Rape victim murders rapist

Madam_X

pathtohome wrote: »

it was part of a wife's role to provide sex for her husband whenever he wanted

The good old days eh?

Madam_X

Scioch wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Oh read his previous posts - I didn't pluck that view of him from thin air.

Biggins

pathtohome wrote: »

...Back when men and women were rightly seen as different with different roles (unlike now)...

If the sexism in that statement don't stick out to you, your a lost cause!

pathtohome wrote: »

...it was part of a wife's role to provide sex for her husband whenever he wanted, so a law against marital rape was senseless and unneeded.

Past or present - it (lack of a law against marital rape) and you are still wrong in my opinion!

wonderboysam

you could say he.....

:cool:

lost his head




YEAHHHHHHH!

Scioch

Madam_X wrote: »

Oh read his previous posts - I didn't pluck that view of him from thin air.

I missed the word "rightly" in his post. Thought he was just describing it in relation to the view of the time. I apologise sincerely.

Madam_X

Scioch wrote: »

I missed the word "rightly" in his post. Thought he was just describing it in relation to the view of the time. I apologise sincerely.

Heh, no need to apologise.

pathtohome

B0jangles wrote: »

So just because there wasn't a law on the books explicitly saying that a man forcing his wife to have sex against her will is rape, then it wasn't rape?

It was just part of the proper "different with different roles" attitudes in this country?

You're a real piece of work.

The difference which brought about the new law is that now women are refusing their husbands sex. They didn't used to, neither do they still in many other parts of the world.

pathtohome

Biggins wrote: »

If the sexism in that statement don't stick out to you, your a lost cause!

It's sexist to claim that men and women are different in your liberal fascist opinion.

Biggins

pathtohome wrote: »

The difference which brought about the new law is that now women are refusing their husbands sex. They didn't used to, neither do they still in many other parts of the world.

1. Who says "They didn't used to" ??? Care to back that up?
History has shown that there was many a very strong willed woman around at various times!

2.

pathtohome wrote: »

...neither do they still in many other parts of the world.

LOL

Care to back that crap up also?

Jump into your time machine and prove all this to us when you return?

If you do jump into that time machine and go back - stay there, you belong there.

B0jangles

pathtohome wrote: »

It's sexist to claim that men and women are different in your liberal fascist opinion.

In my liberal fascist opinion you are a disgusting excuse for a human being.

pathtohome

Biggins wrote: »

1. Who says "They didn't used to" ??? Care to back that up?
History has shown that there was many a very strong willed woman around at various times!

2.

LOL

Care to back that crap up also?

Jump into your time machine and prove all this to us when you return?

If you do jump into that time machine and go back - stay there, you belong there.

Both points are common knowledge.

There are traditional women and modern women. Circa 1960s, all women were traditional worldwide. Then, in the Western world a ferocious disease started to spread. This disease was named feminism. It crippled women's identities and made them into emotional wrecks. It made them despise sex - have many random sexual partners in youth, but when they get married they lose interest in sex. This disease has not spread in many parts of the world, where women are still traditional.

KingK

All Turks should have thier heads cut off

Biggins

pathtohome wrote: »

Both points are common knowledge.

There are traditional women and modern women. Circa 1960s, all women were traditional worldwide. Then, in the Western world a ferocious disease started to spread. This disease was named feminism. It crippled women's identities and made them into emotional wrecks. It made them despise sex - have many random sexual partners in youth, but when they get married they lose interest in sex. This disease has not spread in many parts of the world, where women are still traditional.

LOL
Your funny!

...I think!

Micky Dolenz

pathtohome wrote: »

Both points are common knowledge.

There are traditional women and modern women. Circa 1960s, all women were traditional worldwide. Then, in the Western world a ferocious disease started to spread. This disease was named feminism. It crippled women's identities and made them into emotional wrecks. It made them despise sex - have many random sexual partners in youth, but when they get married they lose interest in sex. This disease has not spread in many parts of the world, where women are still traditional.

Banned

Trolling AH ain't big or clever.

midlandsmissus

pathtohome wrote: »

The fact that "marital rape wasn't even recognised in this country until 1990" gives zero implication that rape in the past wasn't considered more of a crime than it is now. Back when men and women were rightly seen as different with different roles (unlike now) it was part of a wife's role to provide sex for her husband whenever he wanted, so a law against marital rape was senseless and unneeded.

It's scary that you seem to be agreeing with it, 'rightly seen as different'.

As I always say lack of empathy keeps these things going. Only when you (and I mean everyone) can truly put yourself in another's shoes and see the fear and hurt it inflicts would everybody stop doing it to anyone.

And the only way to see what it does is to imagine it happening to you for a minute.

When you said above 'it was her duty to provide sex whenever he wanted'...Imagine a person stronger than you totally disregarding your wishes, or thinking of you as a human being at all, no sense of humanity whatsoever for you,because he wants his sexual needs satisfied. Imagine the destruction that does to some-one.

That's the worst part of rape and what causes long lasting consequences, the person didn't see you or treat you as human. How can you see yourself as human?

I'm not saying you said you agreed with the above, just that it's v.important to get posts like this out there, to make people think from the other side.

Stop rape now. And the first step to stopping it is to talk about it. Suffering breeds in silence.

midlandsmissus

Scioch wrote: »

Your going on as if its been ignored and its becoming more common because of that. The way society deals with rape is to prosecute and jail those who do it same as every other crime.

We are not at crisis point and whats happening now is no different than what happened last year or the year before. The shambles of a justice system means criminals of all sorts get too lenient of sentences.

No Scioch,they don't.

Just take two of the cases I mentioned in my last post for example. The girl took to Twitter to name and shame her rapists because they got off scott free. And the man who assaulted the woman in Dublin got an extremely light sentence it was presumed because he was wealthy.

And these our the few cases that get to court.

Look up statistics. Any stats will back me up that only a tiny number of people get prosecuted as the justice system now stands. If we had a better system in place and there was a real threat of these guys going to jail, this wouldn't happen as much.

gosuckonalemon

hairyprincess wrote: »

What say you? Was she right or wrong?

I would be of the belief that nobody has the right to take anothers life but in this case the bollix deserved everything he got. It's just too bad that it is her on trial and not him.



Full story here:

http://news.sky.com/story/982183/rape-victim-shot-and-beheaded-attacker

Why didn't she have an abortion?

NegativeCreep

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No Scioch,they don't.

Just take two of the cases I mentioned in my last post for example. The girl took to Twitter to name and shame her rapists because they got off scott free. And the man who assaulted the woman in Dublin got an extremely light sentence it was presumed because he was wealthy.

And these our the few cases that get to court.

Look up statistics. Any stats will back me up that only a tiny number of people get prosecuted as the justice system now stands. If we had a better system in place and there was a real threat of these guys going to jail, this wouldn't happen as much.

They didn't get off scott free and they were minors which meant that legally she wasn't allowed name them. just wanted to point that out.

Scioch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No Scioch,they don't.

Just take two of the cases I mentioned in my last post for example. The girl took to Twitter to name and shame her rapists because they got off scott free. And the man who assaulted the woman in Dublin got an extremely light sentence it was presumed because he was wealthy.

And these our the few cases that get to court.

Look up statistics. Any stats will back me up that only a tiny number of people get prosecuted as the justice system now stands. If we had a better system in place and there was a real threat of these guys going to jail, this wouldn't happen as much.

The case of the guy buying his way out of time is being appealed by the DPP as far as I know.

The girl hitting twitter to name and shame I'm not familiar with but if they were not convicted then the evidence cant have been very substantial.

What do the statistics show ? That not many men accused of rape are convicted ? Whats that prove ? Lack of evidence ? Bad investigations ? Unwarranted accusations ? You dont know.

The system is a joke in its sentencing of violent criminals its true but thats across the board. Rapists are not alone in getting a good deal so I dont see how it stands alone as an issue or more of an issue as it was. The attitude towards it isnt wrong, its viewed as a serious crime and dealt with accordingly when the evidence is there to convict.

up for anything

Piste wrote: »

I think it was a disproportionate reaction and not right that she murdered him,

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Does anyone actually think that rape is worse than murder? Can't get me head around that.

It seems to me that in this case, rape was murder, because once people found out that she'd been with a man other than her husband and was pregnant to boot, that her life was over either by revenge killing or by being outcast. Her rapist would know that for her the end result of the rapes becoming public would be a death sentence for her. So for her to kill him isn't such a disproportionate reaction, in my view.

Scruffles wrote: »

there does seem to be some planning behind what she did because she had planned what she was goinng to do and was waiting for him to arrive,

Where did you get that information that she'd planned it from? It hasn't mentioned that in any report I read. This is as much of any of them recounted. It seems to me reading it that it was pretty much a spur of the moment attack and that once she'd started she lost the run of herself and couldn't stop.

On Aug. 28, Yildirim claims spotted Gider climbing up a wall behind her house and grabbed a rifle that was hanging on the wall.

"I knew he was going to rape me again," Yildirim said at an Aug. 30 preliminary hearing.

Yildirim allegedly shot Gider twice and chased him from her property. She claimed in court he was armed at the time.

"He fell on the ground. He started cussing," she said. "I shot his sexual organ this time. He became quiet. I knew he was dead. I then cut his head off."

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Why didn't she have an abortion?

Yildirim reportedly went to a health clinic for an abortion before the killing but was turned away because she was 14 weeks pregnant at the time. In Turkey, abortion is only permitted during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

MOC88

Didn't read the article but I think she was right - why is it always that some people are more worried about the lunatic who wants to rape? Will anyone ever try to rape her again - I'd seriously doubt it - If it happened in every instance of rape I think rape would become a non-issue

It is a bit ironic that we are encouraged to be active in our communities, help make it a better place- take personal responsibility to rectify things that aren't our problem but in the case of taking personal responsibility for being a victim and trying to do something about it is seen as the incorrect thing.

I say well done to her - she should have stuck the head on a pike and waved it around the place. She stood up for herself and ensured she wasn't a victim

midlandsmissus

I know these are extreme cases, but they are important to talk about and not be ignored.


Some reasons why rape could be said to be worse than murder.


Why are we living in a world where this is happening?



http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/witness#rwanda



One survivor, who was gang-raped and beaten unconscious, “woke up only to witness the killing of people all around her.” With the pain of what happened to her still affecting her daily life and ability to work, 10 years later, she told London-based NGO African Rights:

“I regret that I didn’t die that day. Those men and women who died are now at peace whereas I am still here to suffer even more. I’m handicapped in the true sense of the word. I don’t know how to explain it. I regret that I’m alive because I’ve lost my lust for life. We survivors are broken-hearted. We live in a situation which overwhelms us. Our wounds become deeper every day. We are constantly in mourning.”

Bosnia

Mirsada, aged 17, spoke to a women’s group of her extreme abuse in a rape camp. Her story was printed in a 1993 Los Angeles Times article:

"The White Eagles would come to get us every night. They would bring us back in the morning. There were nights when more than 20 of them came. That seemed to be some kind of honor. They did all kinds of things to us. It cannot be described, and I don't want to remember. We had to cook for them, and serve them, naked. They raped and slaughtered some girls right in front of us. Those who resisted had their breasts cut.

“There were women from various towns and villages. There were more than 1,000 of us. I spent more than four months in that camp. It is a nightmare that cannot be talked about, or described, or understood.

“One night, our Serbian neighbor's brother helped 12 of us escape. They caught two of us. We spent days hiding in the forest, in improvised underground shelters, and we managed to get away. If it hadn't been for him, I wouldn't have survived. I would have killed myself, because death is not as horrible as the treatment I suffered. I cannot talk about that.

“Sometimes I think that I will go crazy and that the nightmare will never end. Every night in my dreams I see the face of Stojan, the camp guard. He was the most ruthless among them. He even raped 10-year-old girls, as a delicacy. Most of those girls didn't survive. They murdered many girls, slaughtered them like cattle.

“I want to forget everything. I cannot live with these memories. I will go insane.”