voluntary rape

Animals That Kill Their Young

In his classic work On Aggression, Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz argued that man is the only species that regularly kills its own kind. This concept, which contrasted the order and restraint in the animal world with the chaotic aggressiveness of man. reflected the mood of the time: the shadow-of-the-Bomb pessimism of the '50s and early '60s. But Lorenz was wrong; since 1963, when his book was published, naturalists have identified dozens of species that kill their own, including lions, hippos, bears, wolves, hyenas, herring gulls and more than 15 types of primates other than man.

In the new perspective, animals are not benign machines that live for the group and kill only to eat. Instead, they are programmed for selfish, even murderous acts when survival and propagation are threatened. This radical shift in thinking is shown most dramatically by studies of India's sacred monkey, the hanuman langur. In 1965, a naturalist wrote that the long-tailed black and gray langurs were "relaxed" and "nonaggressive." Now, a Harvard researcher has shown that the langur society operates more like the House of Borgia, complete with kidnapping, constant sexual harassment, group battles, abandonment of some wounded young by their mothers, and the regular practice of infanticide.

In her new book. The Langurs of Abu, Harvard Anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, 31, portrays langur life as a "soap opera" that revolves around the struggle between the sexes. As in other species, the strongest males compete for control of each troop. What makes the langurs different is that the winner tries to bite to death the young offspring of his predecessor. The mothers resist the infanticide until the struggle looks hopeless, then pragmatically present themselves to the new ruler for copulation.

But why infanticide? Hrdy reasons that the grisly practice evolved among the langurs to solve a problem for the new dominant male. Because of the competition of other males, his reign over a harem or troop is usually short, and his genetic drive dictates that he impregnate the females as quickly as possible. As Hrdy explains: "By eliminating infants in the troop that are unlikely to be his own, a usurping male hastens the mother's return to sexual receptivity and reduces the time that will elapse before she bears his offspring."

Hrdy, who spent 1,500 hrs. observing langur behavior around India's Mount Abu from 1971 to 1975, documented the disappearances of 39 infants around the times of new male takeovers; she estimates that only half of all langurs survive infancy. While males shift constantly among groups, females usually spend a lifetime in one troop and cooperate in warding off danger.

Right! If your wife is withholding sex permanently, then the marriage
vow is off, and you can do as you please, except touch her.

If however a woman consents to a long term relationship, she should over time lose the right to claim rape.

Much or all of what is called date rape and marital rape needs to be called something other than rape. It also should not be treated in prisons, but rather out patient social services.

JustBrooke, you are pissin' into the wind. You aren't EVER going to get through that skull of his. I don't know who Hack is, but he's all over the sex and relationship topics and he says the same thing, over and over and over again.

You girls are just being nice...

Good job hawkeye! You have just done an awesome job of solidifying what I already knew about you. What you are saying is that a man has a right to ownership over a woman after a period of time. And at that conjuncture if he wants to bang her...she has no right to say no. That the man has a right to take it from her and no cry of foul play on her part should exist.


Are you telling the poor individuals that have had to endure date rape, that they are for the most part liars? That the repercussion from said forced sex should be null? Perhaps you have commited such acts yourself and therefore are blind to the effects of non-consensual sex? I don't know what your story is. I just know that the sexist, pathetic ways of which you portray youself are beyond sad sometimes.

And before you attack me with this bullshit of telling me that I don't know how to enjoy sex......blah blah blah. Let me say that I have no problem with 2 consenting adults acting out rape acts or whatever THEY wish. That can in fact be pleasing to both partners. See....key word there is BOTH want it. BOTH act on it. BOTH agree upon it.

Also if you are going to post links to support your views.....you might wanna post something that has more than a 2.5 out of 5 star rating. Half the people that read that book thought it sucked and they did not agree with it. Your Link

Brooke is right - people like hawkeye need oppositional posts to make
everyone aware of his distorted and sick mind. We know that he is
wrong with just about everything he spits out, but there might be a doubtful
soul out there who is in hawkeye's league and needs to be discouraged
from even thinking that hawkeye has got a leg to stand on.

I did not say that we should go back to English common law where the wife has no right to refuse her husband, I said that sexual problems in a marriage should not be called rape and should be a public health concern not a police concern.

The police are in our bedrooms, I want them out of our bedrooms. Since two people can not presently do what ever they want because of the rape laws you should join me in calling for the rape laws to be modified.

I agree. I was really stunned by the quotes Brooke just highlighted. I suspect Hawkeye means that with the advance in the understanding of rape, play rape is now illegal. But as many posters have said, if it's play/voluntary, it isn't by definition rape. He takes a walk on the ice slope that there is some natural agreement for rape (I take it as real rape) to happen, simply in being together on a date or in a marriage or other long term relationship. Primitive opinion.

Rape is no longer gender based and men or women can be prosecuted for rape and can be raped. Placing a person in fear of sexual assault is an offense even if it is not intended as an offense. Also significant is that the new article on rape has removed the element of "without consent" from the list of facts that the government has to initially prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact the burden of proof to a preponderance of the evidence is on the DEFENSE to prove that the act was WITH consent. This is an unprecedented change that exists no where else in the UCMJ or in any other jurisdiction in the United States. Once the defense meets its burden of proving the act was with consent, the government gets another chance to prove the act was without consent.

You guys just don't get it - when a women says NO - any woman, regardless
of wife, girlfriend, date or stranger - if she says NO that means she cannot
be touched. Anyone trying to have intercourse with a women against her
will is rape!

No if, no when, no nothing - it is rape!

A three-judge panel of the Maryland Special Court of Appeals reinforced the provision of Maryland's rape law that says a woman who gives consent prior to intercourse cannot withdraw her legal consent during the act. The decision came on Monday when the Court overturned a rape conviction. During deliberation in the original trial, the jury had asked, "If a female consents to sex initially and, during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind and the... man continues until climax, does the result constitute rape?" The trial judge said that Maryland's law was unclear and would not provide a definite answer. The Special Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the trial judge's interpretation of the law. Current Maryland rape law is "not ambiguous," said the ruling; if a woman consents prior to sex, she may not withdraw her consent during the act and accuse her partner of rape if he continues the act.

Women's rights groups are outraged by the ruling. "You should have the right to say no at anytime and that should mean no and if sexual acts continue after you've withdrawn your consent, they should be considered a crime," said Jennifer Pollitt Hill, a member of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, to WJZ, a local television station. According to WJZ, several decision-makers have already said they wish to address the issue in the upcoming legislative session, though legislation that would have given women the right to withdraw consent at anytime has failed in both 2004 and 2005.

Maryland is one of two states that have ruled that women do not have the right to withdraw consent. Seven other states have ruled that women may withdraw consent at anytime.

I read that and responded to it earlier. I said early on that I am not for false accusations. But fixing that by saying women shouldn't get to say no, on a date or after the wedding is a noxious remedy.

ossobuco wrote:

I agree. I was really stunned by the quotes Brooke just highlighted. I suspect Hawkeye means that with the advance in the understanding of rape, play rape is now illegal. But as many posters have said, if it's play/voluntary, it isn't by definition rape. He takes a walk on the ice slope that there is some natural agreement for rape (I take it as real rape) to happen, simply in being together on a date or in a marriage or other long term relationship. Primitive opinion.

You really should look at some actual rape law. from Chumly's post on page 5

Quote:

Rape is no longer gender based and men or women can be prosecuted for rape and can be raped. Placing a person in fear of sexual assault is an offense even if it is not intended as an offense. Also significant is that the new article on rape has removed the element of "without consent" from the list of facts that the government has to initially prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact the burden of proof to a preponderance of the evidence is on the DEFENSE to prove that the act was WITH consent. This is an unprecedented change that exists no where else in the UCMJ or in any other jurisdiction in the United States. Once the defense meets its burden of proving the act was with consent, the government gets another chance to prove the act was without consent.

The one who is acting as aggressor is guilty till proven innocent, and contracts are not admissible. Just as women had great difficulty proving rape with the old laws, men now have great difficulty proving that they did not commit rape. Women now have great leeway to change their minds after the fact, as the simple claim by them that they were hurt goes far to convicting the man of rape, and consent is difficult to prove.

ossobuco wrote:

I read that and responded to it earlier. I said early on that I am not for false accusations. But fixing that by saying women shouldn't get to say no, on a date or after the wedding is a noxious remedy.

Nobody is suggesting that women should not be able to say no, I am suggesting that women should be allowed to enter agreements for sexual activity that is now outlawed and for which a woman legally can not consent to, and the relationship sexual disagreements should not land the guy in a legal jackpot. Send him or both of them to social services and let some counselors work with them. If violence was used them get him for abuse, those laws work pretty well. Marital rape is a bad concept, for long term relationships it is as well.