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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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'll accept it when he stops attempting to smear my name.

 

Let me know how this works out for you...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's see... What would be fun...

Rape is good for some people.

That should work.

/duck and cover, again

 

pfft
you are untouchable

/kowtow

 

Why would anyone try and smear your name you do a good enough job by yourself?

 

Savage, indeed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.​

 

I believe that's an affirmative, Houston.

 

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.

 

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.

 

How is feminism counterproductive?

It strives for 'womens rights' and it gets exactly that, 'womens rights' and not 'equal rights'.