voluntary rape

hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

There is where I'm stuck.... sorta. What you're suggesting is that a women who craves to be raped or attacked -- we're NOT talking play here, folks - and is lucky enough to find a willing partner who will brutalize her when she least suspects it (because it's what she wants, after all) is just entering into an 'agreement' and the rapist is not really committing rape. As I said before, live and let live is generally my motto but I'm not convinced that rape for pay (financial or otherwise) isn't rape.

My 'sorta' is based on my philosophy on assisted suicide as something that isn't murder. So, if assisted suicide isn't murder then is assisted rape not rape? I'm on the fence...

Especially with those two numbnuts for debating partners..

Another thing...why is this only about women being raped?

I agree with whoever it was who said that one of these numbnuts spends significant time giving his valuable advice on R&M and if his nutty thoughts aren't challenged they stand as 'expert advice' for newcomers. Silence is acceptance.

I agree with whoever it was who said that one of these numbnuts spends significant time giving his valuable advice on R&M and if his nutty thoughts aren't challenged they stand as 'expert advice' for newcomers. Silence is acceptance.

JPB wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

There is where I'm stuck.... sorta. What you're suggesting is that a women who craves to be raped or attacked -- we're NOT talking play here, folks - and is lucky enough to find a willing partner who will brutalize her when she least suspects it (because it's what she wants, after all) is just entering into an 'agreement' and the rapist is not really committing rape. As I said before, live and let live is generally my motto but I'm not convinced that rape for pay (financial or otherwise) isn't rape.

My 'sorta' is based on my philosophy on assisted suicide as something that isn't murder. So, if assisted suicide isn't murder then is assisted rape not rape? I'm on the fence...

I am all for "live and let live". I also know that there are a small number of masochistic women who enjoy being brutalized.
The problem is that a lot of this is very subjective.

How does one know when a woman consents to "rape", that there is not some sort of emotional coercion involved by her partner?

To make this issue even more tangled, there may be a difference in the level of brutality to which a woman desires to subject herself, which may not be consonant with that of her partner.

This may sound goofy, but what comes to mind is a sort of sexual pre-nup. In that contract, a couple would outline what is acceptable or inacceptable in their relationship. By agreeing to certain acts, a man would not be liable for prosecution if a woman decides that she really did not want to submit to a certain act.

Sounds sensible? I'd bet my last buck that no one would even contemplate getting into such a contractual arrangement, if it were legal to do so, but it's a thought.[/color][/b]

Bella Dea wrote:

Another thing...why is this only about women being raped?

Meaning ?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

Another thing...why is this only about women being raped?

Meaning ?

Uh, what part of that question did I stutter on?

I can't believe you ladies are wasting your time talking to these idiots. You know, they're like loud-mouthed children who hope to shock, if you don't talk to them, they'll go away and find someone else to attempt to annoy.

Until you or someone you know runs into a personal experience with these laws, then you are going to wish you had paid attention.

Me, I have never had a problem with the law because I make an effort to understand the lay of the land. I want to know my risk. A person who chooses to be erotically adventurous must do that, and know the person or people that they are playing with very well.

Sounds to me like we have gone as far as we can with this subject. There is much more to say but it will have to wait till more people wake-up.

Until you've BEEN there, shut you mouth and try to understand that you're opinion doesn't mean squat when you've no experience in the matter.

because moderns are pretty much incapable of talking about rape in any way other than the PC party line

Scary thing is, he believes his own bullsh*t...

As much as I might wish that you respected people who stood up .