@hawkeye10,
The definition of rape has not changed
"In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person's consent"
How has that changed in the last 40 years? Where do you see a reference to force? The assault is the sexual contact. What makes it rape is lack of consent. It is sexual intercourse against the person's will.
Many types of rape involve no force. Comatose patients in nursing homes have been raped, with no apparent force involved.
In fact, the lack of evidence of "force" ---no bruising, swelling, bleeding--often makes it hard to prove that the rape was non consensual. Force is not a necessary component in all rapes.
Where is this "irrefutable" proof you speak of? I don't see you posting references citing actual changes in specific rape laws over the past 40 years which have actually expanded the definition of rape. When you post such references, to specific laws, then we can discuss the subject.
Because you assert something does not make the claim accurate. You seem to distort information so that it fits in with your preconceived notions. That was certainly the case with the article you posted by Dr Frances, which you claim supported your thinking that the sex laws are an abomination and need reforming. You obviously did not understand what Dr Frances was talking about. His concern involved issues surrounding involuntary psychiatric civil commitment procedures when a particular, questionably valid, DSM-IV diagnosis was used to describe an allegedly dangerous mental disorder.
Dr Frances has no interest in the sex laws, or any attempts to reform them, his concerns are in the area of psychiatry and collaborations between psychiatry and the law. Well, perhaps you did understand what Dr Frances was talking about, but you tried to edit his remarks in such a way that it appeared he supported your contention In other words, you could have been, " lying, trying to win the argument unfairly". Or, perhaps, "you are not connected to reality".
Look, I'm not interested in winning any arguments, with you or anyone else. This is not a competition, it is a discussion.
But everything with you is a competition. And you continually have to believe you have "won", even though you have failed to prove or demonstrate anything, either by factual information, or by logic. So, whenever anyone disputes what you are saying, you respond by personally insulting them in a rather juvenile manner. You studiously avoid dealing with the content of their reply or their critical comments because that would call for a more substantive response on your part.
For instance, about one page back on this thread you made one of your typically absurd declarations. This one was that men have never really subjugated women. You claim such notions were invented by feminists and that they have no basis in reality. Of all the many, many, many, quite clear examples I could have chosen, from just about any point in history, and any country in the world, which would have disproven your remarks, I selected only two. One was a contemporary photo, and the other was a written narrative about the history of rapes in wartime. You responded to neither. How could you respond? You would have had to admit you were wrong. And that would have taken some self critical abilities you appear to lack.
You see men and women as engaged in some sort of power struggle, and you voice fears that women are tipping the balance of power in their favor. That's what your rant about the sex laws is all about. Women, more rightly these alleged "feminists", are robbing you of your sexual freedoms--i.e. your sexual power. The rape laws are somehow being "expanded" to ensnare more men and disempower them. You define rape, and supposed changes in rape laws, in terms of type and degree of force--yet another allusion to power.
Have you ever noticed that you are the one preoccupied with issues of power?
The women I know are concerned with equality--equality of opportunity, and equality under the law and equality in their social roles. They are really not concerned with issues of power, in the sense of power as a need to dominate or control someone else, as a man might express when he rapes a woman. Or as you continually do when you press your need to win an argument.
What happened in the last 40 years is that women have become freer to express themselves sexually. Thanks to the Women's Lib movement (and those horrid feminists you malign), and thanks to the introduction of oral contraceptives, in the 60's women became as free to engage in and enjoy sex as men. Except for the fact that men have still referred to the ones who enjoy it too much, and too often, and with too many partners, as "tramps". There are still vestigial negative connotations attached to women who freely have sex, and some of this is what emerges when we blame rape victims for their own rape, or we doubt the woman's claim that she has actually been raped. And, as virginity has receded in importance, and as something that men actually respected, young women found themselves more and more pressured to have sex, even when they didn't want it, and men found it harder to take "No" for an answer.
So date rapes and acquantance rapes became more a part of the social scene. But those were the rapes which were often the hardest to prove, and hardest for the women to report, and consequently the easiest for the man to get away with . Women found themselves victimized by the rapist as well as the legal system. So rape shield laws were put in place, to help protect the woman from the social stigma which can result from the way a rape victim is viewed, and to prevent unwarrented disclosure of a woman's entire past sexual history. And now we have men whimpering that the identity of the male defendant should be protected as well. Why should we shield those men? Do we protect the identity of murder defendants, or child abuse defendants, or arsonists, or terrorists? Why do we need to single out only male rape defendants for identity protection? To keep some of their other possible victims from coming forward? Rapes tend to be repeated offences, particularly when the rapist has gone undetected. Don't we want his other possible victims to come forward? Don't we really want justice to be served? Or is all this concern for the poor male defendant just another attempt by men to regain power over women.
So, Hawkeye, sorry if you feel your power and freedom in the sexual realm slipping away. The legal arena for sexual crimes has become somewhat of a more level playing field. "Feminists" haven't done that, it's simply that legally things have become more equalized, with the females not quite at the same degree of disadvantage they were 40 years ago. They are still at a disadvantage, when it comes to sexual crimes, it's just not as great a disadvantage.
The definition of rape hasn't changed. But sexual boundries have expanded in other venues to include curbs on sexual harrassment in the workplace, on college campuses, and in other situations where influential men could influence power and control over women. It's just part of the progress toward equality, toward having a level playing field, so women can pursue careers, and interests, without being sexually hounded, or sexually pressured.
And if you think that any women want to turn back the clock and go back to a time when women were even more easily sexually exploited, and abused, you are out of your mind. No female wants to reform the sex laws to dilute or compromise their ability to protect women from realistic harm and sexual assault. 91% of rape victims are female. We need those protections.
But, he was just a troll. Hawkeye and Bill are just misinformed and full of hate.
