Rape is a Myth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1770&ito=1490

Or so it seems to the BNP.

Quote:

---

A senior BNP leader with a strong chance of winning a seat in the London Assembly next month has written that rape is a “myth” and that “some women are like gongs - they need to be struck regularly.”

The Evening Standard has revealed that Nick Eriksen, the BNP’s London organiser and the second-highest candidate on its list for the Assembly, is the author of “Sir John Bull,” a notorious far-Right blog which has regularly advocated hatred and abuse against women.

The disclosure will be a serious blow to the BNP’s hopes of London electoral success.

In August 2005, Mr Eriksen wrote: “I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime...

“Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.

“To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.

“A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.

“The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors.”

---

I'm not up on English slang but I'm assuming that having your handbag snatched isn't the same as buggery.

I believe this is one of those times when poetic justice would be all so juicy. Maybe that BNP guy could be 'raped' or something by someone else, and then we can see how he likes it. Dragged into a dark back alley by a gang, of course. Then we could all mock him and see how he likes it being down-played. That people like him even get anywhere near power is disturbing...

mumbles something about where the world is going to *dawns keffiyeh and grabs RPG*

I just found this while surfing the net:

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jha...925/myths.html

I think it may be useful in pointing out how foolish the BNP leader's statements are.

so in the UK there is no restriction on the mentally handicapped occupying public office I see :book:

what a moron....

''To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.''

how is rape conducted without violence exactly? :inquisitive: there will always be the threat of violence at the very least...

no one is saying that a woman claiming rape incorrectly doesn´t happen...but to go as far as to say that the crime doesn´t exist at all is just :wall:


one would hope that this :daisy: runs across some fiend in a dark alley that bends him over a trashcan and gives him a whole new outlook on life......after all that wouldn´t be rape.....men like sex right?

It's also pretty foolish in it's own right though. Yes Rape is an act of violence but it can be a lot of other things and if a scumbag gets drunk and rapes a woman because he can't take no for an answer and can't keep it is his pants it's still rape.

While I find this statement idiotic I must stress out how powerful a woman can be and practically frame any man alive and send him to prison for rape....with lots of tears and lies....just think about it...

told you I wasn't realy a girl

Can't the Daily Mail get anything right?

In August 2005, Sir John Bull vented his rage over a recent finding with regard to so-called Rohypnol-rape.

An analysis was recently conducted by the Forensic Science Service of over 1,000 cases where women had complained that their drinks had been spiked. Not one showed any trace of Rohypnol. NOT ONE.

It turns out that these stupid tarts are simply getting blind drunk, taking 'recreational' drugs themselves, and then having sex. Next day they wake up with an almighty hangover and a deep feeling of shame and regret. So what do they do then? Why cry rape of course, and try to get a poor innocent man sent to prison in order to save their 'reputation' - as if they had one!

Then he goes on to complain that feminists have 'watered down' the definition of rape.

Obviously violent stranger-rape will be traumatic, but feminazis have stretched the definition of rape to include 'date-rape' and even 'husband-rape'!

Sir John Bull may not be the most eloquent blogger, but I think he has a point.. :laugh4:

The fact he says 'feminazis' means he is inciting Godwin's Law, thus his arguments are rendered null and void and stupid.

Although, it doesn't require Godwin's law to figure that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

The fact he says 'feminazis' means he is inciting Godwin's Law, thus his arguments are rendered null and void and stupid.

Although, it doesn't require Godwin's law to figure that out.

---

You can't seem to get it right either.

Godwin's Law is a law of probability; it says nothing about the appropriateness of comparisons.

Here's what it says:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving
Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Don't be pedantic, Adrian. Losing the argument due to referencing Nazis is the most well-known corollary to Godwin's Law, and generally understood by all denizens of the Internet tubes. To insist that everyone say, "I invoke the best-known corollary of Godwin's Law, so you lose!" is unwieldy and unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Don't be pedantic, Adrian. Losing the argument due to referencing Nazis is the most well-known corollary to Godwin's Law, and generally understood by all denizens of the Internet tubes. To insist that everyone say, "I invoke the best-known corollary of Godwin's Law, so you lose!" is unwieldy and unnecessary.

---

Invoking Godwin is in itself poor form. I refer the Lemur to Quirk's law.

P.S. Alternatively, I could use the Bentsen Defense: "Mikeus Ceasar, you're no Mike Godwin."

Let's not complicate things, one situation, one explanation one godwin

Meh. First person to invoke Godwin's Law loses the debate in my opinion, and such posts don't tend to take part in debate anyway.

Anyway. Fortuitous timing for whoever else is taking part in the elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Let's not complicate things, one situation, one explanation one godwin

---

Let me complicate this further: no law actually covers the phenomenon of a neonazi (Sir John Bull) using 'nazi' as a swearword ('feminazi').

Only Van der Leun's Corollary comes close: "As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one".

Ok now I am confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Let me complicate this further: no law actually covers the phenomenon of a neonazi (Sir John Bull) using 'nazi' as a swearword ('feminazi').

Only Van der Leun's Corollary comes close: "As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one".

---

There was an interesting incident in TWC where a poster came up with some impressive-looking graphs to support his argument, until it was shot down by the revelation that he'd asked his mates in Stormfront to provide him with a supporting argument. Haven't seen that chap in TWC since, and he's also changed his Stormfront handle since then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Fortuitous timing for whoever else is taking part in the elections.

---

I believe the honourable member from Shell Beach has it. Looks like the Evening Standard, the Daily Mail and other Tory papers are trying to secure a Tory Assembly seat by smearing a BNP candidate. Not that he needed much dirt added to his curriculum..

I'm glad we all realise that the quote in the original post is so incredibly stupid that we've changed the discussion to other things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Then he goes on to complain that feminists have 'watered down' the definition of rape.

Obviously violent stranger-rape will be traumatic, but feminazis have stretched the definition of rape to include 'date-rape' and even 'husband-rape'!

Sir John Bull may not be the most eloquent blogger, but I think he has a point.. :laugh4:

---

eh.. it is important to recognize the power that erroneous rape accusations have, but date-rape and husband-rape are as real as any other form (stranger-rape is the least common form). and both generally involve significant violence. the sexual act itself, without consent, is at least battery.

but dumb drunk girls consenting to get flowere.. i mean get :daisy:ed and then regretting it should not be a crime, and there he has a point if those incidents are leading to prosecutions.

He is a right-wing nutter alright, but do we really need any further proof of that if he already represents a party that wants an "all-white" Britain and a leader (Nick Griffin) who has said, among other things, that Britain is a "multi-racial hellhole", that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith", that homosexuality is "repulsive" and should be "outlawed", that the Holocaust is "the hoax of the 20th century" and that "nonwhites have no place in Britain and we will not rest until every last one has left our land"?

There's a lesson in there somewhere, init?

What does it mean if all the BNP crap I quoted above isn't enough to discredit that party in the eyes of a growing chunk of the electorate? Why do we need the Daily Mail - of all the abominable rags in the world - to find some out-of-context quotes to smear this guy? It spells only one thing to me: fear.

The BNP may well be the 'shocker' of the coming GLA election, regardless of whether Ken or Boris becomes Mayor. Last time round they won 4.8 percent with UKIP in the frame, this time round they may get double that percentage and get two seats in one go. In recent by-elections, the BNP have defeated Tory, Labour and LibDem candidates in perfectly pleasant, bourgeois districts. Their anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, fascist social rhetoric has served them well and will continue to do so.

I believe that is the real bad news here: the only smear that might actually hurt the BNP electorally is if they are shown to condone rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You can't seem to get it right either.

Godwin's Law is a law of probability; it says nothing about the appropriateness of comparisons.

Here's what it says:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving
Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

---

And as I've already demonstrated is mathematically obvious.

An infinite discussion will cover all comparisons. As the length of any discussion increases it goes closer to infinity. Hence as any discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving any subject approaches one.

So Godwin's Law doesn't demonstrate anything more then saying a room full of monkey's with an infinite amount of time will produce the works of Shakespeare. In that time they will also reproduce every other instance of man kinds work including Mein Kampf.

So invoking Godwin's Law or any of its variants is just making a statement of the obvious.

For the more specific idea that mentioning Nazi's means you lose an argument that is a very easily proved fallacy.

Is it false to say that the Nazi's were in World War II? No, therefore the variant is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And as I've already demonstrated is mathematically obvious.

An infinite discussion will cover all comparisons. As the length of any discussion increases it goes closer to infinity. Hence as any discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving any subject approaches one.

---

Logically, yes.

However, Godwin's law is empirical. It is based on an observed distribution of nazi-instances in a series of finite discussions.

Clickety

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Is it false to say that the Nazi's were in World War II? No, therefore the variant is false.

---

Sure. And is it false to call a poster nazi when he is a nazi? No again.

But what if a nazi uses the nazi-comparison? :chucks:

Still it is a trivial outcome and hence doesn't actually have any more weight then 2+2 = 4. Something is not significant just because it happens.

I would say the reason we see Nazi more often then Mongol is a matter of cultural familiarity. Name calling in itself is what normally shows that a debater is either out of ammunition or cool. Calling someone a Nazi is just plain rude so it a discussion is lost not because of the mentioning of Goose-stepping Hugo Boss wearing blonds its the insulting nature that is being used. I'm sure in different boards there will be key terms of pain. I'm sure is some boards the calling someone a commie would happen more often then calling them Nazis even if the intent to insult is the same.

Mind you I've always found the term lemonazi more funny then femnazi. But then I'm just bitter and twisted. :laugh4:

Can't say that I'm very surprised by this though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

how is rape conducted without violence exactly? :inquisitive: there will always be the threat of violence at the very least...

---

Well, I expect many instances of statutory rape are conducted without violence. I suppose it's also quite possible that the rape of an unconscious individual could be committed without real or threatened violence. Generally speaking, though, rape is certainly a violent act, and date-rape or marital rape are no less rape than any other form.

Ajax

I am not going to conform to all your goddamn freedom hating forum rules, Nazis!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

He is a right-wing nutter alright, but do we really need any further proof of that if he already represents a party that wants an "all-white" Britain and a leader (Nick Griffin) who has said, among other things, that Britain is a "multi-racial hellhole", that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith", that homosexuality is "repulsive" and should be "outlawed", that the Holocaust is "the hoax of the 20th century" and that "nonwhites have no place in Britain and we will not rest until every last one has left our land"?

There's a lesson in there somewhere, init?

What does it mean if all the BNP crap I quoted above isn't enough to discredit that party in the eyes of a growing chunk of the electorate? Why do we need the Daily Mail - of all the abominable rags in the world - to find some out-of-context quotes to smear this guy? It spells only one thing to me: fear.

The BNP may well be the 'shocker' of the coming GLA election, regardless of whether Ken or Boris becomes Mayor. Last time round they won 4.8 percent with UKIP in the frame, this time round they may get double that percentage and get two seats in one go. In recent by-elections, the BNP have defeated Tory, Labour and LibDem candidates in perfectly pleasant, bourgeois districts. Their anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, fascist social rhetoric has served them well and will continue to do so.

I believe that is the real bad news here: the only smear that might actually hurt the BNP electorally is if they are shown to condone rape.

---

Its so funny how nazism and Islam are much closer than BNP thinks...
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/salute2.jpg

Why hate women??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rape Myths Article

One out of every eight adult women has been a victim of forcible rape.

---

That figure is so huge the mind boggles!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Its so funny how nazism and Islam are much closer than BNP thinks...

---

It is strange how humanity is closer to nazism than what most people think....hmm, wait, now, wouldn't that be generalisation? :thinking:

"In recent by-elections, the BNP have defeated Tory, Labour and LibDem candidates in perfectly pleasant, bourgeois districts."

That's not really surprising. Political scientists, or, at least, liberal political scientists always chime the mantra that the middle class is the bedrock of liberal democracy. Well, maybe in most of the West, now, but not everywhere and not always, not by a longshot. Go back to the rise of European fascism in the form of the NSDAP- the biggest losers in electoral terms were not the left-wing SPD and KPD, or the conservative parties on the right, but the classical liberal parties in the center, whose supposedly freedom-loving middle class constituents deserted them in droves for self-proclaimed authoritarians.

The only problem would be the next.
Let's presume you had a relationship with a chick based mainly upon material attraction.....
Let's presume that you have sex with that chick one night....
Let's presume the next day you have an argument with that chick and in a rage she decides to sue you for rape.
I know that women are excellent at mastering emotional content and complaining so when you two get on the witness stand and she testifies agaisnt you with 5 or so friends against you you are likely to hit the slammer.
That's why sex crimes are more and more a reality this days...

And let's presume you dated a 16 year old who looked like a twenty year old and you're a wealthy 40 year old man.
Let's presume you stop financing her shopping sprees but you nevertheless have sex with her. You get a double conviction for having sex with a minor and a rape charge from her perents (20 years in the slammer).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

That's why sex crimes are more and more a reality this days...

---

Nah, men can be just as disingeneous as women in the dock. I feel you are catering to the same stereotypes that Sir John Bull capitalises on.

There is, however, a feminist 'rape myth' based on biased surveys. The high rape estimates (one in eight, or even one in four) stem from surveys that define rape in ways that even the victims wouldn't acknowledge. For instance if a woman has had sex while voluntarily intoxicated and later came to regret it, this is counted as rape. A mistaken liaison does not equal rape.

And suggestive looks have been considered a form of sexual assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Its so funny how nazism and Islam are much closer than BNP thinks...
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/salute2.jpg

---

Indeed, given many Islamic organisations open denial of the holocaust. I even read somewhere that Mein Kampf is one of the biggest selling books across the middle east...very interesting and quite disturbing if true...

Would I be going too far in calling 'religion' (generally speaking) 'the last bastion of organised (and somehow legitamised) bigotry and intolerance left in the world'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

The only problem would be the next.
Let's presume you had a relationship with a chick based mainly upon material attraction.....
Let's presume that you have sex with that chick one night....
Let's presume the next day you have an argument with that chick and in a rage she decides to sue you for rape.
I know that women are excellent at mastering emotional content and complaining so when you two get on the witness stand and she testifies agaisnt you with 5 or so friends against you you are likely to hit the slammer.
That's why sex crimes are more and more a reality this days...

---

I would agree your post completely. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Would I be going too far in calling 'religion' (generally speaking) 'the last bastion of organised (and somehow legitamised) bigotry and intolerance left in the world'?

---

yes. bigotry and intolerance are easy to organize. political parties do it all the time.

Brilliant. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Indeed, given many Islamic organisations open denial of the holocaust. I even read somewhere that Mein Kampf is one of the biggest selling books across the middle east...very interesting and quite disturbing if true...

---

It's funny how people think that nazism was about killing jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

The only problem would be the next.
Let's presume you had a relationship with a chick based mainly upon material attraction.....
Let's presume that you have sex with that chick one night....
Let's presume the next day you have an argument with that chick and in a rage she decides to sue you for rape.
I know that women are excellent at mastering emotional content and complaining so when you two get on the witness stand and she testifies agaisnt you with 5 or so friends against you you are likely to hit the slammer.
That's why sex crimes are more and more a reality this days...

And let's presume you dated a 16 year old who looked like a twenty year old and you're a wealthy 40 year old man.
Let's presume you stop financing her shopping sprees but you nevertheless have sex with her. You get a double conviction for having sex with a minor and a rape charge from her perents (20 years in the slammer).

---

Actually, no.

There was a case in court a month or so ago which was like that, and it resulted in the judge telling the guy to keep his pants on when around young girls, and little else. IIRC, the girl was 14(while saying she was 17-18, legal age here is 16), and the man was around 40. The guy bought her stuff, then they went to a hotel for some sexin' regularly. The court found him gullible because he believed she was of legal age, but not a criminal, and as such he just got a smack on the fingers(which he rightfully deserved), but no jail time.

It was the parents who called the police when they saw messages on their daughters mobile, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Would I be going too far in calling 'religion' (generally speaking) 'the last bastion of organised (and somehow legitamised) bigotry and intolerance left in the world'?

---

What you would be doing is going too far off topic. We've got a long tradition of "Religion teh eval" threads, and you are welcome to start another - but this thread needs no further violation.

:bow:

I thought of some great pick-up line: "Baby, show me your ID and then sign this piece of paper that says you're of clear mind, sane and not intoxicated in any way."

Quote:

---

how is rape conducted without violence exactly? there will always be the threat of violence at the very least...

---

Its absolutely possible. Another myth is that woman can't rape man - really big myth.

There were court case in Poland some years ago. Nurse who worked at nights into hospital has interesting hobby - she blowjobbed her patients, but only those who were into gypsum.
Most of them has nothing against it (she looks pretty well) but one of them had. Sadly he could say nothing because of his illness (he got car accident and has broken mouth, hands and legs). That was typical rape and she was punished for that (health service level into hospital fallen dramatically).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Its absolutely possible. Another myth is that woman can't rape man - really big myth.

There were court case in Poland some years ago. Nurse who worked at nights into hospital has interesting hobby - she blowjobbed her patients, but only those who were into gypsum.
Most of them has nothing against it (she looks pretty well) but one of them had. Sadly he could say nothing because of his illness (he got car accident and has broken mouth, hands and legs). That was typical rape and she was punished for that (health service level into hospital fallen dramatically).

---

Actually, I think various courts across the world have been back and forth on this whole issue of male rapre by women. And in your case Id say that it certainly seems like there was some sort of arousal on the man's part- which is precisely the issue with male rape by women.

Now, if that woman had gone at the man with a phallic shaped instrument (I dont think I need to elborate further on what I mean here) then I would certainly consider that male rape by a woman.

I guess it could be considered as some form of assault but there is a distinctly sexual connotation involved...

:juggle2: :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Its absolutely possible. Another myth is that woman can't rape man - really big myth.

There were court case in Poland some years ago. Nurse who worked at nights into hospital has interesting hobby - she blowjobbed her patients, but only those who were into gypsum.
Most of them has nothing against it (she looks pretty well) but one of them had. Sadly he could say nothing because of his illness (he got car accident and has broken mouth, hands and legs). That was typical rape and she was punished for that (health service level into hospital fallen dramatically).

---

Hot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Hot!

---

the broken mouth and limbs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Actually, I think various courts across the world have been back and forth on this whole issue of male rapre by women. And in your case Id say that it certainly seems like there was some sort of arousal on the man's part- which is precisely the issue with male rape by women.

:

---

Arousal doesn't mean aproval?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Arousal doesn't mean aproval?

---

Not to all women..
https://img91.imageshack.us/img91/21...ngwomanmp3.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Arousal doesn't mean aproval?

---

why would it? shoot, i'll pop a woodrow in a stiff breeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Actually, I think various courts across the world have been back and forth on this whole issue of male rapre by women. And in your case Id say that it certainly seems like there was some sort of arousal on the man's part- which is precisely the issue with male rape by women.

Now, if that woman had gone at the man with a phallic shaped instrument (I dont think I need to elborate further on what I mean here) then I would certainly consider that male rape by a woman.

I guess it could be considered as some form of assault but there is a distinctly sexual connotation involved...

:juggle2: :wall:

---

Er, lets not mix up physical pleasure and psychical displeasure. I am sure it is most possible for a woman to feel physical pleasure during the crime; it is not the point. That was a rape because it was forced sexual intercourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Arousal doesn't mean aproval?

---

for many men arousal can be obtained by simple physical stimulus...even if you´re not interested in the person doing the stimulus at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

for many men arousal can be obtained by simple physical stimulus...even if you´re not interested in the person doing the stimulus at all.

---

from what i understand, some (many, most, none?) psychologists believe that fear can act on the 'arousal system' as powerfully as sexual attraction, and sometimes women to have an orgasm during rape.

i'm not sure if the same thing is true for female->male rape, since the fear factor might be different. but the penis is a pretty dumb appendage, so it probably doesn't need much psychology to get aroused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

While I find this statement idiotic I must stress out how powerful a woman can be and practically frame any man alive and send him to prison for rape....with lots of tears and lies....just think about it...

---

You clearly have no idea about conviction rates.


As to the original post, he has not only no idea what he is going on about but with his petty mind is disrespecting all the poor victims - women and men - of rape.

Saying "rape is fine because the women enjoy it" is like saying
"He was a stonemason so why did he mind hacking rocks in the gulag?" or maybe it's like saying noone here would mind to be chained to a computer and forced to play WoW all day long, after all we all like playing games, don't we?
There's something called personal freedom and choices and on top of that many humans have what we call a private zone which for some reason they don't want everyone to enter without their consent, society makes laws to support them in these personal decisions precisely because most members of society feel or felt that way, I don't think all humans are numb to the point of not minding rape yet thus it is and hopefully will be illegal in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

the broken mouth and limbs?

---

In a way..... The thought that I can still get head when I am thus incapacitated is reassuring. https://i118.photobucket.com/albums/...al/awesome.gif