Is Kobe Bryant admitting to rape?

hrm, i can buy that

 

Sorry, but I haven't been here before I signed up. However, like I said, I have read through some of the threads here, you know, not a difficult thing to do. It pays to do research, you know. I think it's pretty stupid on your part accusing people of being someone else, but I guess that's just part of the you operate and I'm sure you'll go running of to Skip now to try to get me banned.

 

Cool. We are communicating.


There is a type of rapist (of the five or so types) which Bryant fits well. It is known as the "Power Assurance Rapist." A rapist who not only feels the need to be in control, (as they all do) but to somehow have the delusion that the womyn DID consent. These rapists are actually harder to understand for those of us who are familiar with the Humiliation-power-aggression rapists. These men DO use power and humilate and aggress, but they think they are doing something the victim enjoys and consented to, or at least that is what they vehemently claim, even after conviction.

Here is a profile of one "Power Assurance Rapist" which is similar to Bryant.

These men are some of the least common of the CONVICTED rapists. Often because they may be seen as worthy of sympathy by the press and or the jury and judge.

In contrast the other types are:

POWER RAPIST: He is insecure, may fear impotence or doubt his own masculinity. He often compensates for feelings of inadequacy by controlling another person. The rapist thinks that women like to be raped and often dates the women prior to the assault, and may even ask for a date afterward. The rape doesn't fulfill his needs, so he plans another rape to compensate. This kind of rapist does not plan to physically injure his victim.

ANGER RAPIST: Needs retaliation for an imagined wrong or loss; usually feels conflict with someone other than the victim. His assaults are often unplanned, explosive outbursts directed toward random, vulnerable women. He considers sex debasing and revolting. He vents rage, may beat the victim, force her into degrading acts or use abusive language during the assault. He may have a history of aggressive violence crimes.

SADISTIC RAPIST: Seeks revenge and punishment of another person by intentional violence and cruelty. The victim may be symbolic of the source of his anger. He plans the assault carefully and deliberately. He uses bizarre, ritualistic violence with indignities accompanied by explicit abusive acts. Serial murder/rapes are usually of the sadistic type. Most likely to eventually start murdering his victims. All though all rapists are capable of this act also. Ted Bundy was one of these.

ACQUAINTANCE RAPIST: Most would not define their actions as rape, viewing their behavior as normal. In their minds, they are carrying out the roles of male/female interaction where the male is aggressive while the female is passive and plays hard to get. 84% of those raped know their attacker. 1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met with legal definitions of rape or attempted rape. 75% of the men and 55% of the women involved in acquaintance rape has been drinking or taking drugs just before the attack.

GANG RAPE: Men who participate in gang rape experience a special bond with the other participants. They might never have committed the crime on their own. They get a "unity of purpose that comes from the pride they feel in reducing their victim to nothing more than a collective vessel for their 'masculinity'." 78% of perpetrators involved in gang rapes are under 20 years old. The group leader is often the first to rape.

(note. There is NO “lust type!”)


More stats:


Rape and Sexual Assault

Rape is an act of violence and power, never an act of sex.

Rapists use sexual organs, sexual overtones, and the act of sex to perpetrate the crime. Rape is the second most feared crime, murder being the first.
Rapists want to humiliate and degrade as well as physically injure their victim.
For every reported rape, 10 others go unreported.
One out of four females will be sexually assaulted before they reach 18 years of age.
80% of victims are under the age of 30.
42% of the offenders are over 30; 32% are 21 to 29 years old.
In 9 out of 10 cases (this varies according to study,) the victim knew the offender as a family members, spouse, or acquaintance.
6 out of 10 rapes occur in the victim's home or at the home of a friend, relative, or neighbor.
Time of day is not a factor.
Taking the facts for rapes in Kentucky (where this study was done,) a typical rape occurs in February and involves a 14-17 year old Caucasian female victim and a 38 year old Caucasian male who was known to the victim, but not their immediate family.
Victims are equally distributed among African American and Caucasians. 88% of victims and offenders were of the same race; offenders rarely cross racial lines.
Race or ethnicity of the female victim is not associated with risk.

 

First of all, you have no proof that he raped anyone; this is an assumption on your part.

Secondly, saying that he has "the delusion that the womyn [sic] DID consent" is quite dubious. In essence, it legitimizes false-rape allegations. If a man has consentual sex with a woman who later accuses him of rape, it can simply be alleged that he's a "Power Assurance Rapist". It sounds to me like this is an attempt by feminists to cover all the bases so that EVERY man who is accused of rape is automatically deemed guilty.

 

Notice how it's only when someone grudgingly agrees with you. Communication is a two way thing--it means that you too have acknowledge the opinions of others. Much of the conflict here is due to your own inability to acknowledge that perhaps your own beliefs are incorrect and unfounded. For your own sake, I think this is something you need to work on.

 

excuses, excuses....everything is a feminist issue with you, isn't it?

You know, racists groups like the NA try to use intellectual arguments and statistics to back up their beliefs, but no matter how they reword things, they are still racist pigs. You can sit here and belittle people, and try to cut them down by pretending to be non-biased, but your arguments are still transparent...you are sexist, no matter how hard you try to hide it. Nothing you say holds any value, because you can so easily dismiss someone elses argument just by accusing them of being a man-hating feminist...even when they're not. You're not here to learn, you are only interested in being right.

 

what is NA?

 

I think she means AN, or Aryan Nation. I'm not a white supremist, so I'm not familiar with the movement, though, so it could be something else, more obscure.

 

ah, thanks...

i googled NA and i got narcotics anonymous, i figured that wasnt right ;p

 

The same could be said for feminists as well. Sure anyone can use statistics etc. to back up what they believe, and I think even the use of statistics by academics is always fraught with problems, so basically what you're saying is useless, unless you care to actually look at the statistics are provided, and verify for yourself whether or not they are valid. And that's exactly what people have done with statistics relating to domestic violence, for instance. Feminists used findings from a number of prominent studies to show that a certain percentage of women were victims of domestic violence. What they failed to do, however, is indicate that these studies also showed that women were equally likely to commit domestic violence against men. Now why would that be? It's like you said--feminists make themselves out to legitimate through the use of intellectual arguments and the use of statistics, but in fact they're sexist pigs. They willfully ignored and/or downplayed the true nature of domestic violence to further their own agenda. Moreover, if you'd actually care to read much of the feminist "literature" you'll find that they have minimal to no sourcing, and much of the sourcing leads back to other feminist tracts, many of which are founded more on opinion than on fact. Incidently, feminists--an Maggie Sugar has done this on occasion--basically refers to anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to hers a mysoginist. So essentially, the accusations that you've levelled against me, are more applicable to feminists. As for me "interested in being right"--I'm concerned about about the truth, and that's about all.

 

Quote: What they failed to do, however, is indicate that these studies also showed that women were equally likely to commit domestic violence against men.

Your girl knocking you around again Morphy? I'm sure its happened, but I' m not taking it seriously....can't be much of a problem.

 

two of the men that my ex worked would frequently show up to work beat to hell. they'd been taught properly not to hit women, but unfortunately their wives were not taught so well. the wives were sisters, btw. these bitches would get crazy, start hitting with bats, fists, kniives, all sorts of shit. it was really hard for them to be taken seriously, being men and all. both men are now divorced, though the continued harassment is a real problem. slashed tires, broken windows, and restraining orders do nothing, especially since the cops won't take them seriously that these tiny, pretty little women are so fucking psycho. when i worked for a bail bondsman, this couple came in, and they were known for beating the crap out of each other. thankfully, this time, they were both arrested. coming from a violent mother, i know that men get beat up by their spouses, but it's not reported as much because they're men and few take them seriously, including women.

 

I say that if a woman comes at you with a bat or chain, that you simply punch her in the face! i know women can get psycho too....

 

It's the national alliance. They're a racist group that relies on "science" to prove that white people are are supreme to all other races, as far as evolution is concerned. They word their shit in such a way that people get pulled into their bullshit, http://www.natvan.com/

One of the statements on their homepage:

"The National Alliance is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or world view. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from Alliance ideology."

That tends to draw more people in than the usual "we hate niggers, care to join us?" line. But they're still just as racist as any redneck inbred KKK freaks. LOL, but that's another thread altogether.........

 

Then why didn't you just write "National Alliance". Well, whatever the case, your not making any kind of profound statement. They're simply doing what has to be done in order to appeal to people in a society that has a high level of education. But ultimately, they only appeal to people who already harbour sentiments that make them susceptable to these sorts of arguments, and so I don't think that articulation plays as an important role as you suggest. But the issue here is what you're saying about me. You claim that I'm doing the same thing as they are. But basically you can say that about anyone who has an opinion about a certain topic. Equating me with a racist organization, then, is nothing less than an attempt to dismiss my opinions, because you are incapable of refuting it with your own arguments, and because you refuse to interpret for yourself any statistics that I may have presented.