefull-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> Lady-He...@webtv.net (KanDee) wrote:
>>
>>> Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
>>> say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
>>> succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him
>>> from time to time that I DON"T enjoy this
>>
>>Lots of women enjoy anal, but if you don't, let him get into position,
>>then turn and deliver a hard downward slap on the testicles. The most
>>painful way is to catch one testicle hard on a quick down-swing.
>
>Gee, I'd suggest that she not let him get into *any* position.
>Including anywhere near her.
I agree. He's already shown that he doesn't pay much attention
to what she wants (he backs off for a little while and that's it).
I doubt the safety of being near him. Torturing him is unlikely
to be safe, unless she kills him so he can never retaliate.
>You have some scary ideas of how to maintain bad relationships.
I think she gets a thrill out of harming men. Or she's a troll. I'm
leaning towards the latter.
Ann
wrote:
>Why am I interested in rape?
<snip>
Thanks for this. Very interesting.
>But I'm puzzled, and baffled, and scratching my head all the time over one
>thing. I understand /that/ 'you' (that's a collective 'you', BTW, not
>just you personally) feel guilty, ashamed etc., about what you
>did/thought/felt when you were raped/abused. I don't understand /why/.
>It seems to me that when it's analysed, 'your' responses are precisely
>that admirable creative resilience in action. So why ain't 'you' proud?
I've been pondering over this all day and have had a few thoughts.
Perhaps it has something to do with feeling dirty. It's such a
personal sort of assault and the perpetrator is physically so close
and actually inside his victim that later when thinking about the
attack, it's easy to feel that a bit of him is still there and to feel
dirty and disgusted. I feel more than anything that I don't want him
to have been there and I want to wash it all away but know I can't.
Then it's an easy step to feeling that I could have done something to
have prevented it. It's like, I just accepted it and took it, so how
can I now complain.
>Daran
Ann
Mixmaster
On 12-Jun-2000, Victoria Mbele <victor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Im not so sure this constitutes as a RAPE situation,butin any case ill
> > say it ......when my BF & I have sex hes CONSTANTLY trying (& even
> > succeds half the time) at having anal sex with me....& ive told him
> > from time to time that I DON"T enjoy this
>
> Lots of women enjoy anal, but if you don't, let him get into position,
> then turn and deliver a hard downward slap on the testicles. The most
> painful way is to catch one testicle hard on a quick down-swing.
And then, Dial 911, he will try to kill you. If any women slap me in the
balls, I will go to jail
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html