Rape: The Megathread

come on ABS, debate so i can join in. Your a teacher, this should be easy for you to articulate your opinions
 
Until James points out where I made the claim that he wants me to defend, he can just go screw himself. I refuse to acknowledge strawmen.
 
James R said:
Sorry for more legalese, but what a court would do is to ask "Would a reasonable person, in the position of the accused, have thought that the victim was consenting to sex in these particular circumstances?"

The law does not get more specific than that, because to make an exhaustive list of 1 million different sets of circumstances is obviously impractical and still wouldn't cover all situations that actually arise. Instead, what the law does is to ask disinterested observers (such as a judge or jury) to consider the cirumstances as objectively as they can and draw their own conclusions about whether consent existed or not.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize, I am quite comfortable with "legalese". In fact, once we get past civics 101, we may get to the substantive matters. What would a "reasonable person" have thought? This is the topic I am trying to draw upon here. Without explicitly quoting the remainder of your post, let me touch upon one of your points. I do not know where you live, or even exactly how the sexual abuse laws read where I live, I do know this: If someone misrepresents their age to a bartender, including furnishing an ID, and they are really underage, the server / establishment is liable. The "burden of proof" (sorry for the legalese) is, practically speaking, on the defendant here. In fact, the authorities participate in "sting" operations just to prosecute these establishments. Are we now left to exact these same standards on individuals? Individuals that "just want to get laid"? Previous colloquialism raised at the peril of getting slammed, once again.

Again, IMHO, the laws are getting out of hand. We need to take a step back and reevaluate in the light of "reasonableness". Kind of similar to the "Reefer madness" of the 40's - 70's. I mean, get a grip people. No one, errr, I'm sorry, I am not advocating "rape", whatever that means today. I am advocating common sense. Your thoughts?
 
angrybellsprout said:
Until James points out where I made the claim that he wants me to defend, he can just go screw himself. I refuse to acknowledge strawmen.
Click to expand...


This is not going to happen, ABS. Either you never claimed it, or James, for his own reasons is not going to point it out. Accept it...
 
I announce that there is a Formal Debate on the topic "That sex without consent is always rape" in the Formal Debates forum.

[thread=82799]Debate thread[/thread] (agreed participants only)
[thread=82800]Discussion thread[/thread] (if you wish to discuss the debate).
 
angrybellsprout said:
I'm sorry but I must have missed the NOW protests regarding this cause?

Maybe you could offer up some important names of 'feminists' that were out there doing what you're claiming?
Click to expand...

Me for one. What? Still can't accept the fact that your fellow male brothers hold such archaic views? Can't even address it or them?

Do feminist groups tend to stay silent on the issue? Yes. Most certainly and disappointingly. But on an individual basis, I know of many feminists who work actively in pushing for equal treatment and protection of children, regardless of their sex. As a feminist myself, I am quite active in trying to change the attitude that exists amongst males regarding abuse and sexual assaults and rapes against males.

But here is something I don't understand. Why is it that it is usually male judges who hand down such disgusting findings?

Pamela Diehl-Moore, a former teacher who repeatedly had sexual relations with a male student when she was 40 and he was 13, was sentenced to probation by Judge Bruce Gaeta. What drew public attention was not the light sentence but the comments made by the judge in explaining it. "It's just something between two people that clicked beyond the teacher-student relationship," Judge Gaeta said. "I really don't see the harm that was done, and certainly society doesn't need to be worried."

It's almost pointless to add that such a reaction would be unthinkable if the sexes were reversed. In 1993 in Virginia, a male teacher who had sex wit h three teenage female students was sentenced to 26 years in prison - while the next day, a female swimming coach who had an "affair" with an 11-year-old boy and sexual encounters with two others got 30 days.

To many men's rights advocates, this double standard reflects an egregious form of political correctness: the refusal to take seriously the victimization of a male by a female perpetrator. (Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is seen very differently.)

But there are those - such as Bill Maher, host of the soon-to-be-extinct television show "Politically Incorrect" - who see political correctness gone mad on the other side. What's ridiculous, they say, is not that grown women who have sex with underage boys are punished less severely than male offenders, it's that the women are punished at all. They scoff at a fixation on gender neutrality which has supposedly led us to ignore basic differences between men and women, such as the "fact" that men and boys are always after sex.

Judge Gaeta seemed to endorse this view when he commented that sex with the teacher might have been an opportunity for the boy to "satisfy his sexual needs."

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

In this instance, the bias against male victims stems from traditional sex stereotypes, not feminist ones. Indeed, before the feminist push for gender-neutral laws in the 1970s, sexual contact between a woman and an underage male did not legally qualify as statutory rape in most states.

By Cathy Young
Click to expand...

I disagree with the silence from many feminists groups. But I stand with the individuals who strive to make an actual difference. Something you seem unable to understand. I have two sons and frankly the thought that one of their teachers could sexually abuse them makes me sick to my stomach. And the thought that that particular teacher could get a lighter sentence because of her sex makes me damned angry. I was angry about it before I had children and I am even more angry now.

Personally, I don't give a crap what sex you happen to be. If you rape someone, you have committed a crime and belong in jail. Now, it appears you seem to have some difficulty in comprehending what constitutes a rape and what does not. Or more to the point, you have issues with understand consent. Sadly, you fail at comprehension in that regard as well since it has been explained in detail by many in this and other threads. But hey, if it comforts you to only see the world as you think it is, so be it. Keep those blinkers on lest you are actually confronted by reality.
 
Savage, indeed.

Kadark the Savage said:

In that video, the ugly, spoiled skank was nagging the ogre for an expensive (12 G's!) ring, and it's considered "okay" by your hypocritical standards. However, if a guy nags a girl to have sex, he's automatically a "rapist".
Click to expand...

And?

I mean, seriously, Kadark, you're going to compare spending money on a shitty piece of jewelry in order to impress a girl you don't really like? Didn't seem to me like that dude was, either.

However, presuming you do, how do you get pregnant from buying jewelry? Or catch a disease like herpes, gonorrhea, or AIDS?

Given that you're comparing the spending of money to having an erect penis repeatedly jammed into your body, Kadark, I think it would be enlightening if you explained for us how these acts are similar. Certainly, you would not be so fallacious as to make such a comparison when you have no experience with someone else's penis inside your body. So tell us from your well-experienced possession about the similarities between getting fucked in the proverbial and literal contexts.

Does a guy really deserve to serve a twenty-year jail term for nagging his wife to have sex?
Click to expand...

Depends on the jurisdiction. In the State of Washington, for instance, if such a rape could be prosecuted, it would probably be rape in the third degree (RCW 9A.44.060), which is subject to a maximum penalty of five years and $10,000 in fines (9A.20.021).

Still, though, I would very much like to see, on the one hand, the jury that would convict and, to the other, the defense lawyer that could not protect her client from such a charge. I mean, really.

Men are generally expected to buy women nice, shiny objects in return for sweet, sweet ass; such is the course of society.
Click to expand...

The times they are a-changin', Kadark. These days if you treat your woman like a whore, that's usually what you end up with. If you treat her like a human, then a human she shall be. In other words, if you find yourself surrounded by a bunch of women that you think are whores, it probably says more about you than them.

Don't you dare interfere with nature's wondrous processes, Tiassa.
Click to expand...

What, is buying them off really that much easier than intelligence and human decency?
____________________

Notes:

Revised Code of Washington. Updated January 18, 2008. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx
 
You believe that if both implicit and explicit consent are present, it is rape if she had a few drinks.

The vast majority of the people that I know that support equality, work in efforts to fight against the feminists and their double standards.
 
Tiassa said:
However, presuming you do, how do you get pregnant from buying jewelry? Or catch a disease like herpes, gonorrhea, or AIDS?
Click to expand...
Say your girlfriend is nagging you about wanting some really nice piece of jewelry. You pick up a second job to cover it. As a result, you're not getting enough sleep. You fall asleep at the wheel and die. Or maybe the second job is as a bouncer at a bar. While trying to show some roudy drunks out the door, you're stabbed.

So being nagged to provide expensive trinkets can be hazardous to your health as well. Furthermore, if you see your doctor or simply are faithful to your wife/gf, you can be sure that nagging her for sex is not exposing her to any of the dangers you listed.

Anyway, I've not read thru this entire thread, but do you actually believe that trying to convince a woman to have sex with you once she's said no is rape?

If you do, that really cheapens the definition of rape. It's like calling negotiation theft. Perhaps we should make a similar list for theives. Item one:
If you don't accept the initial asking price for an item and somehow manage to convince the seller to give you the item for less; you're a thief.​
 
Kadark:

Your personal attack against Tiassa has been deleted.

Please do not insult other members.
 
angrybellsprout said:
You believe that if both implicit and explicit consent are present, it is rape if she had a few drinks.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

Have a link?

I said that it depends on their level of incapacitation. Get it now? For some people it can mean a few drinks. For others it can mean 3 bottles of tequila.

Is it really that hard to understand? Do you read what is written?

Or do you only see what you want to see because it fits into your world view?

The vast majority of the people that I know that support equality, work in efforts to fight against the feminists and their double standards.
Click to expand...
Of course dear. After all, why in the hell would you know any other. You surround yourself with people who support your views of the world.
 
What part of implicit and explicit consent do you not understand?

Of course I'd only really keep people around me who support the elimination of double standards, and not the feminists that push them.
 
Bells said:
I said that it depends on their level of incapacitation. Get it now? For some people it can mean a few drinks. For others it can mean 3 bottles of tequila.
Click to expand...
I think everyone agrees that having sex with someone that's unconcious is rape.

But the thing is, rape is a serious offence. In order to convict someone of rape, I'd need to know beyond a reasonable doubt that he commited rape.

So, unless there was a video tape, or the guy slipped her a mickey. This whole "drunk" issue is completely academic.

If a girl wakes up in the morning with some guy and can't remember what happened, she should probably get tested for daterape drugs. But if none of those are in her system, she just drank too much and did something stupid. It's her own fault!

We can debate whether or not the gentleman she had sex with the night before was completely aware of her level of intoxication and whether or not that level was so high as to render her unable to give consent. We can also throw in how much the gentleman had to drink and how much of an effect it had on his ability to judge the level of intoxication of the female. But we might just as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

When you decide to drink, especially to excess, you're responsible for what you do. Not someone else.

If the girl is conscious, if she is actively participating in the sex (as opposed to passed out or yelling "no!"), there's no rape.
 
angrybellsprout:

How about a debate on a topic such as "Feminism is counterproductive", or "All feminists are man haters?" or something?

You choose.
 
How is feminism counterproductive?

It strives for 'womens rights' and it gets exactly that, 'womens rights' and not 'equal rights'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top