• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Feminism

Status
Not open for further replies.
zephyr said:
^ I was meaning the hard line feminists- Greer et al- moreso than the average empowered female. Would Greer (I cant name any others actually) have an issue with a dominant male (I don't even know if shes straight/gay) if the majority of her ethos is empowerment of women. I wouldn't be suprised if she were a dom in bed as well and might see submission as a weak trait.
Click to expand...
This is neither here nor there really, but I remember reading a few interviews with prostitutes where they said that it was generally the guys with power in the real world (ie:big businessmen etc) who wanted their balls stomped on and the guys with no power at all (ie:little Johnny Calculator at the accounting firm for abovesaid businessman) who wanted to be the gungho "you are my whore" type man. Apparently people like to experience in their sexxin' what they are not experiencing in real life.....which makes a certain amount of sense to me taken on a superficial level, so I wonder if our Germaine might not actually be quite the sub after all, considering she is such a dominant personality in everything else she does?

Just some food for thought really.....

Now I am going to vomit violently. Germaine Greer is definitely not on the elite list of women that Raz likes to think about in sexual terms.
uhoh.gif
 
This whole thing where we're concentrating on the sexual attractiveness of Germaine Greer in the "Feminism" thread... Please, please, please tell me you're doing it on purpose as an ironic thing.
 
Judge bans the word 'rape'...during a rape case.

In Nebraska, a judge has banned the words rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and rape kit, from the trial of Pamir Safi—accused of raping Tory Bowen in October 2004.

As well as this, the judge has ordered the jurors are not to be even told that the words have been banned, and the word sex is to be used in place of rape! 8o

http://www.slate.com/id/2168758/

or

http://feministing.com/archives/007234.html
 
Surely given the number of fraudulent/frivolous rape case, it's understandable that the Judge may choose to support the defendant right not be harassed with prejudicial language?

this thread has degenerate into a predicitable pattern.. stagnates until someone posts an "outraging" article, its quickly debunked and the thread return to 4th page
 
If that was the case, then why does it only apply rape, never murder, or burglary?

Forcing the victim to describe the act as "sex" rather than "rape" is must be repulsive for her, and very confusing for the jurors, who are not told why she is doing so.

Rape and sex are two very different things, and terminology should reflect that.
 
It does apply to murder; during a murder trial, prosecutors and witness cannot say who "murdered" who; it is refer to as who "shot/stabbed/bashed/ran over" who - whatever the "action" was - in this case intercourse. you cannot say during cross examination, "and then he picked up the gun and murdered so and so!", you would be required to say "he shot so and so"

The purpose of a trial is to establish and prove what occurred, not to "state" what has occurred before it is proven

It is up to the prosecution to prove that the "sex act" was unlawful; i.e. without consent

when this is proven, (when the jury delivers verdict), it could be say that "he raped her"

its horrible in any scenario and id never defend a rapist but victims have no right to over-ride the law
 
Last edited:
In a murder trial the criminal act can still be described adequately.

The words sex and rape have very different connotations, the woman in this trial is not even allowed to refer to what happened to her as an assault.

I can see the argument for not prejudging the defendant, but to ban the words and not to tell the jury? The way that the woman is going to have to refer to what happened to her is going to have the opposite effect, not a negating effect.
 
I suppose it would make the victim use more descriptive terms. Like describing exactly what the perpetrator did. Which would be pretty harrowing. But possibly better for the jury to get an idea of what happened. It makes you wonder why the judge would have singled this case out though..
 
Are they still allowed to refer to the fact that he has been charged with rape?
 
katmeow said:
Are they still allowed to refer to the fact that he has been charged with rape?
Click to expand...

He wouldnt be on trial if he hadnt nominally been charge with crime, so yes, of course they can - its referring to his actions as a rape before they have bene proven as such that is the problem
 
Have you heard of the case where the little girl that was raped was told by the judge that she was dressing too provacatively so it was basically thrown out? Anyone heard of this? I'll try and find the article......
 
The one were the Judge ruled that the developmentally advanced girl, in a g-banger and frilly bra, was dressed provocatively?

Yeah I read it. the guy received a prison term, criminal conviction, and sex-offender registration (and was severely assaulted in prison).

No charges were laid against the mother.
 
What do you mean by developmentally advanced?

I'm surprised you're having trouble finding a case like that, doofqueen, for quite a while that line of questioning was all the rage.
 
Here you go:

1.

also from England (via dailymail.co.uk)

Ten year old girls “provocative” clothes largely excuse the rape:

“Judge Julian Hall is at the centre of a storm over the “pathetically” lenient sentence he imposed after hearing that the girl had appeared much older than her age. He said Fenn’s young victim had “dressed provocatively”.

Fenn could have been jailed for life after twice attacking the girl in a riverside park.

Judge Julian Hall is at the centre of a storm over the “pathetically” lenient sentence he imposed after hearing that the girl had appeared much older than her age.

The same judge caused uproar earlier this year by setting free another paedophile and telling him to give his victim money “to buy a nice new bicycle”.

In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the ten-year-old. She was attacked in a park in Henley-on-Thames, South Oxfordshire, by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.

Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home in Mount View, Henley-on-Thames, and sexually assaulted her.

Yet Judge Hall - who referred to the girl as a “young woman” - said the case was exceptional because she had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.”

from http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/i-did-not-ask-for-it/
 
ValeTudo said:
No charges were laid against the mother.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking kidding me? You think that the fact that the victim had frills on her underwear, and was wearing a g string means that she or her mother were partially responsible for the rape?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top