Midshipman Acquitted of Rape Charge: he "wrongfully" entered her room!!

[Breeze54]

http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/07/20/ap2894589.html

Midshipman Acquitted of Rape Charge

A military jury on Thursday acquitted a former Naval Academy quarterback of raping a female midshipman in her dormitory room.

But jurors convicted Lamar S. Owens Jr. on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and disobeying a lawful order.

"They have determined, obviously, that the consensual act took place," said Cmdr. John Maksym, the trial judge.
He added that the jury of five Naval officers found that Owens
"wrongfully entered the room without permission and wrongfully engaged in consensual sex."

Owens, standing at attention as the verdicts were read, showed no emotion.
He remains free without bond.
He was not allowed to graduate or receive a commission in May, and remains a midshipman.

Neither Owens' accuser nor her family were in court when the verdict was read.

The punishment phase will begin Friday morning.
Prosecutors recommended a sentence of two years on the conduct unbecoming an officer charge.
The judge tabled discussion of a sentence on the failure to obey a lawful order charge until Friday.

The judge also said he would consider to whether to set aside either of the charges.

Owens, 22, of Savannah, Ga., was charged an incident in the room of a female midshipman at the academy's Bancroft Hall on Jan. 29.
Owens testified that the sexual encounter was consensual; his accuser testified that she repeatedly rejected his advances.

Owens was a team captain and starting quarterback for Navy last season, leading the team
to an 8-4 record with victories over Army and Air Force, and a win over Colorado State in the Poinsettia Bowl.

More at link....


--------------

So he "wrongfully" entered her room!? :wtf:
Isn't that "breaking and entering"? Burglary?

How the hell does someone "wrongfully" enter a room?
Did he kick the door in? Jimmy the lock? What?

OIC....he's an 'athlete'....hmmmmm :sarcasm:

:grr: :nuke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. ?

She had consensual sex with a burglar?

[BillZBubb]

2. He can't be guilty, he beat ARMY!

What a crock. Too bad the victim didn't show up.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

3. Message to women - enter military academies at your own risk.

You bring rapes on yourself. You should stay in your place, which isn't in the military.

[arcane1]

4. entered the room without permission, but the sex was consentual?

:wtf:

[Mandate My Ass]

9. because rooms are sacrosanct

but a woman's body is up for grabs. If only he had raped her outside in the hallway, this whole mess could have been avoided.:sarcasm:

[etherealtruth]

23. Oh, heck yes ...

I often have men enter my room (house) without my consent and then decide, "What the heck I'll have 'consensual' sex with them." :sarcasm:

IDIOTS

[Recursion]

33. "unlawfully", not "without permission"

Male and female midshipem are under a lawful order not to be alone together in the dorm rooms. So he entered the room unlawfully and engaged in consensual sex with a female midshipmen, which is also against the lawful orders midshipmen have received.

That was the finding of fact, at least. They didn't say "she told him to stay out of the room but he came in anyways", they said "there were standing orders not to go into a female's room, but he went in anyways".

[arcane1]

35. no, but she said she told him "no" to sex

and he had sex with her anyway

in the English language, that's called "rape"

[Recursion]

40. Maybe I misread the finding of facts,

But I thought they found she did not tell him "no"

I'm not saying she didn't actually tell him no, I'm saying I understood the finding of facts to be that she did not.

[ecstatic]

5. Either he raped her or he didn't. If he didn't rape her,

then why is he being blocked from graduation and commissioning? I don't like the vagueness of the decision.

[arcane1]

6. they know he did it, but since he's a QB....

they don't want the rape going on his record

thus punishing him, without the ignominy of being labelled a 'rapist'

:puke:

[Recursion]

27. Because midshipmen aren't supposed to sleep with each other

The finding of fact was that the sex was consensual. Consensual sex between midshipmen is unlawful. As the higher-ranking of the two, he bears the responsibility. That's why he was also charged with conduct unbecoming an officer.

I knew several midshipmen when I was in college; I knew 3 who were kicked out for sleeping (consensually) with other mids.

[sbj405]

115. No. They are not allowed to sleep with each other in Bancroft Hall

Otherwise said relationship would have been ok. She was not a plebe and he was not her superior.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

119. Because the circumstances were such that even consensual sex was banned.

At least, that's the case as far as I can make out.

The Navy seem to be saying that there's reasonable doubt about whether or not the woman consented, but even if she did then they still shouldn't have done it - I guess because there are rules against fraternisation or some such to prevent undue pressure being used to obtain consent, although I don't know that for sure.

[PCIntern]

7. Strange...

I never heard it called a 'room' before. We had a lot of other words for it...but never 'room'.

I have to remember that for the next time I want to 'enter a room...

;-)

[YDogg]

13. Some are roomier than others.

[knowbody0]

8. he was just stressed

and did not kill her after all.:sarcasm:

[patcox2]

10. The conviction was for conduct unbecoming an officer.

"wrongfully entering her room" was not the conviction, it was a description of the circumstances leading to the conviction for conduct unbecoming. The military offense of conduct unbecoming an officer prohibits many things which are legal, just not "becoming an officer." Therefore, the court did not have to conclude he entered without permission to conclude that the manner of his entry was nonetheless unbecoming an officer.

[Orrex]

11. How do you wrongfully engage in consensual sex?

Unless it's with a minor?

:wtf:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

121. Most armed forces have strict rules against even consensual sex

Between officers and enlisted soldiers, for a variety of reasons.

For one thing, it's easy for the former to put undue pressure on the latter to consent.

For another, such a relationship could jeopardise their judgement and ability to be objective in the field.

There may well be other arguments I'm familiar with too.

[truebrit71]

12. Can someone explain "wrongful consensual sex"....???

..if she repeatedly rejected his advances how in the world was it "consensual".....

I think the term they were looking for was "wrongful rape after breaking and entering"....

[Recursion]

26. Easy

Wrongful consensual sex is someone engaging in consensual sex in contravention of a lawful order, for example the lawul order that prohibits midshipmen from having sex with each other.

[Breeze54]

32. Against her will!!!! It's called RAPE!! n/t

:grr:

[Recursion]

41. That's the question of fact the court was looking at

Did she tell him no or not? The finding of fact (which may well be complete bullshit, but it was the finding) seems to be that she did not say no. That means his crime was consensual sex, which is forbidden between midshipmen.

[sbj405]

116. Against rules to have sex in Bancroft Hall (the dorm).

[ThomCat]

14. Okay, now I'm sick to my stomach.

This guy is getting a slap on the wrist. This woman is not getting justice. I don't think Justice was even one of their considerations.
x(

[Breeze54]

15. I'd have to agree!. This "verdict" is fucking outrageous!! n/t

:nuke:

[Solomon]

112. No. You people are fucking outrageous. None of you. Not a one, has

been following this case close enough to know any facts. And you're all reacting all out of proportion because it was a rape allegation. I've never seen such presumptions of guilt in my life. It almost rivals the presumptions of innocence I've seen repeated here over and over for the Duke rape case defendants. Gee. I wonder what the difference is?

If you had been following this case you would know that the "victim" in this case invited the "rapist" into her room that night then claims to have forgotten what happened. There was no testimony that she said "no" or "stop" at any time. But I see people on here talking about she said "no" many times. What a crock of shit. If you gonna talk about something, at least bother to learn the facts before you go shouting off your mouths.

It was a bullshit charge to begin with. The "victim" doesn't even know if she was fucked. She said "she felt that something wasn't right" when she woke up the next day. You people kill me with your presumptions and your ignorance. And your prejudices.

[arcane1]

16. smearing the name of a team captain and star QB is "injustice"

good heavens, we can't have THAT

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[enlightenment]

17. Maybe the women who decide to pursue commissions from the

military academies should start wearing those female condoms with the hooks on them -- if the sex is consensual, they can remove the protection before hand -- if it isn't consensual, the men can explain to the medic why they need help removing the hooks from their penises.

I grew up an AF officer's brat, I served in the AF (not as an officer), and I've known several women who attended the AF academy. This behavior isn't new, but it seems to be stepping up in scale and frequency. If the commanders won't deal with it, then the women need to take care of it themselves.

[Breeze54]

19. hooks??

:wtf:

I never heard about this!! :wow:

Now, maybe, I can say I've heard everything? :shrug:

[Recursion]

28. It's branded "rapex"

http://www.rapestop.net/

Pretty cool little gadget. (Stephenson imagined a similar device in Snow Crash, called the "Dentata")

Just don't forget it's in, if you like the guy.

[readmoreoften]

30. What a GREAT PRODUCT!

I'd buy it.

[greguganus]

86. Now wait for the "anti-rapex" device for rapists. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

29. hooks!

yikes!



i'd recommend that all guys do a tongue or finger check first, even if the sex seems completely consensual...you never know what some whacked-out man-hater might be capable of...:wow:

[Breeze54]

34. Oh my! Good thing those weren't around

when I was going thru my three year divorce!!! :evilgrin:

[ThomCat]

49. Before you have sex with someone

I sure as hell hope you know her well enough that this wouldn't be necessary.

If you don't know her well enough to know that she's not a "whacked-out man-hater" then why are you sleeping with her?

Geez.
:eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

67. i'm not...i've been with my wife almost 20 years.

but i still have some single friends- and i've heard some borderline horror stories...

If you don't know her well enough to know that she's not a "whacked-out man-hater" then why are you sleeping with her?

if you can't figure out the answer to that one on your own, your lack of experience is definitely showing...:hi:

[sbj405]

118. Well speaking as a woman and an alum, I can tell you that this is not the

norm in Annapolis. I never feared for my safety. Never did I hear any of my fellow female shipmates fear for their safety.

[Rex]

18. So he raped her and got away with it, way to go military!

Just keep on fucking up! I guess after NORAD stood down on 9/11, our military said 'fuck it, no one really is in charge lets go apeshit crazy'!

Sick, sad and wrong!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. What makes you so confident he raped her?

Oughtn't you to at least consider the possibility that it was he, rather than she, who was telling the truth, given that all it came down to was his word against hers?

I agree, the balance of probability is probably on her side, but that's a lot short of certainty.

And the verdict *certainly* isn't wrong - someone who probably committed rape but is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as appears to be the case in this case, *should* be acquitted.

[Rex]

124. Because she said she fought his advances.

But he was a Navy quarterback, so I'm sure his natural charm kept him away from the rape charge. I have no doubt he raped her.

[uppityperson]

20. entered room without permission, had consensual sex but shouldn't've?

this makes no sense.

[arcane1]

21. it makes perfect sense

this sentence explains it all:

"Owens was a team captain and starting quarterback for Navy"

[Marie26]

22. Sure it does

"Owens, 22, of Savannah, Ga., was charged an incident in the room of a female midshipman at the academy's Bancroft Hall on Jan. 29. Owens testified that the sexual encounter was consensual; his accuser testified that she repeatedly rejected his advances.

Owens was a team captain and starting quarterback for Navy last season, leading the team to an 8-4 record with victories over Army and Air Force, and a win over Colorado State in the Poinsettia Bowl."

[Blue_Tires]

84. +1

this is only the millionth time a star college athlete has been allowed to skate on an offense...i guess the fact that it happened at the USNA made it more newsworthy, but at hardcore 'football schools' it's just business as usual

[Recursion]

25. Yes. Check the fraternization laws

Male and female midshipmen are not allowed to be alone together in their rooms.

Male and female midshipmen are not supposed to have sex with each other.

Male and female midshipmen are discouraged even from dating each other.

[readmoreoften]

31. so he entered her room without permission, but she consented to sex?

"Get out of my room! I said get out of my room right now! Oh, alright I'll have sex with you."

That makes no sense.

[Recursion]

42. The court didn't say she didn't give him permission

The finding of facts seems to be that he did have her permission to go into her room and that the sex was consensual. That's still illegal for a midshipman to do.

[Marie26]

43. I wonder what made

them reach that conclusion when the woman testified that it wasn't consensual.

[Recursion]

45. No idea

For all I know the finding of fact was complete bullshit. But the finding was that her testimony that she told him no was not true.

People do lie sometimes.

[Marie26]

68. Perhaps this is part of the reason?

"Navy Judge Criticizes Rape Case Witnesses"

"WASHINGTON -- A Navy judge chastised prosecutors Thursday at the court-martial of a former Naval Academy football quarterback charged with rape, saying their witnesses have been weak.

After he refused to let a nurse testify about the medical effect of rape and strictly limited what a psychiatrist could say about the mental state of rape victims, Navy Cmdr. John Maksym criticized prosecutors for what he called "the anemic nature" of their witnesses.

It was unclear whether the judge was referring to all the prosecution witnesses, which include the woman who said Lamar Owens Jr. raped her in her dorm room early on Jan. 29. But Maksym was especially critical of expert witnesses prosecutors called to rebut questions raised by Owens' attorneys about why the woman didn't cry out that night and didn't immediately notify authorities.

They included an Army psychiatrist who testified briefly that some victims delay their reporting and many don't ever tell authorities about sexual assaults. The judge noted the psychiatrist was just two weeks into a psychiatry fellowship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

"Is there no more?" Maksym asked prosecutors. "Come on. The chap just got out of his residency. We're not talking about the son of Freud here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301626.html

It is very unprofessional for a judge to express his opinion about the merits of a case in front of a jury like that. This judge was almost acting as an advocate for the defense. The jury's decision also seems a bit odd considering some of the admitted evidence here.

"WASHINGTON // A military judge today allowed prosecutors to play a taped phone-call conversation in which Lamar S. Owens Jr. -- Navy's standout quarterback last season -- tearfully apologized to the woman he is accused of raping and made potentially incriminating statements to her.

Defense lawyers had tried to suppress the tape, which was recorded Feb. 8 by a Naval criminal investigation service agent, by claiming that the alleged victim was acting as an investigator in the case and illegally interviewed Owens before he had been read his rights.

The alleged incident took place in the early morning hours of Jan. 29.

On the tape, which was also played in preliminary hearings in March, Owens said: "I'm so sorry. ... I woke up the next day and I called you, and I wanted to kill myself and I still feel like that."

Speaking in a soft voice and apparently weeping at times, he also told the woman, "I didn't do it long," later adding: "You weren't awake, and I stopped."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-owens0714,0,5642067.story?track=mostviewedlink

But whatever. I'm sure the judge's expressed opinions, the defendant's position as a star Navy quarterback & the fact that all jurors were Navy officers played no role in the verdict here.

[Breeze54]

70. YOU are VERY FUCKING COOL!!!!!!!!!!

:yourock: :woohoo: :woohoo: :headbang:

:applause: :applause:

For all the IGNORED rape victims!! :grouphug:

:grr:

[arcane1]

46. his status as a star QB made them reach that conclusion

[Spazito]

39. It seems the victim was aware it was consensual sex...

"his accuser testified that she repeatedly rejected his advances." This doesn't seem to be a case of the fraternization laws, it seems to be a case of the usual "she asked for it even if she didn't" rationale to me.

[Recursion]

44. I'm not saying the finding of fact wasn't BS

I'm saying the finding of fact was that the sex was consensual, and that the laws he broke were the laws forbidding midshipmen from fraternizing.

People lie, even people claiming to be rape victims. I'm not saying that happened here, for all I know the court found the facts completely wrong. But people are acting like it's inconceivable that the sex was consensual, or like they don't get the fact that consensual sex between midshipmen is illegal.

[Spazito]

50. Given the military track record for dealing with rape, I suspect

it wouldn't matter, there was NO rape even if there was. It is rarity, indeed, when the military actually tries and convicts on the charge of rape. Just take a look at what is currently happening about the rapes in Iraq and I would hope you can understand my cynicism.

[Recursion]

64. Agreed 100%

The military doesn't do nearly enough (or indeed much of anything) to protect the women who volunteer to put their lives on the line for us. The pathetic record of prosecutions for rapes of female soldiers is shameful (rapes of male soldiers are punished pretty effectively, though).

There's also the more general climate of near-universal sexual harrassment that feeds this problem. Women are treated as second-class Marines/soldiers/sailors/airmen. NCO's all-too-frequently treat female non-rates in their sections as their own personal harem -- even if it's consensual that's still harrassment and illegal, but nobody ever does anything about it.

Acquaintance rape is a very, very, very difficult crime to prove. Unlawful consensual sex or sexual harrassment are not as difficult to prove. Maybe if the military would put some effort in enforcing the laws on the latter, the former would become less frequent.

[Spazito]

65. Well said! n/t

[NashVegas]

80. It Appears the Rape Victim Didn't Read the Book of Instructions

For how to be a successful victim to prosecute a rape case.

If you read the (slightly more) detailed story, linked to above, that includes his recorded words that do indicate a rape took place, it also mentions that the victim stayed silent during the ordeal instead of screaming and waking up her sleeping roommate.

[Recursion]

24. It means he entered the room in contravention of a lawful order...

...that male and female midshipmen should not be alone in barracks (dorm) rooms together.

The jury also found that he engaged in consensual sex, which was unlawful due to fraternization laws

[Breeze54]

38. She said NO!! No means NO fucking way!!!!!

No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No!

[Recursion]

48. Sigh

She says she said no. For all I know, she did say no. If she did say no, then the court found wrongly.

But the court found that she didn't say no. I don't know anything about this case other than the schlock in the media. It's possible she's lying, it's possible she's telling the truth. It's possible he's lying, it's possible he's telling the truth.

Even if she's lying and he's telling the truth, he still broke the law by having sex with another midshipman. That's why he's not graduating or getting a commission, and will probably go to jail.

[Breeze54]

51. Why the big *sigh* ?

The 'determination' is BS!
Saying she "says she said no" is condesending and offensive, IMO!

I hope he does go to jail!!

[Recursion]

53. How is it offensive?

The "sigh" was because you seemed to be implying any person who claims she is raped must be telling the truth. Weird stuff happens in college.

[Breeze54]

54. Because you seem to take it as

a little "tongue-in-cheek" that (ha,ha!) she "protested and said No!" (not really...*wink* *wink*)

You seem to assume that she didn't!

I find THAT disgusting!!

:grr:

[Recursion]

57. You're completely misrepresenting me

I have no idea what happened in that dorm room and neither do you.

All I know is she claims that she told him no. He claims she did not. One of them is lying, and neither of us know who it is. It's possible that she said no and he had sex with her anyways, which would make him a rapist. It's possible that she didn't say no, and is claiming she did say no now, which would make her a liar. It's also possible she was passed out the whole time, which would make her a liar and him a rapist. It's also possible that she did say no and he did rape her, and the prosecutor didn't have enough evidence to prove it, which would make him a rapist but also one who is not guilty by our standards of evidence.

You're acting like I'm putting out as a possibility that "she said no but didn't really mean it". I'd never say that. I'm saying you, me, and everybody else on this board don't know what happened in that room, and don't know who said what when.

[Breeze54]

61. I'm not misrepresenting you. I was reading what you wrote.

Thanks for the further clarification.

I agree! It's a he said/she said.

What I was protesting was the implication that she didn't say no.
The assumption that she didn't protest and try to fend him off.
We hear about this all the time, especially in military academies.
Every time I've read about it, the woman is assumed to be 'lying'... *wink* *wink*
It pisses me off!
:grr:

Peace.

[Recursion]

62. I believe her, personally

Just from my experience with people, I'd guess she's telling the truth. I'm just commenting on how the case was decided, and the fact that people didn't seem to understand that consensual sex was still a crime in that situation. I'm not assuming she's lying, I'm saying a court has to consider that possibility, and this court decided (probably wrongly) that she was. No *wink wink* there; they decided she was without winking or nudging. From what I've seen my inclination is to say they decided wrong.

There's a whole other side to this question that would say maybe she did feel like she was rejecting his advances and maybe he didn't feel like she was. I haven't suggested or said that because that's a very slippery slope to go down, and from what I've seen the defense didn't raise it. And I thought that was what you were suggesting I was saying. It's a dangerous discussion topic, but then the handful of rape cases we had when I was in college all seemed to get down to that, so maybe we have to go down that too... I hope not.

[onenote]

63. I do too, but

this case had some problems for the prosecution and they didn't handle it well. First of all, the accused apparently admitted she didn't verbally say no, but rather resisted physically by moving away. As far as I'm concerned that should be enough. But she also admitted to having blacked out. Again, to me that doesn't make a difference, but from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution, it makes it harder, not easier. Finally, the prosecution apparently claimed in its closing statement that one of the witnesses had testified that the woman had told that woman "I have been raped" when it turns out that, according to the transcript of the witnesses testimony, the witness did not so testify and the judge called in the jury to tell them the prosecution had misrepresented the testimony. That sort of screw up really can hurt a prosecutor.

Again, I think he knew she was unwilling and went ahead and that's enough to make it rape.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-owens0714,0,5642067.story?track=rss
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/annearundel/bal-md.ar.owens10jul10,0,5281108.story?track=rss

[Breeze54]

66. Thanks for elaborating on this.... and yes!

This road needs to be traveled more and made loud and clear!
Date Rape has been growing in leaps and bounds, at least the reporting of it.
Men, especially young men, need to be told often, that No means No!

I point out dangerous behavior to my son's all the time, concerning the young women
in thier lives or even situations on tv shows or in movies.
What behavior is and isn't okay. What the term 'jail-bait' means, etc.
What a 'compromising situation' looks like.
I want them to have fun but not put themselves in a 'bad place'.
I don't think enough parents do that, but don't quote me on that.
:toast:

[onenote]

59. you are completely misrepresenting dmseg's post

He pointed out that she said she said no. That's a factual statement. He pointed out that the court found she did not. That's a factual statement. He acknowledged that the court might well be wrong. That's a factual statement.

Where in all of that do you find "ha, ha!) or (not really ...*wink* *wink*).

Stop shooting the messenger for describing something factually and accurately. He doesn't claim she didn't say no. He says that the court found she didn;t and the court might be wrong. You are entitled to believe the court is wrong, and frankly I tend to feel that way too. But none us "know" what happened.

[Recursion]

60. Thanks, and I'll clarify

If I had to put money on it, I'd guess that the court found wrong, and that she did give sufficient indication to him that the sex was non-consensual. But that's just a total guess that comes from my experience having been a 21-year old in college; I didn't hear the trial. Juries and courts have to make decisions all the time about who is lying when two people flatly contradict each other, and they do get it wrong sometimes. This could well be one of those times. I was only posting what I did because people are acting like the verdict was absurd on its face or self-contradictory; when in fact it laid out a plausible series of events:

1. He entered her room, with her permission, which was illegal
2. He had consensual sex with her, which was illegal.

[onenote]

56. why shoot the messenger

All dmesg did was (on several occasions) point out the following: the court found the woman did not say no. As dmesg said (and I concur) that finding by the court may well be erroneous. He has no way of knowing. Neither do I and neither do you. The only two people who can know that for certain are the woman and the accused. I certainly haven't read the testimony transcript but at least one article I read said that she acknowledged not saying no, but rather resisted by turning her body away from him. She also acknowledged that she was very drunk and apparently blacked out during the event.

As I said, I have no way of knowing what took place. I'm inclined to believe her version and believe further that her resistance, albeit not verbal,was sufficient and thus the sexual contact was not consensual.

But desg doesn't deserve any criticism for his efforts to provide information in this thread in response to a number of posts that seem not to understand (and seem to reflect little inclination to understand) how the result in this case is not irrational (even if it may well be wrong).

[Breeze54]

58. She said she said no!

How do you get that she didn't say no? I didn't read that anywhere in the article!

I know what he's saying and what I'm saying is that he's being "thick-headed"!

snip--> ...she repeatedly rejected his advances

What part of that isn't "No!" ? :shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. The source of "she didn't say no" is the accused.

It's simply one person's word against another's. Either could be lying.

Clearly, *if* she's telling the truth when she says that she repeatedly rejected his advances then it was rape, but we have no way of telling whether it is him or her who is lying.

The balance of probability is that it was rape, I think, simply because there are more genuine rapes than false accusations thereof, but it's by no means a certainty, and that means that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

[SquireJons]

74. As simple as black and white, right?

With six billion people fornicating for their own personal reasons, I'm sure that your very simple statement covers it all. Even my own personal experiences, which don't seem to fit your conclusions. But who am I to contradict such passionate beliefs.

[Breeze54]

85. Are you admitting you have forced yourself on women?

Just because someone isn't reported, doesn't mean it isn't rape!

If you force yourself on a woman, then you are a rapist!

Period!

If you have to force yourself on a woman, then you are a rapist!

No means NO!!!!! Chew on that for awhile!

If you don't understand that; at the first NO!~ that you should get up and walk away?

Then you are an opportunist! A Rapist!

If you have to force yourself on a woman?
YOU ARE A RAPIST!!!!

Fucking a drunken/incapacitated woman is a CRIME of RAPE!!!!

PERIOD!!!!

[SquireJons]

90. Are you just insulting people to get a reaction?

Or is it part of your rape survivors grief therapy? Your posts deserve to be deleted for what you are saying to people here. I'm reminded of the group of women in 'The World According to Garp' who cut their tongues out... you might want to give it a try. How about just your index fingers?

[Odin2005]

36. I'm sure his being a star QB had NOTHING to do with the verdict.

:sarcasm:

[Maine-ah]

37. isn't this like "borrowing" the car

and not asking permission first?

This one is completly baffeling to me. All I got is WTF?!

[ContraBass Black]

47. Or maybe men aren't allowed in women's rooms, and sex while deployed

Isn't allowed either.

Thus, "wrongful."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Ooops! I thought you were my roommate, Frank, that I was raping.

Besides, I'm a quarterback.

[SensibleAmerican]

55. No, it's that men are not allowed to be in the women barracks, regardless

of consent.

[SquireJons]

69. He didn't rape her

I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but nothing I've read about the case leads me to think he raped the woman.

I agree, no means no. But I've dated several women who initially rejected my advances. That's part of the game. Another woman said 'no' to me four times in the same evening, then stopped me from leaving her house each time. Another woman took me by the hand and led me to her bedroom, only to say no when we were naked in bed together, but then kept exciting me all night. Trust me, 'blue balls' are real and they hurt. It will only be 'simple' when women begin to act clearly, responsibly and consistently the same. Of course, that will never happen, so each incident is unique. Young men think with their little heads... women don't think at all when it comes to sex.

Who knows what was said between them? Only they know for certain. Add in a lot of alcohol and it gets pretty ambiguous. Rape is too serious of a charge to be thrown around the way it is today. There is sexual misconduct... and then there is rape. This wasn't rape, and from what I've read, he left the room when she became unresponsive... without actually having sex with her.

[Breeze54]

72. Grow up!

Get a grip! If all those women said no to you, then you should've left.
You are an opportunistic predator and they all sound like they were drunk at the time!
Fucking a drunken woman IS a crime!! Or didn't you know that? :shrug:


Feel better now? :sarcasm:

[SquireJons]

82. Based on your posts here...

I'd say you need counseling.

Of the events I spoke of, no one was drunk. Women simply do not always act the way you think they should. I know of other incidents as told me by women who are friends that were far worse, but since they're not first hand I'll decline to pass them on. You're right, I should have left each of them to wallow in their own lack of honesty. But being young, I stuck it out. One I dated for about nine months, the other I rarely saw again. In neither case did I actually have sex, and I acted far more responsibly then they did. One woman I dated told me she just wanted someone to get her pregnant so he would have to marry her. Then she would get really fat so he'd never want to have sex with her again. My point is that you should not believe women to always be virtuous... some are just whacked. I'd like to advise you not to jump to conclusions or accuse others of being something that they are not... but it would be a waste of time.

If men could accuse women of rape under the circumstances you advocate... most women would be in jail because they do not have the courage to act without a crutch, be it alcohol or deceit. Fortunately, only a tiny fraction of humanity is as phobic as you are about sex. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions, not just men.

[Breeze54]

91. Your words......

"Who knows what was said between them? Only they know for certain. Add in a lot of alcohol and it gets pretty ambiguous. Rape is too serious of a charge to be thrown around the way it is today. There is sexual misconduct... and then there is rape. This wasn't rape, and from what I've read, he left the room when she became unresponsive... without actually having sex with her."

The above are your words.

I am by no means a prude but I do think that if you are a man with an impaired woman,
and you go ahead and have sex with her?
Then you ARE taking advantage of her...as in RAPE!!!

ALCOHOL AND RAPE WHAT'S THE CONNECTION

(adapted from "Acquaintance Rape and Alcohol Consumption on College Campuses,"
by Antonia Abbey, PhD, Journal of American College Health. Vol. 39, January 1991)

http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/alcohol.html


Alcohol use by the victim or perpetrator is frequently associated with acquaintance rape.
In one study, 26 percent of the men who acknowledged committing sexual assault on a date
reported being intoxicated at the time of the assault.
An additional 29 percent reported being "mildly buzzed,"
Thus, a total of 55 Percent were under the influence of alcohol.

In the same study, 21 percent of the college women who experienced sexual aggression
on a date were intoxicated at the time of the assault.
An additional 32 percent reported being "mildly buzzed."
Thus, a total of 53 percent were under the influence of alcohol.


The Effects of Alcohol on Men

Men expect to feel more powerful, sexual and aggressive after drinking alcohol.
Expectancies have power of their own, independent of any genuine physiological
processes. When people expect a certain outcome, they tend to act in ways that
enhance the likelihood that the outcome will occur.
For example, if a man feels powerful and strong after drinking alcohol,
then he is more likely to assert his viewpoints forcefully and to end up
in a verbal or physical argument.

Studies show that men who think they have been drinking alcohol
(whether or not they really have) feel sexually aroused and are more responsive
to erotic stimuli and rape scenarios.

Many studies show that men are more likely than women to interpret a variety of verbal
and nonverbal cues as evidence that a woman is interested in having sex with a man.

For example, males were more likely than females to rate revealing clothing, secluded date locations
such as his room or the beach, drinking alcohol, complimenting a date,
and tickling a date as more indicative of a desire to have sexual intercourse.

The tradition of female reluctance and male persistence makes it easy for men
to ignore the woman's "no" and force sex on a genuinely unwilling partner.



Both the man and the woman might not view this situation as rape.

But if sex occurred without verbal consent, or force was used to obtain sex
against the woman's will, then what happened is legally defined as rape.

[SquireJons]

96. Yup, and I stand by them

Alcohol is the great enabler of women. Without it, 70% of women would be alone because they have no guts. When was the last time you called up a guy you just met and asked him out? When was the last time you took the initiative physically with someone who you had no prior intimacy with (or even with a current boyfriend)? Probably never, which would put you with the vast majority of women in this country. So women drink, not so much to get drunk (like most guys), but to allow themselves to become less inhibited. That increases the likelihood of something happening, good or bad. Most women roll those dice on a regular basis.

Look, I know a lot of guys are selfish jerks who don't know how to act around women. But a lot of women are just as bad, in their own way. Sex is a complicated game, and when people start throwing the word rape around, it sticks to everything. Basically, you've called me a rapist, and not only is that insulting, it's flat out wrong.

Using deceit to get sex is primarily a womans domain, so if evenly applied, women are far more predatory then men. We're just too dumb to figure out a way to get what we want. Women don't know what they want. Who knows, maybe fish really do need bicycles?

[cynatnite]

99. I believe that is the most sexist post I've ever read

Without alcohol 70% of women would be alone because they have no guts? For real??? What's your source? I bet you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

Plenty of women ask men out, take the initiative and drag men to bed. They don't need alcohol to bolster them. They know what they want.

It's been my experience that most men are horny as hell and will take full advantage if they think there is a snowball's chance in hell they will get their rocks off. They'll say 'I love you' and pretty much anything else if it means they will get laid.

And if you think that deceit is primarily a woman's domain, men only have theirselves to blame. Us women learned from men. When women determined that sex wasn't just the men's playground, we learned how to play the same game by the rules the men used.

And any man who says 'Women don't know what they want' is the worst kind of man there is.

[SquireJons]

107. Oh, can get far more sexist

As far as I'm concerned the whole dating game is BS. The only thing men have going for them is strength, but we can't use it. Times were, that we had wealth and stability to offer, but that's nothing these days. Too bad we can't all have a two year headache, maybe things would even up a bit.

As for my statistical source, it is of course subjective, and was meant to be. I base the figure on the hundreds of women I have known since I turned 18 over 27 years ago.

Plenty of women ask men out? Really? You mean there are literally hundreds in America alone? I like to read surveys regarding sex and relationships, and I've seen the question posed many ways, many times. Outside of Cosmo, the figure is less than 5%... ever... in their entire lifetimes. As for dragging men to bed... again, it's just your circle of friends. I'm tempted to use the line from an old SNL skit with Garret Morris... "where are these women? I want phone numbers." But in truth, I don't really care any more. More power to them.

I have no doubt that such brave women do exist, but even they probably act dumb on occasion. One set of female roommates of mine were promiscuous as cats in heat, especially if it involved anyone in a band. But get them talking about someone they really want to date and they became helpless, crying babies.

Plenty of women don't use alcohol to lower their inhibitions? Again... are we talking hundreds or just dozens? Hell, plenty of women don't drink at all or date only other women, but that doesn't change the accuracy of my statement.

BTW... it sounds like you've known some really decent guys in your life. The kind who will say anything to get laid. Considering so many of your girl friends will ask them out and drag them to bed, that hardly seems necessary, but why spoil their fun? Deceit, after all is such an important skill, it must be honed at all times.

You know, I think I'll stick with my circle of friends, the ones who don't know what they want, or think with their little heads on occasion, but maybe haven't learned how to play the game quite so well as others. As for the worst kind of man? Honey, you should go hunting with Dick Cheney and his pals sometime. You need to get out more.

[Breeze54]

103. Let me repeat them for you...your words are...ah...astounding.

Posted by SquireJons at Democratic Underground.com on Saturday July 22nd, 2006

Yup, and I stand by them

Alcohol is the great enabler of women.

Without it, 70% of women would be alone because they have no guts.

When was the last time you called up a guy you just met and asked him out?

When was the last time you took the initiative physically with someone who

you had no prior intimacy with (or even with a current boyfriend)?

Probably never, which would put you with the vast majority of women in this country.

So women drink, not so much to get drunk (like most guys), but to allow themselves

to become less inhibited.

That increases the likelihood of something happening, good or bad.

Most women roll those dice on a regular basis.

Look, I know a lot of guys are selfish jerks who don't know how to act around women.

But a lot of women are just as bad, in their own way.

Sex is a complicated game, and when people start throwing the word rape around, it sticks to everything.

Basically, you've called me a rapist, and not only is that insulting, it's flat out wrong.

Using deceit to get sex is primarily a womans domain,

so if evenly applied, women are far more predatory then men.

We're just too dumb to figure out a way to get what we want.

Women don't know what they want.

Who knows, maybe fish really do need bicycles?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm going to post this far and wide! Thank you for proving me right! ;)

Absolutely astounding!!!

:applause:

[SquireJons]

109. All rhetoric asside...

"I am by no means a prude but I do think that if you are a man with an impaired woman,
and you go ahead and have sex with her?
Then you ARE taking advantage of her...as in RAPE!!!"

The above are your words.

So, if they are both impaired, is she guilty of rape too? What if a guy and a girl go out, and the guy has a couple of beers and she drinks tea. Then they go home and screw, did she rape him? I'm not trying to get your goat here, I'm serious. It seems you advocate a double standard. I think we all know what rape is. If a guy uses force or coercion to have sex, that is rape. I think anything short of that is not. It may be bad, it may be a crime, but it's not rape.

Also, do you believe that an adult man can be raped by a woman?

[TorchTheWitch]

95. And that's the problem

"Young men think with their little heads"

Any young man (or old man for that matter) who is incapable of thinking with the head they keep their brain in needs to be locked up as a danger to society in general. This is such a blatant "the evil bitch enticed me and I couldn't control myself" bullshit argument that only a rapist or potential rapist would actual believe it absolves them of responsibility.

"women don't think at all when it comes to sex"

This is the single most offensive thing I've ever read on this board... or any board. Obviously, you've been humping (or trying to hump) the wrong women. If you truly believe that you have yet to encounter any woman that "doesn't think at all" when it comes to sex than you must seek those kinds of women out on purpose and ignore the rest of us. I honestly pity you.

Your blue balls are YOUR problem. In every one of the personal situations you described you should have left immediately after the first refusal of your advances and either found someone who isn't a nutcase to hump or whacked off. Face it... you ALLOWED those women to "entice" you because you couldn't take "no" for an answer and wanted to fuck them anyway. YOU gave them every opportunity to play games with you, and it's your own damn fault for letting them do it... after all, they CAN'T play games with you if you don't LET them. But apparently, you couldn't just leave at the first "no" because you were too busy thinking with your "little head" that has no brain... obviously, you still are.

[SquireJons]

104. With logic like that, I think I'll stick to talking with kindergartners

What planet are you from? First of all, the whole purpose of testosterone is to help men overcome reluctance and fear. It's SUPPOSED to work that way. So, why not lock all men up? I never advocated 'losing control.' But if you've walked away every time a woman puts up a little resistance, then I'm guessing that you're still a virgin. Sex is the worlds most complicated game, and there is no rule book. It's generally accepted that a man should not use his superior strength (Harlequin novels not withstanding), but other than that I see no pattern of right or wrong. I didn't coin the phrase "all's fair in love and war" but it's ubiquitous.

And you must be a sheltered soul indeed if my comment about women not thinking when it comes to sex is the most offensive post you've ever read. If you'd like, I can link you to far more offensive posts... but I digress.

I'm 45 years old, been married, and I have great relationships with most of the women I've dated, even my ex. Before I got married, I averaged maybe one intimate relationship per every two years... hardly predatory or irresponsible. The women I have been close to are all accomplished, attractive professional women. Some highly successful. Twice I've had female roommates (2 at a time) and count many women as friends over the last 27 years. And none of them think straight when it comes to sex and relationships. None of them have had the courage to say what they wanted - when it counted. None of them took the initiative. I witnessed all of them use alcohol to lower their inhibitions. Most of them took enormous risks with their personal behavior or deliberately put themselves in compromising situations. And I'm not talking about trailer park girls here. My current girlfriend doesn't act that way now, but she's told me of numerous times when she has in the past. Some of us do learn.

Sex is risky business. You risk your self esteem. You risk your health and safety. You risk your future and reputation. So there are good reasons to be overly cautious. In fact, sex is down right stupid. But without it, where would we be? So, these risks must be enjoined... but how? Some have pre arraigned marriages. Some meet in church.

But the rest of us are on our own. Ever wonder why relationship sites are some of the most popular and successful web sites in existence? It's because we are all driven to overcome our hesitancy and lack of intimacy. With men it's pretty straight forward. Find what you want and don't give up. With women it's far more nuanced. Near as I can tell it's something like... find a guy you might want, stand next to him... wait for something to happen. If that doesn't work, get drunk and act stupid. If that still doesn't work, bitch about him to everyone you know. That comes pretty close to 'not thinking at all' in my book, but maybe it all part of the master plan.

I am guilty of thinking with my little head in the past. That and masturbation puts me with the other 95% of the male population. On your planet men either have two brains or one head. Or perhaps your one of the 5% who never succumbed to such foolishness. If so, I'm impressed... and I feel a bit sorry for you. There's much to be learned through sticking your neck out and having it chopped off. Those days are far behind me now, and sometimes I miss them. Life certainly was more exciting, and as far as I know, no one ever felt raped by me. Though I do know of a couple of women who were disappointed that I didn't act so rashly with them... I know this because they told me so.

[Breeze54]

105. OMG!!!!!!!!

SquireJons (604 posts) Sat Jul-22-06 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #95
104. With logic like that, I think I'll stick to talking with kindergartners

"But if you've walked away every time a woman puts up a little resistance, then I'm guessing that you're still a virgin"...

... "other than that I see no pattern of right or wrong"...

"I witnessed all of them use alcohol to lower their inhibitions. Most of them took enormous
risks with their personal behavior or deliberately put themselves in compromising situations.
And I'm not talking about trailer park girls here."

"In fact, sex is down right stupid"...

"With men it's pretty straight forward. Find what you want and don't give up."

"I am guilty of thinking with my little head in the past.
That and masturbation puts me with the other 95% of the male population"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are no words.... holy crap!
Except for the part about women taking enormous risks... being with you!!!

:wtf:

:freak:

[SquireJons]

108. I'm wondering

Are all of your arguments this coherent?

How about...

Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!
Am not!
Are too!!

That and a million bucks just might get you into law school.

[Breeze54]

110. Yawn and a stretch!

:hi: You're boring me.... :puffpiece:

Is that all you've got?

:yoiks:

[SquireJons]

111. You're asking me?

So far, in all of your posts, you've said nothing except "you're all a bunch of rapists."
Plus a little bit of cutting and pasting.
Very intelligent.

[Breeze54]

113. You are a bore!

Does that spell it out for you plain enough?

Y-o-u --- a-r-e -- a -- b-o-r-e!

Is that simple enough for you?


Have a GREAT day!!!!! :yoiks:


Here! Have a :donut:

[KBlagburn]

71. How Could he be court martialed when not in the military?????

He was a midshipman at a military college. You do not become a member of the military until you graduate, at which time you are comissioned an officer. This begs the question, how can they court martial someone not in the military. This should have been tried in a civilan court.


USAF 89-96

[Breeze54]

73. "former Naval Academy quarterback "

He had since been enlisted.
It happened while they were still in the academy.

[KBlagburn]

76. So you are saying....

that he was prior enlisted and went to the acadamy? That would be the only way I could see for a court martial.

[Breeze54]

77. Seems that way! ROTC ring a bell?

:shrug:

[KBlagburn]

83. Being ROTC is NOT the same as being in the military

[Breeze54]

88. Whatever!

I said he might have been in the ROTC!!!

He was/is apparently in the military though!!

Nitpic, nitpic!! Use critical thinking!!

[cynatnite]

78. I might be wrong on this...

but I believe when one enters the academy they sign up for an extended enlistment even if they don't finish.

I believe this individual still has an obligation to the military for some length of time.

[sbj405]

117. Midshipman are considered active duty military, nt

[cynatnite]

75. It's not quite that simple...

My understanding is there are strict guidelines about males and females mixing especially in places like dorms. It's simply not allowed and against regulation.

Plus as far as the rape charge goes...there was probably not been enough evidence to convict.

[Breeze54]

79. I agree! Rape never IS that simple!

Of course white washing it and spraying it with Lysol doesn't change the facts!

When someone says NO!...it means NO! PERIOD!!

I don't care if it IS in the military or on USA's most famous hookers corner!!

No means NO!!!

And it doesn't change any of the facts just because the military doesn't want yet another, BLACK EYE!!!!
:grr:

[cynatnite]

81. I never said she wasn't raped...

I said there was probably not enough evidence to convict. The jury, who saw the evidence, didn't agree with the prosecution.

:shrug: What gives? Why are you so pissed at me?

[Breeze54]

87. I'm not pissed at you.

I'm pissed that a lot of you are ignoring the fact that she "repeatedly" fought him off!
She "repeatedly" said no!

And do not seem to understand that she repeatedly said no to him!
Just because the MALE JURY dismissed what she said, doesn't make them right!! :crazy:

ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY!!!!

Please scroll up.

This one!!
Marie26 (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-22-06 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #45
68. Perhaps this is part of the reason?


Another person posted more details of this fiasco/trial and it looks like a scam/sham!
A cover-up! A 'white-wash'!

It isn't passing the smell test, IMHO!

[cynatnite]

89. Everything was done by the book...

From what I can read and going through the responses, everything was done as it should be.

The jury didn't have enough to convict the guy for rape. He may have raped her, but the evidence does not support that.

She says she said no and he says it was consensual. If the physical evidence didn't support her claim the jury had no choice but to aquit.

In the Army, an officer and an enlisted person can be court-martialed for having consensual sex. It's against regulation. Depending on the rank, the chain of command, the location and a few other factors, males can also be charged for entering the room of a female even if she allows it.

What's bad about this is the military's history in regards to sexual harrassment and rape. They've performed poorly in the past and have come a long way in rectifying the problem. More work still needs done, but they are taking it far more seriously than they ever did.

[Breeze54]

93. I already read and understood their excuses!

They've performed poorly in the past and have come a long way in rectifying the problem

What a JOKE!! :rofl:
They are STILL doing badly and calling this a 'room infraction' or whatever
they're calling it to "get rid of it"---- is bogus bullshit!!

You and I both know that!!! Let's get REAL here!!!

[cynatnite]

94. I spent four years in the army...

I know exactly how it was.

When the Army began cracking down on sexual harrassment it went over like a lead balloon. Women had to put up with a hell of a lot of shit just for reporting sexual harrassment. I could tell you some horror stories. It wasn't until towards the end of my enlistment that more officers and NCO's began taking it seriously and started clamping down.

Before, women had to endure while the men got away scott free. That's not the case now. Sexual harrassment and rape still happens in the military just as it does in the civilian sector. What's helped is that the military takes it more seriously.

The rules in regards to dorms and rooms are there for a reason. It avoids a whole host of problems such as sexual harrassment claims and other incidents such as this one. There will always be one asshole out of thousand who ignores the rules.

As with any justice system, it's not perfect.

The problem here is you don't like the verdict.

[Breeze54]

98. Female Soldiers Treated 'Lower Than Dirt'

Female Soldiers Treated 'Lower Than Dirt'

The case of Suzanne Swift reveals that women deployed in the Middle East are facing
rape, abuse and sexual harassment -- from their own comrades-in-arms

http://www.alternet.org/story/38942/

Female Soldiers Treated 'Lower Than Dirt'

By Rose Aguilar, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2006

U.S. Army Specialist Suzanne Swift will spend her 22nd birthday tomorrow confined
to the Fort Lewis base in Washington, where she is awaiting the outcome of an
investigation into allegations that she was sexually harassed and assaulted by three
sergeants in Iraq.

Swift says the sergeants propositioned her for sex shortly after arriving for her first
tour of duty in February 2004. She remained in Iraq until February 2005.

"When you are over there, you are lower than dirt; you are expendable as a soldier in general,
and as a woman, it's worse," said Swift in a recent interview with the Guardian.

When Swift's unit redeployed to Iraq in January 2006, she refused to go and instead stayed
with her mother in Eugene, Ore.
She was eventually listed as AWOL, arrested at her mother's home on June 11,
sent to county jail and transferred to Fort Lewis.

"She's miserable and isolated," says Sara Rich, Swift's mother.'
"It's not good to have an idle mind while you're dealing with PTSD and sexual trauma.
I want them to release her so I can get her the care she needs. I'm tired of waiting."

A colonel outside of Swift's chain of command is investigating the case, but Rich says
she has been given little information with no time frame.
"I believe they're trying to break her down using fear and intimidation."

MUCH more at link!!!! :grr:

----------------------

How DARE you assume or try to define MY OUTRAGE?!?!?!
:grr:

When my son was deployed in Jan. '05?
Two women, one a wife and one a girlfriend, of the soldiers that were deployed,

were raped!!!

Don't you DARE try to 'put me in my place'!

RAPE IS A REALITY FOR MANY WOMEN!!
Your inability to even recognize it's existance is pathetic!
You are wrong!
I detest the deck stacked against women in general!

And so should you!

[cynatnite]

101. Uh...you do know I'm a woman, don't you?

I know exactly how women were treated in the military. I was one of them. I was one of the women that was singled out in front of an entire platoon of men for reporting sexual harrassment by my squad leader. I was active duty when the military began clamping down on sexual harrassment. I know exactly how the men in the military acted as a result. I got to know it first hand.

I worked in two army hospitals. Should I just pull out the horror stories one by one?

I still don't get why you're pissed at me? Rape will never be completely stopped in the military any more than it will in the civilian sector. The best anyone can do is to do their best to prevent it.

As a woman, I do get pissed at how we're treated by men. That's not just a sentiment for the military. That's everywhere. Women are still second class citizens, but we're still human, too. I'm not blind to the failings of other women who have harmed us and our desire to be treated equally.

All I can do is the best I can and hope my daughters have an easier time of it than I did.

[Breeze54]

102. Maybe it's the guys face in your avatar!?

:rofl:

Then; if you have 'been' there,
Why did I get the distinct impression that you're defending them??

You deserve better and I am on your side!!

Are you in denial? I don't get it...apparently!

I didn't know if you were a man or a woman.
I read your words. I responded to the words only.

What does that matter? :shrug:

I'm really sorry you had to go through that horseshit!
It's despicable!

Bottom line is rape is rape. Period!
None of the perps should be given a pass!
But it seems that women are dismissed on that account quite regularly!

THAT pisses me off, to no end! :nuke: Can't you tell?

But I'm not pissed at YOU, as a person.
I guess I was pissed at what you said or my interpretation of what you said.

I'll have to re-read it all in the morning over my coffee.

PEACE!

[jberryhill]

123. Question

Do I understand correctly that if she had said it was consensual, then she would also be charged with an offense?

[cynatnite]

125. If it was consensual, she could be charged, too.

Hard to say whether or not that'll happen.

[Bluebear]

92. He FELL into her vagina! Honest!

:eyes:

[Hidden Stillness]

97. This is the Same Thing They Always Do

I am not even slightly surprised that the rapist was acquitted in a military court, and it has no relation to the evidence or the strength of the victim's case. I don't believe there is a single example of a male member of the armed forces or a military academy who has ever been convicted of rape by a military court, for an attack on a woman fellow-member of the armed forces or fellow Academy-member. If anyone knows of a case, I would like to know. What happens is, as here, evidence that supports the victim--such as medical reports!--is kept out, and you end up with weird verdicts that show that they know very well what happened, but will never convict "one of their own" of rape. It will be "not guilty" on rape, then guilty on harrassment, or making threats (recent Beth Davis case), or as here, breaking into her room, which makes no sense.

In a strange, totally biased article called "Drinking habits of accuser raised," http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155AP_Academy_Sexual_Assault.html , there is this: "The woman bringing the charges has completed her third year at the academy. She testified that Owens entered her room as she slept Jan. 29 and forced himself on her. She has testified that she resisted. She also said she had consumed eight drinks, including shots, and blacked out briefly while he was in her room." "She testified that Owens entered her room as she slept...and forced himself on her.." I don't know what the hell evidence these prick "judges" were waiting for, but obviously nothing would have mattered. The article showed the bizarre unprofessionalism of the "trial," with "witnesses" making sweeping, prejudicial, hearsay statements against her--one actually said, "She was usually incredibly drunk," and this crap was allowed to stand--that did not even stick to the night of the attack, and that were just strange personal slurs, but it all counted as "evidence" in this strange world. They claimed she was often drunk, yet she has now successfully completed her third year at the academy in this viciously hostile atmosphere, so she is obviously not "usually incredibly drunk" or she would have been gone, (and of course we all know that males never get drunk, which was probably why this was so memorable to them). Whether or not she was drunk became a central charge against her, by the rape supporters--yet she was asleep at the time in her own bed! What possible sense does this make?

Military courts are extremely hostile places for women to try to seek justice, much worse than civilian courts, and with very different rules. Read the recent outrageous case involving the rape victim Beth Davis, who testified so movingly at the House Subcommittee chaired by Republican Christopher Shays, http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-06-30-voa22.cfm . This was yet another case where the male military system took the facts of her case, and turned them around on her, so that the rape attack against her, became "fraternizing," etc. Only because several other women had been raped by this same sociopath, did the Air Force Academy finally end up removing the attacker, as her own career was ruined, branded as a "troublemaker." She testified that the atmosphere of military academies is that it is a male club, that women are hated and not wanted there, and that the attitude is that they would prefer it if every woman left. This hearing was played several times on C-SPAN2 recently, about 5 hours, and is worth listening to, even as it is very painful, because it really exposes the still-pervasive attitude of male hate. They have corrected nothing; it is another world.

[Breeze54]

100. Thank you for this research

and for posting it. :thumbsup:
I'm astounded at the indifference to the victims here.
I thought this was a 'progressive democratic messageboard.' :shrug:

Seems it is for some but not all....

:hug:

[madeline_con]

106. "... wrongfully engaged in consensual sex"

:yoiks:

[jberryhill]

126. ANY sex between midshipmen at the Naval Academy is "wrongful"

They aren't allowed to have sex. ANY sex.

If it was consensual, it was STILL an offense.

Ditto being in the room of a member of the opposite sex.

Why is that hard to understand?

[sbj405]

114. Doors are not locked at USNA

He didn't need to kick in the door or jimmy the lock.