Date Rape is a Myth
Personally, I have always known date rape victims and drug rape victims are lying whores. Of course “personally” is the worst way to be right about anything. “Personally” is subjective and emotional. It is prone to error and bias. “Personally” is womanly.
Unless you’re a man.
Men have magic black boxes of objectification in our brains that turn all life experience into laws you could wear as ship shaped shoes and walk across water. Men and their mighty, manly opinions on things are air tight. Fuck yea.
Scientifically, all date rape victims are lying whores.
According to a new study brought to us by the Manzillas at Wrexham Maelor Hospital, being a victim of “date rape” is like being a victim of getting a flat tire when you drive off a cliff. You did it, it’s your fault, you’re lying about how it happened because who the fuck drives off a cliff, and you’ve probably got a lot more wrong with your car than a flat tire.
Let me explain.
Recently, it was stated that in the UK, Rohypnol has never ever been used in a case of sexual misconduct. I say sexual misconduct because “date rape” is a crass and manipulative word. I refused to use it from now on. It rapes the true meaning of the word “rape”.
Well no shit. I’ve been to the UK tons of times and I’ve never seen Rohypnol being used. I could have told anyone that and they didn’t need to perform some study about it. Date rape drugs are hard to come by. And if they’re not that hard, they’re still harder than feeding a woman apple martinis by the gallon and reciting retarded lines about her hopes and dreams — all of which are asinine. If date rape drugs are illegal, then why isn’t Bryan Adams? Both work just as well.
Someone performed a study anyway, and here are the results of that study in the form of a boot straight up the ass of every woman who is culturally prejudiced against the way women are treated in the Middle East.
Over 12 months, and out of 75 patients who claimed to be victims of sexual misconduct and drink tampering with Rohypnol, GHB, or ketamine, 0% were found to have it in their system.
Zero fucking percent.
In an unsurprising twist, 100% of these women were found to be drunk as fuck.
65% of “rape victims” had a blood alcohol content of twice the legal driving limit.
25% of “rape victims” were three times over the limit.
20% of “rape victims” tested positive for amphetamines.
In the case of women, besides the flat tire, you’ve also got a 20% chance of being on amphetamines. I’m no vagina doctor, but I’m pretty sure they don’t put amphetamines in the birth control pills that none of these whores were taking when they hit Ladies Night like a drunken tornado of abandonment issues.
After reading through the research article below, which I suggest to anyone who’s first instinct is still to listen when a woman starts talking, I realized the horrible truth of what’s going on in the UK. Apparently some asshole is running around spiking women’s drinks with booze.
Holy shit! Someone call the Special Victims Unit! Bring in the swab kit! Or better yet, fire up the laugh track and call that village where Peter and the Wolf is set. What’s that village called?
It’s called Fantasy Land.
Related Articles:
Any idiot knows not to leave her/his drink alone when you’re out! But, since I happen to know one woman who got raped I have to ask this; Is it sex or rape when an ex forces himself on the girl who broke up with him, when she is sober and just coming home from work?
Honestly, apart from som minor details, and both my mother and boyfriend would kick me out if they knew I said this, I think you have a point, not just about the rape thing but… Overall.
Do your research, you moron. GHB leaves the bloodstream after 4-7 hours. Ecstasy is a derivative of amphetamines, which explains your twenty percent. I do agree there are girls who falsely claim they’ve been raped, but that is a whole different issue. Oh, and the legal driving limit is barely 2 beers, so your sixty five percent are horrible people for having 4 drinks, aren’t they? If you base your opinions on a single study, then not only are you an idiot, but you’re ignorant.
Even if what you said about GHB is true (it is eliminated within 2 hours) the metabolites are detectable for up to 24 hours, making it more long detected than alcohol. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/ghb_testing.shtml
And fuck me in the ass and call me Charlie, these poor women arn’t doing speed, they are doing extacy. Lets pity them! If “2 beers” (the most conservative amount I’ve ever heard) makes you too intoxicated to drive a motor vehicle, then the last thing you should be doing is trusting your magical vagina not to be attracting men who also happen to probably be drunk as fuck. No rapist I’ve ever heard of would waste some perfectly good ketamine on some low rent pussy.
Do you respect your boundries when you shove that dildo up your ass, or do you shove that dildo up your ass because you meet men who respect your personal boundries???
We men here respect you personal boundries, get it, and go away and go fuck yourself with that dildo up whathever hole you feel like. Can you at least do that you sick cunt???
Like you have said it can only happen hypathetically… in your sick mind.
It cuts into the only thing they have to offer, sex.
Why are women so obsessed with male homosexuality?
Seriously dont bother reasoning with them, they have convinced themselves rape doesnt exist.
That it is the womans fault when she gets raped,
even though in the article it said 65% have over the BAC
what about the other 35%
It has everything to do with having a respect for everyones personal boundries.
just because you fell asleep in my apartment doesn’t mean dick that i have any right to take the back of a broom handle, spit on it, and stick it up your ass.
it was outisde of his physical ability to stay awake as he was made to be under the influence of drugs.
Yes.
It’s also his fault for falling asleep first.
-Dick
So lets say, hypathetically a man is at a party and sets his drink down on the table to go take a leak, and while he is gone gets slipped a roofie, only later to pass the fuck out with out realzing what happened. In the morning this man finds himself on a bed, naked, with only a sore ass and a few memories of strange men raping him.
is that his fault?
he thought he knew these “friends” of his well enough to set his drink down on the table and trust that he wouldn’t be drugged. in fact this possibility hadn’t even occured to him. is setting his drink down then a very reasonable thing to do?
he wakes up understanding what had happened to him, but feeling muddled, angry, and violated as he had nothing to do with the decision for something to violently penetrate his asshole.
just have some empathy and understand how easily this could happen to you if your friends were shit bags.
and if you happen to agree with this website, you are a shit bag, and so then your friends are likely to be shit bags as well.
watch out! I’m going to get you!
if i meet one of you fuckers at a party, referencing this website, i’m going to drug and rape the shit out of you!
Yes, it’s his fault. He, as a man, shouldnt be stupid enough to lay his drink anywhere.
Hypothetically<- By the way.
And one last point: As a man, drug me. I’ll endure it. Because I’m a man.
I witnessed it… Sorry.
It’s interesting because my relative actually get strong from it and never let it get to her. She moved on. I know women also who have lied.
Look pal you have way too much time on your hands if you intend to upset every health professional on the frikkin planet. Rape is rape is rape, and unless you are a doctor, then I suggest you shut the hell up about things that I would never wish on anyone, not even you you sick son of a…
http://charliegrrl.wordpress.com/
This is the cancer that is killing the internet.
I lol’d. The guy who writes these articles is basically just a bad shock jock with too much time on his hands and anger in his heart. I bet a girl broke his heart in the past.
Eat a fucking Twinkie for crying out loud.
saying this though, whatever cunt goes around putting horse tranquillizers in womens drinks, and date rape drugs that leave the victim sterilized deserves his fucking knob chopped off.
Do you know what, I actually agree with this statement.
I have never been so drunk I don’t know what I am doing. I don’t understand how anyone has.
I have had my drink spiked twice when I was younger and have never gone home with either creep that did it.
Obviously I am not saying that rape doesn’t exist but I don’t think that date rape exists. If a drug makes you a bit groggy, you still know what your doing, if a drug makes you pass out cold then you must have already gone to the guys house already, and you don’t do that if you don’t want sex or teasing. If you go to a guys house after a date and don’t want sex your just a pain in the ass.
When i read stories of women going “he bought me drinks all night, i went back to his hotel room, i sat on his bed, he spiked me and raped me, I was never going to have sex with him, i didnt really fancy him” I just think. “wow, you’re clever aren’t you? Why did you let him buy all your drinks? why did you go to his hotel?”
Saying yes and the regretting it isn’t rape.
Just watch your drinks though, because if someone spikes you and follows you and overpowers you then yeah that is rape, but the date was over, thats just rape.
You are actually on to a winner here Dick.
Do what I do. If you plan on fucking a woman that night, then don’t drink or drink as little as possible. Then, goto her place. Fuck. Get the fuck up and leave. You can always call her in a week or two to ask if she remembers you.
Sebastian
Good luck. Now fuck off, bitch.
Real women like Rudi here just aren’t worth the money they steal. I’d far rather have a girly-girl who will sit down and ask for my permission to speak. But then the subhumans need not worry, because it’s not their problem, right? I guess I’m just not man enough to continue this FUCKING BULLSHIT of stepping up and mounting a slobbering, drooling American heifer to only get a cold, frigid, ungrateful entitlement whore.
Sorted!
Onwards, you’re also dumber than shit and I would hope you died in a gas fire if it wasn’t too good for you. Nonetheless, it may save your illegitimate hamburger-faced children playing in the streets yet!
Rape kits are also bullshit. If a woman has a tight cunt and gets fucked by a big one, there can be tearing whether it was consentual or not, especially if she starts running dry before the man finishes.
No man should should ever be convicted of rape based on the testimony of one drunken whore.
Also, if a woman cries rape she should recieve a life sentence if it is proven she is lying. False rape accusations are the same as attempted murder.
First I would like to say that YES I am a woman. I think your website is a disgrace and is digusting. I hope it gets shut down and I’ll petition that it does. God help you.
If a woman consentually fucks a Man when she’s drunk it’s not rape. If a woman consentually does drugs and fucks a Man it’s not rape.
The whole ‘I didn’t know what I was doing’ is a terrible excuse. Of course she had no idea what she was doing. Drugs and alcohol skew anybody’s ability to make a rational decision and when dealing with a creature that is already irrational even moreso. Same goes for getting prego.
- Sgt. Reyes
You forget. You’re the biochemical experiment gone badly wrong. You’re opinion on whether he’s a Man or anything for that matter don’t count.
Sorry dear.
- Sgt. Reyes
One thing I definately agree with is your topic on “date rape”. At least in certain instances.. If someone slips something in someone’s drink and takes advantage of them, then that is rape (whether you agree or not). But when it comes to if a female CHOOSES to drink too much, I feel that they should deal with the consequences. Of course, if the guy can tell she’s drunk and jumps inside for joy thinking ’score!’ then I look at him at the same level that I see the drunken female in - LOW-LIFE much? It can be a very sensitive topic and justice can never be seen as fair to all (at least not in this world). Nice post nonetheless.
Wow, hes nuts
SICKO, that’s the reason you’re sick. Never take responsibility for anything. You arent a man.
I apologize for my last post, I shouldn’t of called you freaks, that was a very rude thing to do, I guess I got a little angry too fast
I was watching a show coincidently where a woman was being date raped
Got a little too into the show
You now what sickens me the most?
Is that there are freaks that agree with him
And yeah, I called you freaks, because plain and simple you are for agreeing with such a horrible topic
Also, it’s not a women’s word against a man’s word.
Hospitals have rape kits, to find any evidence left behind
So they are able to have proof
I think that I am not even going to argue with this one
I didn’t even bother to read it
You are a sick man
And I hope that women closest to you gets to experience and suffer with every thing you have “disproven”
I haven’t been so disgusted
But that…is clearly stupidity.
It sort of is sad because I think women really want to be able to trust men.
I think the point of this article, even if you didn’t realise when writing, is that women should never trust or be alone with men.
Haha, I just read Female’s post and she obviously is showing her true colors with a statement like “which gives people options to manage the behaviour of others which once they may just have had to put up with. ”
Managing the behavior of others eh? Sounds like something that a controlling bitch would do.
Like I said….shame the thread is dead.
Oops….2 simples…..sorry.
It’s quite simple Dick. All any member of a jury has to do is to go by the age old rule (check the bible……it is found there) and not convict anyone on the say so of one person. One person’s word against the other with no other evidence means a walk. I dont care what the Law says, I’ll tell you this now. My comMAN sense tells me that one person’s word against another’s is an unsafe conviction. After all, both men and women lie and if I were sat on a jury and it was one person’s word against another with no other evidence (like a drug in the womans system) then I would refuse to convict and wouldn’t give a rat’s ass what the judge said. Bitch says “date rape” + no other evidence……man walks free. Never, ever would a man be falsely convicted of date rape ever again.
Simple, eh?
Simple, eh?
What is this grand idea, RobC?
-Dick
It really is a shame that this thread has died down because I have a solution to the false date rape charge. It would also remove the possibility of any person being falsely convicted of ANY crime but as this thread is about Date Rape I will stay on topic.
I have a foolproof way of making sure that no man (or woman even) can be falsely convicted of date rape. It is so simple that it can be implemented tomorrow (or today even….depends what part of the earth you live in) provided the verdict is given by a jury. This is NOT a joke. I am serious. Some may find it a little contoversial but it would work. Unfortunately, as this thread appears to be now dead, I would be talking to myself. Like I said at the start of this thread……Shame!:o(
Woman… Be Gone. Your lies and rational (lack there of) are not needed here.
Female is just here to “win”. She doesnt understand that women will never win men. Ouch!
And we have feminism to thank for that.
Outdated?
Oh, right. We all know morals and principles are fleeting fashions with women.
First they should be raped. Publicly. Then hanged.
Why the fuck should anyone be raped or hung publicly?
It is true that rape or making false accusations of rape is a terribly thing to do, but raping someone as punishment is cruel and unusual.
Hangings are outdated and should not become widely practiced.
This example cannot apply to me, I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing unstylish clothes.
You are both obviously desperate to put Howard back in for another term.
Obviously not. One is manslaughter, I’ll leave it to you to figure out which one.
No, I never said it was easy, I said that it is difficult but that I am glad that today people have a means of redress and are therefore empowered to be able to change situations which cause harm but which involve behaviours which could be considered innocuous where intent is unknown.
For instance, if a manager (regardless of sex) was attracted to a subordinate employee and always asked them about their personal life (while failing to enquire with as much interest about other employees lives) and got angry with the subordinate if he or she mentioned romantic attachments, and arranged things so that they were always having to work closely together, have breakfast or late meetings, etc, and the subordinate felt that his or her personal life was being encroached upon beyond the bounds of professionalism, due to a personal agenda of the manager rather than due to work related matters only, then that would be difficult to define as harassment seeing as the manager’s behaviours could equally be construed as arising from demands of work, rather than from a romantic attraction.
Therefore, what is important is whether the subordinate thinks (based on their feelings) that they are being back into a corner and harassed. In this sense, the “crime” is defined by the effect on the subordinate’s thoughts/feelings. My point was that prior to the implementation of harrassment laws and the like, people had no protection against this sort of thing, and they would not have been as alert to it as they are today.
That’s a very sexist statement you’ve just made. All people (men included) prefer to be able to influence other people’s behaviours, especially in a competitive work environment, rather than be at the mercy of other’s ideas (which one may not agree with) or whims. How else do people get things done, which depend on the input of others if they are not able to have some influence on others behaviours?
No, you were defining rape itself, and in your definition you prioritized ‘intent’ above ‘consent’. See below where I have copied your previous statement, on which I made my comment that you didn’t consider consent to be necessary in your definition of rape.
I then tried to communicate that even if intent should be considered more important, the non-stopping party is still acting with an intent to harm by choosing not to care about the effect their behavior may be having on the other through disregarding the other parties wishes. This intent may not be consciously malicious, but harm through neglect, is still harm.
No I don’t think I did. I have addressed this above.
Not always but usually that’s the case, and as you were talking about a woman raping a man, on average, a woman would have to use a weapon to force him.
Yes but the man still has the option not to have unprotected sex with her, unless she is physically stronger than him or uses a weapon to force him or has him tied up.
You are personalizing disagreement here and putting value judgements on me here by saying ‘shabby and contemptible’, why can’t you just stick to the argument and respect that while an opinion may differ to yours, that doesn’t mean it is okay for you to disrespect the person who holds the opinion. You need to work on this. Hopefully shabby and contemptible are not the new speak to replace ‘ignorant’.
Back to the point being discussed - how else can somebody force somebody to have non-consensual sex if they don’t have a weapon or are physically stronger? And when I say weapon, I also include pharmacological products which would make a person weaker than another even if they naturally were not.
Well no, both instances are rape until the party withdraws consent and your example actually accords with my previous statement that the rapist uses a show of force, so you are arguing a point with me here on which we actually agree.
Fine, perhaps we can stop arguing now because I too think that there is value in splitting hairs over whether something is rape or sexual assault. However, I would go for very fine distinctions, eg. If a couple hardly know each other and as soon as a man penetrates the woman or other man, and the penetrated party asks them not to continue and they do not, then I think that even if consent originally existed and was withdrawn, this type of scenario should be considered rape and clearly distinguished from a situation which may look more like sexual assault, eg, where the sex is almost over and the woman or man asks the other to stop and the other party is not able to pay full attention to immediately withdrawing.
@Evileddy Thanks, much appreciated. And at least this lengthy argument is precisely on topic. Possibly a first for Female on this part of the site, and often unusual for me.
@Female If I’ve time, I’ll have a post up on my blog that gets very briefly into one element of the philosophy underlying what I’ve posted here. Essentially why we shouldn’t toss away centuries of evolved freedom for the latest shiny feminist legal theory.
-wolfe
What? Non? You said you’d be answering this post later. And you think that we are right? We aren’t trying to convince you of anything. We’re just proving to everyone, man or woman, that we are right.
It gets irritating to see not one, but many girly-girls trying to pretend that they can be a slut and a genious at the same time. It just doesn’t happen - if a girl is intelligent, she would not subject herself to that kind of tortue. By tortue I mean sex - for a girl.
Girls hate sex.
You lost the second you entered this site. And then you lost again.
Sorry, there’s no double-standard here. Your vagina privilages are as worthless as the imaginary super-duper-laser rifle that they’re inscribed on… which vaporizes anyone who refuses to believe anything other than the truth. Figuratively. In reality, no one could give a shit one way or the other what you think.
The problem is with this is that you’re going to go to another post and raise more frivilious meaningless points and then move on to the next one. You lose again and again, but you act like what you think somehow magically is bound to reality.
I will be answering this post later. Non or delayed response should not be taken to mean that I think you are right.
That was awesome wolfe!
*gives thunderous applause*
You’re utterly missing the point.
I’ll return to my earlier example, only aim it at you, not Alex. You drink way too much Shiraz one night, and dress in dark, unstylish clothing. Drunk, you stagger home from Pomeroy’s wine bar, but decide the middle of a nearby freeway (motorway/highway/whatever you call them in Australia) would be a fine place to go to sleep.
John Howard and I come roaring along, driving a giant flag-emblazoned SUV belching flame to increase its carbon footprint to the size of Al Gore. We don’t see you and run over you. You, sadly, die. Though since you never wake up, you die very happy.
Alternatively, you’re helping an aged nun cross the street at noon and you’re sober. I don’t know about the nun, but hopefully she is too. John points you out see you both, and we accelerate and run you down.
In the first case we do not have murder, even though the effect on the victim is identical. In the second case we do. What is the primary difference? Intent.
By a number of factors including intent.
Intent is a logical process rather than a purely emotional one. Well, it is to men. Maybe it’s not to women. That would explain things like the woman who ran over her husband six times. With their daughter in the car.
I hate to break the news to you my dear woman, but we have been operating the criminal justice system in much this fashion for the better part of a thousand years. More in some parts of the world.
Really? Quick, contact the Greeks, the Romans, the British, the French, the Americans, the Canadians and the Australians before they go on with yet more centuries of operating mantastic legal systems in precisely this manner!
I don’t know. Every man knows a woman, so they have at least some experience defining such covert insincerity. Except for gay men I guess. But even they, as the female visitors here never tire of pointing out, have mothers.
More seriously, that’s why we have juries.
So two sober men driving a flame-belching SUV that run over a nearly invisible drunk at 2am are equally guilty to the woman who runs over her husband 6 times? Because the net effect on the victim is the same?
A disturbing world in which you live. Reductionist indeed.
I used to think harassment laws were a good idea. Now I’m considerably more skeptical, but I do see some obvious signs of racial harassment and even, rarely, sexual harassment.
As long as an accused retains full rights including trial by jury of his (or her) peers, and as long as we add a new category of harassment — filing a frivolous or vexatious harassment complaint, and sanctions to any lawyers involved, then I can live with harassment laws.
Even there, intent still matters (at least in most countries).
If, walking by you, I say “Major Hooters” in your hearing, you might feel you’ve been sexually harassed. But what if it turns out I’m talking to “Major Bob Hooters of the United States Airforce” on my cell phone?
There’s a technical term for this… ah yes. “Bollocks”. or “Rubbish”, if you prefer.
Come on. “Society” wouldn’t recognize a tree if it fell on it. You just got through arguing in the previous paragraph how difficult it is to recognize concealed behavior and actions. And now you’re arguing it’s a whizz?
Again, you argue against yourself, and you lose. Both times.
Did you even reread the previous paragraph you wrote before writing this? It contradicts what you just wrote.
I think when you get right down to it this is what women want. And it would be ‘a boot stamping on a human face — forever’.
Rubbish and nonsense. Most forms of discrimination can’t be talked about or even demonstrated because of restrictive laws and speech codes.
True, and I didn’t mention the sky is blue on earth, or gravity exerts a force or that rape often involves a penis and/or a vagina. And surfaces. Almost always surfaces of some kind. Except maybe in zero-G.
I didn’t feel the need to mention the obvious because I wasn’t defining what rape is. Rather, I was discussing what isn’t rape.
Nonsense. This is a shabby and unworthy debating trick. You quote me deliberately out of context. The central point of what I was arguing was that a man might well believe consent to continue to exist. I agreed that where sexual activity continues to take place where consent is clearly withdrawn it is at the very least an act of sexual assault that one could define as rape if one insisted. I continue to argue that that is an unhelpful redefinition.
The woman always has to be the physically weaker? There are no men on the earth weaker than the strongest woman in the world? Perhaps, but I don’t think you had a good look at the East German shotput team when you were younger.
If a man takes a woman’s hand and pulls it away from the drawer with the condom in it, is that not a show of force?
I don’t think there’s any way that question can safely be answered. All I will say is that your arguments appear full of holes and inconsistencies, even from paragraph to paragraph that belie your education and intellect.
Because we were discussing what isn’t rape not what rape is.
By your own definition, I can think of plenty of examples where men are ‘raped’ by women. You seem to attempt to weasel out of that by saying that only a physically stronger person can rape a weaker one if both are unarmed, and that’s a shabby and contemptible thing to say.
Do you really mean to say that if a man of average strength coerces a top female athlete who’s physically stronger than he is into sex, holds her down, ignores her saying no, that that isn’t rape? Because she could overpower him if she exerted all her strength? But she’s too shocked, she’s too sexually and emotionally confused to exert all her physical strength?
Do you mean to say that if the same man and same woman both consent to sex, but she insists on protected sex, and he physically stops her from getting a condom, holds her down and has sex with her, that that isn’t rape? In this case she’s shocked and sexually excited also yielding confusion.
That isn’t rape in your definition?
Now pretend they are married. Same situation.
That isn’t rape in your definition?
So why isn’t it rape when a woman does that to a man?
You have a rather disturbing way of attempting to redefine all crime as whatever you say it is rather than accepting we need broad principles on which to operate a fair and just system of jurisprudence.
This leads to a boot stamping on a human face, as Eric Blair said.
-wolfe
Whatever you guess, you’ll be low.
-Dick
Usually yes, I myself haven’t ever heard of a criminal commiting an act, then going straight to the police station to hand themselves in, but perhaps you have.
And you call my logic tortuous? If a crime isn’t defined by both the action and effect on a victim, then how do you suggest we define it? According to the criminal’s feelings? If we do that, we’ll end up with convictions such as he was convicted for a crime of anger occasioning death, which is essentially without context and meaningless.
No thanks.
Not all behaviours can be clearly observed and defined, nor can behavioural scientists even completely explain why people behave the way they do, and as everyone is unique, it is therefore impossible for all laws to be based on overt actions and the outcomes of those actions. So, while actions such as murder occasioning death may involve an obvious motivation of ill-tent, it is not so easy to define covert, insincere behaviours which may look perfectly acceptable on the surface but which are exhibited to harm another but to disguise the intent to harm. Therefore it makes sense for some laws to instead be implemented which address the harm done to the victim, and yes, of course I’m thinking of harassment laws. If you disagree with these kind of laws do you do so because they are based on feelings and perhaps you have the view that feelings are somewhat extraneous and the domain of women primarily?
Well I disagree, I think society today is more informed and able to recognise behaviours that were once not addressed, which gives people options to manage the behaviour of others which once they may just have had to put up with. I personally am glad that instances of all different types of discriminaton and suffering are now able to be acknowledged and dealt with.
I’m glad to hear that you consider consent to be necessary because you certainly didn’t mention it previously, instead you seemed to indicate that you didn’t think it was necessary by your comment that a man who continues to have sex with a woman after she withdraws consent should not be considered to have committed rape.
I should have been more specific, my only excuse is that I was tired and under the influence of a good bottle of wine when last online. The reason I mentioned a weapon was because i was trying to equate what a physically weaker person would have to use in order to coerce somebody to engage in non-consensual sex.
A physically stronger male is not going to have to use a weapon, while a woman might, so I didn’t mean to imply that the use of a weapon determines whether something is a crime or not, but rather rape is defined by whether somebody coerces somebody to have non-consensual sex by some show of force, in whatever form that may take.
No. How dumb do you think I am?
Not really. You mentioned intent as the important factor, without mentioning consent. If you don’t believe me and can’t recall, reread your own comments.
Of course not, as I’ve explained above.
And I can accept that one can make a case for calling it rape — and treating it exactly the same way. I’m not sure I agree, but it’s not something I disagree with strongly enough to want to argue the point. In her tortuous mess of non-logic, Female does have a valid point relating to consent being clearly withdrawn and an individual choosing to ignore that.
What I don’t accept is:
-sexual contact where a woman/man changes her mind the day after is rape;
-sexual contact where a woman/man is drunk (if she knowingly got drunk) is rape;
-sexual contact where both parties believe they’re having sex with someone else and then withdraws consent after the fact is rape
-sex where a woman/man is ambivalent about things is rape
-wolfe
Wow. So a crime is defined entirely by the purported victim?
That’s certainly the zeitgeist of our times, but it’s a profoundly reactionary view on your part.
Imagine a world where the laws are written by … let’s say Dick Masterson. Dick, being a man would probably abolish hate speech codes, but you never know, he might not. Mischievously, he might gain a bit of pleasure from writing special hate speech codes that in effect pertain only to women. (Don’t believe that can’t happen? You’ve not been paying attention to the evolution of speech codes in the US).
Henceforth, a woman’s words would be criminalized based on whether or not a man is offended. Any man, anywhere.
That’s what you get when you get crimes defined, not by intent, but by how the purported victim ‘feels’.
It is absolute anathema to a free, just and liberal (I use the word in it’s 18th century sense) society.
No, my definition rests on several things, one of them being whether or not the individual believes that they are engaging in consensual acts.
You’re also a hypocrite in your argument. You’ve stated that the man who did not want to engage in unprotected sex and did not consent to doing so, and was physically stopped from getting a condom was not ‘raped’ because he wasn’t forced with a weapon.
If a man and a woman consent to have sex and the woman makes it clear that it must be protected sex, and he doesn’t use a weapon, then he’s doing nothing wrong as long as he doesn’t use a weapon to force her? Even if she protests again and he physically stops her from getting a condom?
These are your own words, all I did was switch the genders.
All right, every woman who engages in sexual contact with a man who is not physically forced with a weapon is not raped. Is that what you are saying?
You see what a disturbing road you wander down when you seek to both simultaneously expand and control the (re)definition of rape.
Except that that’s not my definition, it’s one you invented out of whole cloth and applied to me.
So do you really believe that if no weapons are involved, whatever happens isn’t rape?
-wolfe
Yer welcome!
… pssssst… for what? 0.o
Thanks, e v i l e d d y.
So next time I’m out on a date.. I’ll wait till my date is half finished her meal and then yell out “THEIF!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Yes I know real rape is no joking matter… unless yer raping a clown.
It is also entrapment.
*consent, not “intent”
Changing yer mind midway though coitus is down right rude.
Female summed up the only situation I would consider that rape; where one party clearly understood intent was withdrawn and ignored the victim’s objections beyond a reasonable amount of time (minutes). I understand that that’s hard to prove, and the situations are somewhat