Quote :

"btw not real http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/09/artlurker_explains_rape_tunnel.php"

Damn you! You ruined it for me! This was getting interesting.

Also..



[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2009 7:45:04 PM

Quote :

"it isn't about hurting someone's feelings. it is about not discrediting the victim. "

YOU HAVE TO PROVE THERE IS A VICTIM, TOO!!!

Quote :

"DUH BUT IF A RAPE DIDN'T OCCUR THEN THE COURTS MUST HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE SEX WAS CONSENSUAL"

you don't understand how the courts work, honey. They don't first decide if a rape occurred. That's all decided and considered AT THE TRIAL OF THE DEFENDANT.

Quote :

"how does introducing her history in that example show that the sex was consensual?"

because it shows a pattern of doing exactly what the defense is claiming: casual sex with random partners from the bar where the defendant met the accuser.

12/27/2009 7:48:43 PM

for aaronburro, our budding attorney:

Quote :

"What are rape shield laws? Rape shield laws are statutes or court rules that limit the introduction of evidence about a victim's sexual history, reputation or past conduct. Every state and theDistrict of Columbia has a rape shield law that applies in criminal cases; only a few extend such laws to civil cases. Many of these laws were adopted in the 1970s to combat the practice of discrediting victims by introducing irrelevant information about their chastity. What do rape shield laws do? Rape shield laws commonly bar the introduction of opinion and reputation evidence about the sexual history of the victim. They also typically provide that evidence of specific sexual conduct of the victim is presumed irrelevant unless it is direct evidence of the source of injury, semen, pregnancy, or disease that may be at issue in the case, or relates to specific sexual conduct with the defendant. Some rape shield laws also prohibit evidence of the victim's manner of dress. Eleven state rape shield laws have what is called a "catch-all" exception, which permits a judge to allow the introduction of any evidence, even that normally barred by a rape shield law, if it is necessary to introduce that evidence to protect the constitutional rights of the accused. Several rape shield laws, including Colorado 's, allow the judge to determine whether the evidence in question is relevant and, if so, whether or not the potential prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighs its relevance. Why are rape shield laws important to the criminal justice system? Rape shield laws guard against the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant to the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, but which has the potential to prejudice the jury against the victim. Why are rape shield laws important to victims? Rape shield laws help to ensure that rape victims are treated with fairness, dignity and respect during a criminal trial by ensuring that the victim will not be subject to a public airing of his or her sexual reputation, past conduct, and other irrelevant information. Do rape shield laws increase the chance that victims will report rape? Rape shield laws were designed, in part, to make it more likely for victims to come forward. If rape victims are likely to have their entire sexual history revealed and examined in court as part of a rape prosecution, it is likely that such exposure will deter other victims from reporting rape. Unfortunately, rape shield laws only guard against the introduction of such evidence during the trial. Because rape shield laws do not protect victims from pretrial publicity, many victims are still likely to be deterred from reporting the offense. Do rape shield laws prevent rape? Studies indicate most rapes are committed by serial offenders. Therefore, anything that can be done to encourage victims to report the offense and to willingly continue with the prosecution, and to, therefore, increase the likelihood that guilty offenders will be convicted, will help ensure that offenders are caught earlier in their careers, decreasing the number of rapes committed. "

12/27/2009 7:49:25 PM

you're arguing with the wrong woman, brah
I'm confident that she knows more about the law than you

12/27/2009 7:50:07 PM

what you've just posted is NOT what you originally said.

^ hope she knows more than I do, but she sure isn't showing it by suggesting that the court holds an entirely different hearing to decide if a woman was raped that is separate from the trial of the defendant.

12/27/2009 7:51:01 PM

yeah and the only crappy thing about that, is even if there was a pattern of one night stands and she has never cried rape before she still has to tell everyone that she has had several one night stands in order for that guy to get charged with the rape.

But also, from watching law and order aren't there plenty of ways that you can determine if the girl was raped just by doing a physical exam on her? Then all you gotta do is find his dna on her and it's pretty much in the bag. So if you can prove she was raped by a physical exam you would never have to bring up her past at all.

12/27/2009 7:51:34 PM

Quote :

"because it shows a pattern of doing exactly what the defense is claiming: casual sex with random partners from the bar where the defendant met the accuser."

it. does. not. matter.

she could have sex with 150 people from that bar and be raped by the 151st

sexual history does not matter. i get it, in YOUR example the sex was consensual. but theoretically, she could have slept with 150 people from the bar and have been raped by the 151st, in order to not be overly prejudicial to the ALLEGED (better?) victim, her sexual history, her clothing, etc, cannot be used. they have to prove the sex was consensual some other way. having sex tons of times before, in a pattern, or whatever, does not prove that a certain sexual act was consensual. see what i wrote before: even HOOKERS have been victims of rape.

in SOME CASES the judge may determine that it does (see what i posted above)

Quote :

"hope she knows more than I do, but she sure isn't showing it by suggesting that the court holds an entirely different hearing to decide if a woman was raped that is separate from the trial of the defendant."

that isn't what i said. in the trial of the defendant they are trying to decide if a rape occurred. duh.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2009 7:53:08 PM

^ yes, but all of this is still done in the same courtroom where the guy's guilt or innocence is determined. patently denying someone a crucial element to their defense is immoral.

Quote :

"sexual history does not matter. i get it, in YOUR example the sex was consensual."

and that's the whole point. in my example, under your initial proposal of never allowing sexual history to be brought up, the accused is not allowed to prepare a proper defense. THAT is what is wrong w/ a complete denial of sexual history.

12/27/2009 7:53:28 PM

it isn't denying them a crucial element in their defense!

it isn't relevant.

12/27/2009 7:54:45 PM

how is not relevant in my example? PLEASE SHOW ME THAT

12/27/2009 7:55:04 PM

but isn't the defense put before the judge before it even sees the court room to make sure it's a legal defense?

12/27/2009 7:55:04 PM

12/27/2009 7:57:50 PM

because aaronburro, here is your example:

defendant: claims sex was consensual
alleged victim: says she was raped

now what? oh, yes, the courts have to decide what happened.

its pretty much the same in most rape cases. consensual or not - they start out by someone saying "no it was consensual" vs. "no it was a rape"

so your example, even though you're saying that the sex was legit consensual, isn't any different than alllll the other rape cases. it is the courts job to decide what happened without being overly prejudicial against either party. introducing evidence of the woman's history sleeping around with men from that bar STILL doesn't prove the sex was consensual. do you not get that?

12/27/2009 7:57:52 PM

no, that's not my example, honey.

my example gives hypothetical fact: there was no actual rape. as in, we know what the proper ruling should be. The point of this example is to show how such a draconian measure harms the innocent.

12/27/2009 7:59:38 PM

Well here is a good one for this rape tunnel (even though it's now obvious it was fake)

Would it be considered rape if you knew that when you got to the end of the tunnel you were going to be forced to have sex with this guy. You willing walked through the tunnel and came out the other end knowing the outcome of the action.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2009 7:59:45 PM

Quote :

"my example gives hypothetical fact: there was no actual rape. as in, we know what the proper ruling should be."

i get that, HONEY. but we don't magically know all the true facts when we are going to trial do we?

how is he getting harmed when the history of her having sex with 2937423094837290 men before STILL doesn't prove that the sex was consensual?

and it is your example, you're saying that you legit had consensual sex with someone and then she accuses you of rape.

Quote :

"Imagine that you have consensual sex with a girl who is not drunk, but is a huge slut and has random sex every night with men from the bar you met her at. She then turns around and accuses you of rape. "

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2009 8:01:35 PM

i want to be brutally raped and fucked

12/27/2009 8:02:54 PM

I'll tell ya. I've always had a fear of coming across the wrong girl at the wrong time and get pegged with a rape.

12/27/2009 8:03:11 PM

You can't be raped, you're a dude.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2009 8:03:12 PM

of course it doesn't "prove" it, but it sure provides a damn-good point that it was. Hell, we don't really "prove" much in the court system, and you know that.

you don't think the fact that someone did exactly the same thing I claim to have done for the past 150 nights isn't relevant?

Quote :

"and it is your example"

no, it is NOT. my example is a hypothetical, where we assign fact for the purpose of evaluating the effects of a proposed law. Fact #1 is that THERE WAS NO RAPE. What you are saying I am saying does not include this fact

12/27/2009 8:04:04 PM

Would it be considered rape if you knew that when you got to the end of the tunnel you were going to be forced to have sex with this guy. You willing walked through the tunnel and came out the other end knowing the outcome of the action.

12/27/2009 8:05:01 PM

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:06 PM. Reason : 3]

12/27/2009 8:06:02 PM

no. it is PREJUDICIAL. again, it isn't relevant. just take an evidence class or something.

Quote :

"of course it doesn't "prove" it, but it sure provides a damn-good point that it was"

wat?

listen, whatever. you think what you think - it is obviously too hard to explain this to you without you being condescending. so, you win. GOOD JOB.

12/27/2009 8:06:28 PM

I know. look at that sexy dude.

Quote :

"listen, whatever. you think what you think - it is obviously too hard to explain this to you without you being condescending."

I'm not being condescending at all. If I wanted to be condescending, I would have called you a stupid cunt. But I didn't.

just evaluate the thought experiment I have proposed. Do you not see a problem with preventing this hypothetical guy to show that the woman has done before exactly what he claims happened on this particular night?

Look, I am OK with allowing a judge to NOT allow the introduction of evidence. I'm NOT ok with requiring a judge to allow it. There is a distinction there. In one, the accused is afforded the benefit of the doubt, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. In the other, the burden of proof is on the accused, which, under our system of law, is wrong.

12/27/2009 8:07:00 PM

and a guy can be sexual assaulted. Though I'm still not overly cool with the fact that a guy can't be raped.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:08 PM. Reason : nevermind, you were talking about the person above me]

12/27/2009 8:07:43 PM

men can be raped

12/27/2009 8:09:26 PM

semantics argument about to begin in 3...2...1

12/27/2009 8:10:27 PM

Quote :

"But rape is way more extreme than a punch to the face. Is your intention to ruin people’s lives? Possibly. I’m not necessarily concerned with the positive or negative effects of this project so long as there is some effect on people’s lives. I’ve merely set up a situation where there is potential to impact people in meaningful ways. Maybe I won’t be able to rape everyone who crawls through the tunnel, but the door is open for all kinds of scenarios; rape, serious injury, maybe even death. I might even get arrested."

lol, what a troll.

12/27/2009 8:10:34 PM

Quote :

"men can be raped"

if he has a vagina?

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:14 PM. Reason : the hell AT&T. why is your ad talking!?]

12/27/2009 8:14:10 PM

raped in the butt hole

12/27/2009 8:14:45 PM

Quote :

"Do you not see a problem with preventing this hypothetical guy to show that the woman has done before exactly what he claims happened on this particular night?"

if she had sex with 150 men and accused 150 men (or several of them) of rape (falsely) then yes. but otherwise, no.

and honey is pretty condescending

and i'm glad you think i'm a stupid cunt.

12/27/2009 8:16:01 PM

Quote :

"raped in the butt hole"

not in my state!

12/27/2009 8:17:35 PM

oh well that is a rough sexual assault then

:/

12/27/2009 8:18:35 PM

yep. different sentencing too

12/27/2009 8:19:12 PM

yea man

well i mean i guess it is still rape just not legally

poor men

(i think the whole boner thing is what is holding you guys back)

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2009 8:19:45 PM

sodomy it's between God and me.

12/27/2009 8:20:00 PM

they need to get a group of about 3 moderately sized homos (not big ones...it would be difficult--and unnecessary--to get them into all the rape room) with strong martial arts backgrounds. Once he attacked one of them, they could all beat the bejeezus out of him and gang rape him over and over until they just couldn't do it anymore. That would probably spell the end of this sick fuck's Rape Tunnel.


Only thing is, oddly enough, that would be illegal. So...they should send in a person or two with concealed carry permits and a concealed pistol or two. Once he tried to rape them, they could just give him the 2 to the chest, 1 to the head treatment, and it would be totally legal and legit, in self defense.

12/27/2009 8:24:34 PM

welp, if rape is a legal term... then its not rape if it is not legally.

yeah when ya think about it... a boner shouldn't.

maybe the dude in question from above can prove she got wet. BOOM! knock that rape charge down a notch!

12/27/2009 8:25:05 PM

i mean i don't think a boner should prevent men from being raped but i think that is the argument right (being raped by a woman i mean). cause people say welllll if you didn't want to have sex then you wouldn't have gotten a boner

poooor men

12/27/2009 8:27:12 PM

but I'm still curious...if you went into that room knowing that when you walked in there you would get raped would it still be considered rape.

You walked into the room willingly, so therefore you are willingly going to get raped...and you can't rape the willing.

12/27/2009 8:27:22 PM

i dunno seems like a tough question

i guess it depends on whether walking in the room was consent?

who knows!! seems confusing!

12/27/2009 8:28:16 PM

i mean technically you can be willing as long as you want. but at any point if you are no longer willing and there is no stoppage then it is rape.

so they walk in willing to have sex. then decide not to. jail time

12/27/2009 8:29:24 PM

yea cause if you say stop in the middle and they don't stop it can still be rape

12/27/2009 8:30:18 PM

12/27/2009 8:31:06 PM

^^^^^^ boners are triggered by two different mechanisms. you can either "think" it up or "touch" it up.

In other words it is possible to point north just due to physical stimulation.


on top of that, even if you were sexually attracted to someone, that doesn't constitute consent. I mean, think of how many guys you've thought were "hot as fuck" that you haven't slept with!

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM. Reason : ^^^^^^]

12/27/2009 8:32:43 PM

oh i know i agree. i was just saying, that is the stupid argument people give for men not being able to be raped by women

i mean i'm pretty sure i could rape someone if i tried

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2009 8:35:15 PM

Quote :

"if she had sex with 150 men and accused 150 men (or several of them) of rape (falsely) then yes. but otherwise, no."

1) wouldn't that be talking about her sexual history?
2) She doesn't even have to have accused 150 men of rape, or even several of them. The initial defense is "hey, I met her at this bar, and we had consensual sex." The supporting evidence is "every night for the past three years, she has gone to this bar and had consensual sex with a guy she met there." Absolutely relevant. And it would be immoral to say that this guy could not prevent that defense.

Quote :

"cause people say welllll if you didn't want to have sex then you wouldn't have gotten a boner"

but that is not entirely accurate. A guy can get a boner whether he wants the sexual contact or not. Physiologically speaking, I don't believe sexual arousal and excitement is required for an erection. That's why guys in high school get random boners in class when they aren't even thinking about sex.

Quote :

"You walked into the room willingly, so therefore you are willingly going to get raped...and you can't rape the willing."

Simply walking in doesn't make you willing. It just means you acknowledge the risk. Acknowledging the risk and accepting it is not the same as consent. Otherwise, a girl that wears a skimpy dress is "consenting" to being raped. And I know you wouldn't agree with that, nor would I.

Quote :

"oh i know i agree. i was just saying, that is the stupid argument people give for men not being able to be raped by women"

the argument is mostly a semantic one based on the legal definition in a lot of states at a certain time, which was "vaginal penetration in the victim" or something to that affect. Well, a guy doesn't have a vagina, so he could not be vaginally penetrated. The woman would be the one with the vagina, but she wouldn't be the "victim" in this case.

Quote :

"and i'm glad you think i'm a stupid cunt."

not at all true. I was just saying what I could have said if I wanted to be condescending.

12/27/2009 8:52:42 PM

Quote :

"i mean i'm pretty sure i could rape someone if i tried "

You would have to drug him (and i'm not sure what effects that might have on his weiner), or he would have to be a quadriplegic.

I mean, you're good looking enough that you probably wouldn't have any boner-inducing problems, but if some reason he didn't want to do you, I don't think there are many guys you'd be able to physically force yourself upon, haha.

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2009 8:57:05 PM

Quote :

"yea cause if you say stop in the middle and they don't stop it can still be rape"

so I can get all the guys that wouldn't stop when I was like Okay I'm over this on rape?

12/27/2009 8:58:43 PM

she can try on me and we can report back on the results

12/27/2009 8:58:45 PM