Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

[Cranky Old Man]

A while ago David Copperfield (a retarded idiot, but that's besides the point here) got seduced into kinky sex by a filthy whore. As usual the world blamed the poor innocent man while it is always the dirty slut that is to blame in these so called "rape" cases. We True Christians™ have known this for a long time now. But still ready-for-hell(tm) atheists keep visiting our peaceful Christian forum with silly postings about how these filthy little whores are poor "rape victims".

But God didn't allow this evil tramp to get away with her nasty sinful prostitute ways!

A Seattle, Washington, woman who accused illusionist David Copperfield of sexually assaulting her more than two years ago has now been charged with prostitution and making a false accusation in another case, according to Washington state officials.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/...field.accuser/

[GOD=life]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

Very good find.

We should all be very scared that all it takes for a man's life to be ruined is for some prostitute to point her finger at the man and scream "rape!" -- he doesn't even have to be found guilty, his reputation will be ruined anyway.

[SUV]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

...and who can forget singer/slut Connie Francis, who was in a motel begging for it, got raped, then wrote a (*shudder*) book about it?

Who's Sorry Now, Babe?

Just look at her flaunt her dirty pillows; that hot eyetalian Blood will "out" every time

[Adam]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

It is not the victims fault that she (or rarely he) gets raped.
What makes them whores, and don't say "read the thread" because I can't seem to find any logical argument.

from an atheist with respect.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

It is not the victims fault that she (or rarely he) gets raped. What makes them whores, and don't say "read the thread" because I can't seem to find any logical argument. From an atheist with respect.

Did you read the article behind the link? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/...rfield.accuser

In this case a prostitute (who is now being charged for her evil behavior) seduced a man and after it happened she tried to extord money from him by false accusing him of rape. You don't have to believe me, just read the CNN article.

But it's just an example. In our liberal society somehow almost always the man gets the blame while in reality it is almost always the woman who is to blame. It's a repeating pattern. A slut seduces a man. She regrets what she did. She accuses the man of rape.

It's not just the girl who is to blame though. The parents also are to blame. To blame for not properly raising their daughter. To blame for not properly protecting their daughter. None of my daughters or granddaughters ever got "raped".

[SUV]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

from an atheist with respect.

Who do you respect? Satan? It Certainly isn't GOD

[Tachi123]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

By coincidence I fell over this forum and this thread, and I could not resist the urge to join so I could let my questions be heard.

it is always the dirty slut that is to blame in these so called "rape" cases

My problem with your statement is the lack of logical arguments to support it. How do you know that all women who are subject to rape, are in fact sluts? I have read the abovementioned article, but as far as I can see, that does only provide evidence that one woman was a slut. How do you justify generalizing that from one person, to the entire world? Do you know all cases of rape that have ever been? What about children - how can a child of, let's say 6 years, be a slut? Is it too their fault, if they are raped?

Another question that arose, is why you seem to say that if the woman dresses as a slut, then it takes away the guilt from the man. You call him a victim - a poor innocent man, seduced by the filthy whore. But didn't God give us a free will and a mind to judge for ourselves? No matter how the woman dressed or acted, it is still his choice to rape her. Just because somebody dangles candy in front of my eyes, it is still my own choice whether I eat it or not.

Originally Posted by Adam
from an atheist with respect.

Who do you respect? Satan? It Certainly isn't GOD

I would say that he respects that there are other opinions than his own, and just because someone questions what you say does not necessarily make them bad people. But that would just be my interpretation.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

By coincidence I fell over this forum and this thread, and I could not resist the urge to join so I could let my questions be heard.

Ok, welcome to our forum by the way.

My problem with your statement is the lack of logical arguments to support it.

Did you read the CNN article I linked to? In this case a prostitute (who is now being charged for her evil behavior) seduced a man and after it happened she tried to extort money from him by false accusing him of rape. You don't have to believe me, just read the CNN article.

How do you know that all women who are subject to rape, are in fact sluts? ... What about children - how can a child of, let's say 6 years, be a slut? Is it too their fault, if they are raped?

You are right. There will be exceptions. The example you have given yourself of a 6 year old girl is a good example where the girl would not be to blame but the rapist and her parents would be to blame.

Another question that arose, is why you seem to say that if the woman dresses as a slut, then it takes away the guilt from the man.

The point is that if a woman dresses like a slut and thereby seduces a man, it is no longer rape. Even though in many of those cases the woman claims it is rape. This does not mean the man is not to blame, he should not have sex with a woman he is not married to, but it does mean it is not rape.

[Tachi123]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

Ok, welcome to our forum by the way.

Thank you

Did you read the CNN article I linked to? In this case a prostitute (who is now being charged for her evil behavior) seduced a man and after it happened she tried to extort money from him by false accusing him of rape. You don't have to believe me, just read the CNN article.

I agree with you on the point of the article, and that single women. But that was not where I found a lack of arguments - the part where I could not see the logic is the point where you connect one woman to all women. Of course there are people out there, who accuse others of rape even though they did not commit it... but there are also people out there who falsely accuse others of murder. That does not mean that all accusations of murder are false.

You are right. There will be exceptions.

I'm happy we can agree on that point. Though I do not understand why her parents would be to blame?

The point is that if a woman dresses like a slut and thereby seduces a man, it is no longer rape. Even though in many of those cases the woman claims it is rape. This does not mean the man is not to blame, he should not have sex with a woman he is not married to, but it does mean it is not rape.

If a woman consciously seduces a man, then I agree that it is no longer rape, and she should not point fingers and cry wolf. However, then you can question what the phrase "seduce" includes. If a woman wears... let's say a miniskirt, would that be an act of seduction? I would say no, just as well as a guy walking around without a shirt does not give me the rights to jump him at will. What may be seen as seduction to one part, may be completely unintended from the other part. Is a man justified in forcing himself upon a girl (or the other way around, for that sake) because he finds that she was 'seducing' him? I would say it all depends on whether the woman says no, or if she willingly indulges in the sex. This makes it a very touchy and difficult subject, since it will almost always be word against word.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

the part where I could not see the logic is the point where you connect one woman to all women

True, I should have said most woman. I failed to mention there are exceptions.

I'm happy we can agree on that point. Though I do not understand why her parents would be to blame?

A 6 year old girl should never be in a situation where she could be raped. Her parents should have prevented that. She should never be alone without protection from her family. This is one of the reasons True Christians home school their kids instead of sending them to schools where they can be raped by the teachers there.

If a woman wears... let's say a miniskirt, would that be an act of seduction?

Yes. What other reason could she have for wearing a mini skirt but to seduce man? And no one forced her to do it. She choose to do it.

Is a man justified in forcing himself upon a girl (or the other way around, for that sake) because he finds that she was 'seducing' him?

No. As I already mentioned the man should not have sex with her unless they are married. But it would not be rape because she seduced him.

I would say it all depends on whether the woman says no, or if she willingly indulges in the sex. This makes it a very touchy and difficult subject, since it will almost always be word against word.

The problem is indeed that it is word against word and unfortunately in most cases a women is believed if she claims rape, even though in many cases the women is to blame.

[Tachi123]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

A 6 year old girl should never be in a situation where she could be raped. Her parents should have prevented that. She should never be alone without protection from her family. This is one of the reasons True Christians home school their kids instead of sending them to schools where they can be raped by the teachers there.

Ah, that way around. I agree that of course children should be protected as much as possible, though I think we can agree that you can never protect a human completely. I do not agree on the homeschooling part, since I believe that a child learns a lot about social interaction through school. But that is another discussion which I don't think we should approach in this thread.

Yes. What other reason could she have for wearing a mini skirt but to seduce man? And no one forced her to do it. She choose to do it.

It might be a hot day? Besides, there is a line between wanting to look good, and wanting to seduce a person into having sex. When I go to a party, I might wear a dress that shows curves and legs - not because I want to seduce anyone, but simply because I like feeling beautiful. And I might smile at a guy and talk with him, but that still doesn't mean I want to have sex with him.

No. As I already mentioned the man should not have sex with her unless they are married. But it would not be rape because she seduced him.

But then whether it is rape or not, would depend on the man's perception. If he says that he believed her to be seducing him (even though that was never her intention), it would not be rape... but how do you know who is right? You don't. And if you don't know it, how can you say for sure it was the woman's fault?

The problem is indeed that it is word against word ... even though in many cases the women is to blame.

If it is indeed word against word, then how do you know that in most cases it's the woman who is to blame? That is the same as saying it's opinion against opinion, but my opinion is more right than yours.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

If it is indeed word against word, then how do you know that in most cases it's the woman who is to blame? That is the same as saying it's opinion against opinion, but my opinion is more right than yours.

Our legal system is based on a "beyond a reasonable doubt". How does "he said, she said" constitute beyond reasonable doubt? In fact the practice, as the Cooperfield episode shows the woman can be a know whore and Cooperfield is assumed to have raped her on the sole bases of her accusation.

Friend, open your eyes, the legal system is set up to persecutor good Christian mean so the atheists (who secretly control the government) can terrorize Christians into shutting up.

[Wide-Open]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

since I believe that a child learns a lot about social interaction through school

Friend, I'll only pick on this one: yes, we WANT to avoid that kind of social interaction. Because, let's face it: "social interaction" comes down to satanic music, heavvy petting, drugs, abortion, playing pokemon, and even worse.

Look at the newspapers; look at the news! What do you see? Debauchery, that's what you see.

So don't blame us for teaching our kids in the safe confines of our own houses, thanks.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

It might be a hot day? Besides, there is a line between wanting to look good, and wanting to seduce a person into having sex. When I go to a party, I might wear a dress that shows curves and legs - not because I want to seduce anyone, but simply because I like feeling beautiful. And I might smile at a guy and talk with him, but that still doesn't mean I want to have sex with him.

If you dress that way the guy will think you want to have sex with him. The guy cannot see what you think but he can see how you are dressed and how you behave.

If it is indeed word against word, then how do you know that in most cases it's the woman who is to blame?

Because in most cases the women was dressed like a slut.

You seem to honestly believe there is such a thing as dressing sexy and at the same time not inviting sex. Unfortunately that is not how it works. I think your parents should have educated you better on that.

[Tachi123]

Re: Yet more PROOF that "rape victims" are actually dirty whores

Our legal system is based on a "beyond a reasonable doubt". How does "he said, she said" constitute beyond reasonable doubt? In fact the practice, as the Cooperfield episode shows the woman can be a know whore and Cooperfield is assumed to have raped her on the sole bases of her accusation.

Our legal system is based on the right to have your case investigated. Just because she is a known whore does not mean she cannot have been raped - the possibility was there that she might be telling the truth, and therefore they had to look into it.

Friend, I'll only pick on this one: yes, we WANT to avoid that kind of social interaction. Because, let's face it: "social interaction" comes down to satanic music, heavvy petting, drugs, abortion, playing pokemon, and even worse.

And it also gives your kid the opportunity to experience different cultures, to get to know people who are not exactly like you, to learn how to work in groups; and in general teach them how the world is. You can't keep your children confined in your houses forever - one day they'll have to move out, and at that point won't it be best for them, to have some experience with life outside the four walls of the house?

So don't blame us for teaching our kids in the safe confines of our own houses, thanks.

I do not blame you for homeschooling your kids - they're your kids, and therefore it's your choice how you want to raise them. All I'm saying is that public schools are not the root of all evil, and just because you put your child in one of them it doesn't mean that she (or he) will turn out to be pregnant, on drugs and a thief at the age of 12.

If you dress that way the guy will think you want to have sex with him. The guy cannot see what you think but he can see how you are dressed and how you behave.

Then you make the assumption that men has squat for brain. No offense intended - but most guys ARE able to see the difference between when a girl wants to talk and when she wants to have sex. Else we would have a lot more rape than we do. Hypothetical situation: A girl dresses in a shapely dress and go to a party, she flirts with a guy and he flirts back. Then he makes a move to get her into bed and she says no, since she does not want to bed a guy the first day she meets him. Perhaps if they get to know each other better, then one day she will. The 'no' should be a clear indication that she is not willing. The flirting and dress was not to get into bed with him - it was to get his attention. If he forces himself upon her after that, then it would be rape.

Because in most cases the women was dressed like a slut.

A dress does not justify rape. Then it would be legal to jump everybody at the beach, or in general during summertime.

You seem to honestly believe there is such a thing as dressing sexy and at the same time not inviting sex.

I believe that you can dress sexy to get the attention of the opposite sex (or the same sex, if that is where your preferences lie). I also believe that it's a matter of perception. Even though YOU might percieve that I invite sex, I percieve that it's simply a hot day, and therefore I want to walk around in a miniskirt and a top. Our perceptions will clash when you indicate that you want sex, and I will correct your perception bytelling you I don't want sex. There, problem solved. As with the abovementioned example, if you were then to force yourself unto me, it would be rape. A guy should really be able to control his lust enough to be able to see whether the girl is willing or not.

Unfortunately that is not how it works. I think your parents should have educated you better on that.

Well, so far the guys around me have seemed to get the hint, since I am now 17 and still a virgin. I can also tell you that I have never done drugs, nor do I plan on doing so. I have however played computer, partied, read fantasy, been drunk, and probably done a lot of other things that condemn me in your eyes. I was also a big fan of pokemon. My circle of friends includes (among others) homos, goths, wiccans, christians, buddhists, vegetarians and heavy-metal fans. I must say that the fact that you do not approve of how my parents raised me is of no surprise to me. I have long ago accepted that according to your religion I will be send straight to hell - since I have never been baptized or confirmed, and I do not believe in God. However that would not really be relevant for this discussion