I assume that the designers of this campaign know this, thus the real goal is to get people other than the victim to turn in rapists. It is yet another assault on the right of the victim to determine their own course of action, their own destiny. It is a new push to depower victims, done under the cover of promoting the victim.
The clear goal is for idiots who think it is ok to rape NOT to do it!
if that is what you wanted to do you would have left my name out of it....you have other agendas..
Quote:I seriously doubt that this much money is spent by idiots who would think that an tv commercial will convince otherwise rapists to not do it. However, I do commend your ability to avoid the obvious in your mission to protect your delusions that those who claim to be working for victims must be honest and fair folk.The clear goal is for idiots who think it is ok to rape NOT to do it!
I am not in favor of rape, I am in favor of removing some of the recent changes in the definition of rape.
so he'd rather stick with a pro-rape rap and wear the mantle of unpopularity like vindication than moderate his extremes and retract a brainfart.
"Robert Gentel" wrote:I am going with the expectation that over time the problem with these new versions of sex law will become clear to many, as they are currently clear to a few, and that they will be seen to be serious enough to demand reform. My position is not extreme in the sense that the facts dont support it, it is only extreme in the sense that what I see few others see at the moment.so he'd rather stick with a pro-rape rap and wear the mantle of unpopularity like vindication than moderate his extremes and retract a brainfart.
You act like consent and force are cut and dried. They are not, these are very squishy concepts. Actually, rape has been redefined to include coercive sex which is more nebulous still, coercion can been just about anything we want it to mean. We have not gotten there yet but if i take you out to dinner with the expectation that their will be sex after, and after you put the brakes on and I explain that I expected sex after, this will before long be defined as coercion. If you then change your mind and we have sex you could latter make the case that you have been raped. This is about the level that we have gotten to, which basically is that men have no rights to negotiate to have there sexual needs met if their needs exceed that of their female partner. Rape law is being used to shut men up, to not allow men to speak that which women do not what to hear. Rape law is being used to coerce men in to allowing women complete control of sexual encounters. No, I am not agreeing to this scheme, and other men should not either. You don't get to equality based relationship by giving in to every demand that females make, you don't get anywhere in fact.
No means NO. Period.
Humans do not work that way, negotiations are continuous.
Have you ever been in love or in lust? Always quit at the first "no"? Do those who do quit ever get the girl? Women do not always know what they want, admit to what they want, do not always give straight answers, and do not respect men who give -up on pursuing them.
how do you define rape?
When a woman says "no" that should be the end of it.
As the law does. The definition should be narrowed up again to make it meaningful again, and all but non predatory and/or non physically violent sexual offenses should be handled in the public health system, with not contact orders and court ordered mental health care as needed
So, based on this and what you have said before, you do not consider it rape if there is no actual violence or stalking?