Rape: The Megathread

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.

Well, if he had sex with someone who had been drinking, doesn't that satisfy the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt? If it was after midnight on his 18th birthday, and his gf was 15, doesn't that satisfy the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt? If he "badgered" his SO until he got what he wanted, doesn't that satisfy the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt? If his beloved had an IQ below 100, doesn't that satisfy the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt?


Or, is it like this:
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.


????
 
A title like that suggests you're not taking the issue seriously and sets a bad tone.

I'm just trying to get to a topic that is simplistic enough that ABS will actually commit to a point of view that he is able and willing to defend.

It seems he mostly wants to sit on the fence when it comes to the crunch. He won't stand for what he believes when the pressure is on.
 
What part of implicit and explicit consent do you not understand?
And what part of being incapacitated and unable to give consent can't you 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.
Certainly. God forbid you actually confront other males about their attitudes towards males who are the victims of rape and abuse. God forbid you recognise that the inequality is not caused by feminists but by males for their fellow males. Noooo.. So much easier to just blame feminists and women in general for everything that is wrong in the male social psyche.
 
I'm just trying to get to a topic that is simplistic enough that ABS will actually commit to a point of view that he is able and willing to defend.

It seems he mostly wants to sit on the fence when it comes to the crunch. He won't stand for what he believes when the pressure is on.

Why do you insist on being so dishonest?

Seriously, answer.
 
angrybellsprout:

You haven't expressed yourself clearly, but you cited this post of yours:

ABS said:
You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

Are you inviting me to debate this topic?

Are you saying that you think that all sex with consent is not rape?

Or what?
 
Looks like the dishonest piece of shit is at it again.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1920542&postcount=42

That's not a nice way to think of yourself ABS.

This is what you linked to:

angrybellsprout said:
You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

That sounds like a start for a topic.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1920542&postcount=42

You need to get a handle on your self esteem issues ABS. It's not healthy to have so much self hatred. You should try and see about some therapy.
 
And what part of being incapacitated and unable to give consent can't you understand?

So I'm just going to have to assume that you are too dense to understand what the terms implicit and explicit consent are.

Certainly. God forbid you actually confront other males about their attitudes towards males who are the victims of rape and abuse. God forbid you recognise that the inequality is not caused by feminists but by males for their fellow males.

I'd rather help my mates out that got screwed by whales that felt they were entitled to some sort of lifestyle just on the basis of having a vagina. The same whales that would steal their money, follow them around town all day, make wild accusations about them anytime they left the house, went out to the clubs and cheated on them, forced them to move out of state, and eventually left them once they were into the state that their online girlfriend was in.

Noooo.. So much easier to just blame feminists

When it is the feminists that are to blame, they may as well accept their blame.

and women in general for everything that is wrong in the male social psyche.

Keep your fantasies to yourself.
 
That's not a nice way to think of yourself ABS.

This is what you linked to:



You need to get a handle on your self esteem issues ABS. It's not healthy to have so much self hatred. You should try and see about some therapy.

Ah isn't it cute going to James Retards defense for his dishonesty.
 
pardon
non consensual sex is rape
gender is irrelevant

affirm or deny
if terminology is a problem, illustrate.
 
Ah isn't it cute going to James Retards defense for his dishonesty.

I've asked you nicely once.

Now I'm telling you.

Do not accuse me of dishonesty unless you can back yourself up with references (i.e. appropriate quotes of my posts where the dishonesty is displayed).

Accuse me again without evidence and I will ban you immediately.
 
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1921910&postcount=504

There is a prime example of your dishonesty.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1920456&postcount=1

Not to mention this being another great example of your dishonesty.


Attempting to tie a person to a point of view that they never expressed (also known as building a strawman), then attempting to claim that they are too cowardly to defend that position that they never held in the first place is very dishonest, and is exactly what you have done.
 
I've already asked you plenty of times to stop with the strawmen (one of the most dishonest tricks in the book), but you refuse to stop with that.
 
dude
make the case
a short sweet post with relevant linkage
start from the top

randwolf took the time
james acknowledged

why not you?
your rationale is excellent
however, what are the premises?
 
Did I not link an example of his attempt to link me to a point of view that I never expressed?

Did I not link an example of his attempt to shame me for not defending the same point of view that I never expressed?
 
(Insert title here)

Madanthonywayne said:

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.

And?

So far you've got issues on the self and the rowdy drunk who stabs you.

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.

Ah. So that's how it goes. Of course, everyone is faithful to their partners, aren't they? And all the partners know it, don't they? That's why people who think they're in committed, monogamous relationships get various surprises, including herpes, gonorrhea, and AIDS, from their partners. Right?

A curious perspective, I admit. But I don't understand it. Why is it that people who are so frustrated with feminism and the boundaries of what counts as rape so overwhelmingly look at the situation according to their own position in the potential equation?

For instance, if (man) goes to see (man's) doctor, or simply is faithful to (his) wife or girlfriend, then (woman) can be sure that his nagging her for sex is not exposing her to any of the dangers.

Turn that around: If (spouse) goes to see (spouse's) doctor, or simply tells you s/he is faithful to you, then you can be sure that (spouse) is not exposing you to any dangers.

Two anecdotes from the last several days.

• An epidemiologist was on one or another radio show. It will take me a while to figure out what show and find the archive. But she talked about HIV testing in the early part of the epidemic, and the question of whether a positive test result should require mandatory informing of potentially-infected partners—e.g., should the patient be forced to name names.

• A cousin was talking about how her ex-husband apparently called to inform her that he has herpes. Naturally, she up and jetted off to her doctor for the full screening. Everything came back rosy, but she's still glad that, while her current husband—a cancer patient—has signed a release allowing his doctor to discuss his condition, she has not done the same. In other words, she's glad that her current husband doesn't know her ex-husband has herpes. She's clean, so why should it matter? Never did get an answer to that point.​

The point of those two points is to remind you that just because your spouse does or does not say so does not mean it's real or not.

The lack of human sympathy as you've expressed it is not particularly shocking, but only because I'm accustomed to it. It's a fairly common line: (Shrug.) "I'm not going to be giving her any diseases ...."

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?

Well, see, that's the problem with the lack of human sympathy about the discussion. I've nagged a partner before, and if she really wants to make an issue out of it, I'll be happy to let a jury decide. Life goes on.

Likewise, she has violated terms of consent for sexual intercourse before, and also lied to me about her reproductive status. In neither issue am I going to make a court case out of it. Life goes on.

But not everyone is like me. Not everyone lives the way I do, experiences the circumstances I do. Curiously, some of my most vocal critics will imply that I don't recognize this fact, yet it is at the heart of my human sympathy. Some people have it better than I do, and some people have it worse. When we reduce the issue to "nagging", we disarm it somewhat. However, there are many households in our culture that are rife with constant psychological abuse. The victims of this abuse do see their perspectives and judgments narrowed, their lives often polarized into the most basic of decisions.

And in these circumstances, I can certainly perceive the weight of "nagging". Perhaps you have never encountered a victim of psychological exploitation, but it's rather a frightening thing to witness.

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.

I tend to think that people cheapen the issue of rape when they pretend it's such a simple issue.
 
Last edited:
ahh
persuasion can take many forms
reason and might being but a few

"convince" appeals to rationale
"nagging" to very bad things
 
Back
Top