Rape: The Megathread

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

????

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A title like that suggests you're not taking the issue seriously and sets a bad tone. Might I suggest:

Feminism is inimical to the survival of the human race​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh oh.....

 

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

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

 

Why do you insist on being so dishonest?

Seriously, answer.

 

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

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.

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

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

 

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.

 

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)

And?

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

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 ...."

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.

I tend to think that people cheapen the issue of rape when they pretend it's such a simple issue.

 

ahh
persuasion can take many forms
reason and might being but a few

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