Rape: The Megathread

Originally Posted by S.A.M.
I gave my dummies version, do you see anything wrong with that? ”
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I can't find your "dummies version" of the answers to these questions, please enlighten me.


These would be the questions...
“ Can women appreciate the horror of being falsely accused of rape? According to this list (wild guess here) 30% of sexual encounters would be considered "rape". Do you actually endorse this? ”
Click to expand...

Thanks...
 
Tiassa said:
Randwolf
Hence, the two links discussing the fact that one feminist does not represent feminism, and cannot be automatically presumed to represent another feminist.
Click to expand...

What? I mean, what?
 
You must be kidding, James?

I also resent how that feminist copypasta implies that those tactics are only used by men to 'rape' women.
 
Orleander said:
not feelin' the love angrybs. Why you gotta be hatin'?
I encourage violence? Yeah. You call me a c**t, I'll slap you. You grab my butt, I'll slap you.
Man up and quit crying about how unfair it was that a girl beat you up. Move on already.
Click to expand...

Why don't you woman up, stop posting on the net and go cook your man a big steak with mushrooms while he watches the game? Don't forget to spread your legs like a good little housewife for him afterwards.
 
It's a simple point: no consent = rape.

I find it strange that so many men seem to be too stupid to understand that.
 
lepustimidus has been banned for 7 days (again!) for misogyny. (And if that isn't enough, also for insulting another member of sciforums.)

Some people are very slow learners.
 
James R said:
lepustimidus has been banned for 7 days (again!) for misogyny.

Some people are very slow learners.
Click to expand...

Funny that sexists such as yourself don't seem to want to ban members who advocate violence against males?

Funny that sexists such as yourself don't seem to want to ban members who proudly flaunt double standards?
 
If you see somebody advocating violence, especially against other members of sciforums, please hit the "report" button and I will happily deal with it, angrybellsprout.
 
It is also funny that sexist idiots can't seem to tell the difference between geniune sexism (ie orelander) and someone using satire to point out the gross sexism of another (ie lepustimidus).
 
James R said:
It's a simple point: no consent = rape.

I find it strange that so many men seem to be too stupid to understand that.
Click to expand...


I find it strange that so many liberals seem to be too stupid to understand that in the vast majority of those cases listed in the OP there was no talk of consent, just pushing the feminist mantra that all men are rapists. In fact, quite a few of them talk about getting consent and still being a rapist.

Though I'm sure that you'd agree that if a girl explicitly gives you consent to sex that you are in fact a rapist.
 
Randwolf unfortunatly no i dont rember which state they were inacted in (or if they were in all states) and i dont have the time to trall through 8 sets of criminal law to find them (thats assuming its writen into the crimes acts). I will TRY to find it latter though

That being said it has apsolutly nothing to do with this, they were inacted because of drink spiking and a case on a cruise ship under the juristiction of the NSW justice system.

The case involved, a women (Dianne Brimble) who was given the date rape drug GHB against her concent, this group of men then procided to rape her and left her to die of an overdose. This lead to outrage (which i agree with BTW) which lead to a change in legislation both to specifically make food and drink tampering a criminal act (even putting an extra shoot into a drink without the persons permission is a crime) AND to alter the laws relating to sexual concent.

The drink spiking laws just out of interest dont discriminate either. So putting pure vodca into the beer the groom is drinking at a bucks night is a criminal act
 
James R said:
It's a simple point: no consent = rape.

I find it strange that so many men seem to be too stupid to understand that.
Click to expand...

I find it scary. And more than a bit disturbing. Who wants to run into those guys at a party?
If my daughter was drunk at a party, could I count on them to make sure she got safely home or would they see this as an opportunity to 'have a bit of fun'.
 
found it:)

NSW

Crimes Amendment (Consent - Sexual Assault Offences) Bill 2007

Negation of consent

Proposed section 61HA (4) and (5) provide that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse with another person:

(a) if the person does not have the capacity to consent, including because of age or cognitive incapacity, or

(b) if the person does not have the opportunity to consent because the person is unconscious or asleep, or

(c) if the person consents because of threats of force or terror (whether the threats are against, or the terror is instilled in, that person or any other person), or

(d) if the person consents because the person is unlawfully detained, or (e) if the person consents under a mistaken belief as to the identity of the other person, that the other person is married to the person or that the sexual intercourse is for medical or hygienic purposes (or under any other mistaken belief about the nature of the act induced by fraudulent means).

The circumstances set out in paragraphs (c) and (e), above, replace similar provisions currently set out in section 61R (2).

Proposed section 61HA (6) provides that the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include:

(a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug, or

(b) if the person has sexual intercourse because of intimidatory or coercive conduct, or other threat, that does not involve a threat of force, or

(c) if the person has sexual intercourse because of the abuse of a position of authority or trust.

Proposed section 61HA (7) provides that a person is not to be regarded as consenting to sexual intercourse by reason only of the fact that the person does not offer actual physical resistance to the sexual intercourse. This replaces a similar provision currently contained in section 61R (2) (d).

Proposed section 61HA (8) makes it clear that the above provisions do not limit the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse.

Viewed 07/07/08 at 20:31
Click to expand...
 
Asguard said:
Randwolf unfortunatly no i dont rember which state they were inacted in (or if they were in all states) and i dont have the time to trall through 8 sets of criminal law to find them (thats assuming its writen into the crimes acts). I will TRY to find it latter though
Click to expand...

Thanks, Asguard. I was just curious, don't fret over it, if it's not readily available that's cool..



Asguard said:
That being said it has apsolutly nothing to do with this, they were inacted because of drink spiking and a case on a cruise ship under the juristiction of the NSW justice system.
Click to expand...
This was my main question, so thank you again for answering...



Asguard said:
The case involved, a women (Dianne Brimble) who was given the date rape drug GHB against her concent, this group of men then procided to rape her and left her to die of an overdose. This lead to outrage (which i agree with BTW) which lead to a change in legislation both to specifically make food and drink tampering a criminal act (even putting an extra shoot into a drink without the persons permission is a crime) AND to alter the laws relating to sexual concent.
Click to expand...
As you should, IMHO. I'm not sure though, should a person face criminal consequenses for "even putting an extra shoot into a drink without the persons permission"? I mean, it's definitely not a good idea, and not something I would condone, but are they really going to prosecute people for adding an extra shot to someone's drink?



Asguard said:
The drink spiking laws just out of interest dont discriminate either. So putting pure vodca into the beer the groom is drinking at a bucks night is a criminal act
Click to expand...
This is good - Australia is very progressive. Maybe the rest of the world could learn something. I hope it is not "selectively" enforced, because here in the U.S. women who spike a mans drink with G are mostly joked about. This happened to a friend of mine, admittedly, there was no sexual assault, but the authorities seemed to find it humourous. In any event, thanks again...
 
umm orleander, i think you should read part d) "or under any other mistaken belief about the nature of the act induced by fraudulent means"

Ie it IS rape if you sabotase birth control
 
Orleander said:
If my daughter was drunk at a party, could I count on them to make sure she got safely home or would they see this as an opportunity to 'have a bit of fun'.
Click to expand...

Depends on the individual person involved. Some people care, others are only interested in what they can get from your daughter's "goods". Best bet is to educate your daughter ahead of time about these dangers. It's not her "responsibility", but at least she can take precautions to lower the chances of her being a victim.
 
Orleander said:
I find it scary. And more than a bit disturbing. Who wants to run into those guys at a party?
If my daughter was drunk at a party, could I count on them to make sure she got safely home or would they see this as an opportunity to 'have a bit of fun'.
Click to expand...

Looks like we are back to the sexist lie that only males have any desire for sex.

It is also coupled with the lie that a few drinks is the same thing as being unconcious, especially when all parties involved have had a few drinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top