Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

@BillW,

Quote:

"I know she was asking me to rape her" is not a defense, period. Just like, "I looked and the coast was clear", doesn't work in a car wreck

if one person does not want to do it they can say so, they can say the very little word "no", they can get up and leave, they can slap a hand away....I dont think this is asking too much. I dont think that we should ruin sex by demanding active verbal consent for each stage of the act as many rape feminist demand in compensation for being unwilling to demand that the person who does not want sex indicate such.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Most people are not even aware of the direction your group is trying to drive our laws toward

What is this crap about referring to my opinions as "your group". What "group" and what "special interest group" are you referring to? Are you delusional? My views reflect my opinions, and not those of any group. I do not see the rape laws as a political issue. They are not "sexual laws" they are sexual assault laws. Non consensual sex, rape, is a sexual assault.

Quote:

Sorry Firefly the law in defining rape is not what you desire it to be in all 50 states now thank god

Which of the 50 states do not regard non consensual sex intercourse as rape?

Quote:

In that regard I had taken note in the examples you had posted all or at least the vast majority concern real rapes not the craziness you wish to promote. That along with your lying about a rape crisis existing at the same time that rape happen to be at a thirty years low tell anyone who can think where you are coming from.

Right, I have only been discussing real rapes. You're the one who has been promoting craziness by citing your hypothetical examples of situations which are not legally considered rape--like regrets about consensual sex or buyers remorse--and trying to generate a "rape crisis" for men by asserting that men in the United States are being convicted of rape under such absurd scenarios.

I've never said that there was a "rape crisis". I don't believe there is a rape crisis. But you and Hawkeye are the ones trying to manufacture a "rape crisis" in the minds of other men by continually distorting the actual state rape laws and suggesting that these laws are designed to ensnare innocent men. The rape laws aren't intended to entrap anyone--any more than the traffic laws are intended to entrap anyone. If people engage in non consensual sex, or disregard the need to have consent, they may well violate those laws, just as they might violate traffic laws by going through a stop sign. People are responsible for obeying the law--no matter what kind of law it is--and if they violate the law, they should expect to be punished for it. And, most people do abide by the sexual assault laws. Most people have sex with consenting partners.

4 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Most people have sex with consenting partners.

IMHO a person who refuses to define the word "consent" (you) should not use it.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

What is this crap about referring to my opinions as "your group". What "group" and what "special interest group" are you referring to

in 250+ pages you have only once departed from the radical rape feminist viewpoint, that being when you said that you would be willing to criminalize females lying about rape. If my congressman were to say "but I never claimed to be a conservative so why are you calling me one" when he/she over the last years has voted with the conservative block 99% of the time, he is a conservative, even when he is not willing to admit it. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,,,it is a duck.

However, most conservatives are proud to be called a conservative, why are you not proud to be called a rape feminist (or more kindly a feminist sexual assault activist)?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You are now engaging in out and out lying.

You have said the age of consent should be lowered to 12--and not 15. You supported Roman Polanski for raping that 13 year old--you didn't think he had done anything wrong. You've said that 12 and 13 year olds are being deprived of their sexual freedom by not being "allowed" to legally consent to sex. That's why other A2K members began calling you "shorteyes".

You want rape laws to go back to requiring extreme force and resistance? Why so more women can be beaten black and blue and more of them killed? How much resistance do you want women in their 80's and 90's to put up? Elderly women typically offer no resistance because they are afraid of being killed. How about 12 year olds who are raped by their fathers? How much resistance do they have to put up?

Obviously, some force would be used in all rapes, since the female is non consenting, unless she's so incapacitated or impaired she can't physically respond--if no force at all was used, the female would just get up and leave and there would be no rape. The only change has been that the laws no longer require extreme force or extreme threat in all rape situations, and a simple, "No" constitutes non consent.

In situations in which there is "confused consent"--meaning the consent is unclear to the male--it should be clarified before the sex act takes place--otherwise the sex act should not take place. If the female really wants to engage in sex, and you stop, she'll let you know that she wants to continue and that she's giving consent

Rape is not about the "erotic"--that's your fantasy about raping women--it's apparently erotic for you to imagine raping someone, or actually raping someone (and you said you've committed rape). Even the study you posted in this thread showed that victims of both acknowledged and unacknowledged rapes suffer extremely negative and long lasting consequences as a result of the rape--and that included date rapes.

You have advocated the legalization of child pornography--child pornography depicts sex acts. There is another thread on the subject of child pornography and you were a prime contributor, arguing it should be legalized because you see possession and viewing of it as a victimless crime.

You seem to be trying to rehabilitate your "image" by suddenly trying to tone down your views. But you've voiced them so often everyone already knows how you think. So knock off the BS.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

What's with you? Everyone who supports the current rape laws is not a "radical rape feminist".

You can't respond to someone who supports the rape laws without trying to pigeon-hole them as a "radical rape feminist"--because you need to argue against what you see as the political agenda of "rape feminists"--because that lets you get on your soapbox and rant about the "sex laws". So, you call everyone who supports the current sexual assault laws a "rape feminist". That's grossly inaccurate, but it suits your purposes--you need that bogus strawman in order to argue against it.

I've expressed no political agenda regarding the sexual assault laws, and I've never said I want them expanded--I just want the current laws enforced.

Most people support the current sexual assault laws--there is no widespread movement to have them repealed. You are in a distinct minority fringe group.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You have said the age of consent should be lowered to 12--and not 15. You supported Roman Polanski for raping that 13 year old--you didn't think he had done anything wrong. You've said that 12 and 13 year olds are being deprived of their sexual freedom by not being "allowed" to legally consent to sex. That's why other A2K members began calling you "shorteyes".

Only one member has called me "shorteyes" and he is a clearly troubled idiot. Try to find where I said that the AOC should be 12 YO, you will not find it because I never said it. I said that Polanski broke the law, and should have been punished for it, but that the Criminal Justice system failed him and us, and that the DA has no right to further pursue him, that the current attempt to get him is an abuse of Polanski and a miscarriage of justice.

Me thinks you emotions are getting the better of you, as you seem to misremember my positions.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

People are responsible for obeying the law--no matter what kind of law it is--and if they violate the law, they should expect to be punished for it. And, most people do abide by the sexual assault laws. Most people have sex with consenting partners.

You would had made a wonderful Nazis turning in your Jewish neighbors because it the law in 1930s and 1940s Germany in my opinion.

After all we need to follow all the insane laws no matter how harmful to normal human interactions between the sexes that your group can get pass.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Most people support the current sexual assault laws--there is no widespread movement to have them repealed

there is wide debate even amongst the advocates and legal practitioners about what sex law should be, this is why we keep on having conferences/studies/and debates of the future on sex law in america....there is no static opinion from the system for which people can either get behind or call for repeal.

We will however in time get there, and I am confident that those like me who call for reform and repeal of some of the newer sex laws will win, because your side is wrong about what is the best approach for regulating sex, and also wrong about American willingness to tolerate the persistent effort to label women systemic victims and men systemic abusers. It is fine for women to want more power and to try to get it, is not fine to let women wallow in victim hood, to tar men as abusers for the mere act of being men, or to make the government which is supposed to represent us all the agent of a female power grab.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

What's with you? Everyone who supports the current rape laws is not a "radical rape feminist".

Sorry you had yet to get all these crazy laws pass in all 50 states or for that matter in the majority of the states and for the most part they are not in fact the current laws.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

IMHO a person who refuses to define the word "consent" (you) should not use it.

My definition of "consent" is that used in the state laws.

Unlike you, I don't make up my own definitions of "rape" and "consent"--I use the definitions of the state.

If you don't understand consent, or know when you do, or don't, have consent, you shouldn't engage in sexual activity with anyone--stick to masturbation.

Most people understand full well what consent means. And that includes you.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Most people understand full well what consent means. And that includes you.

I know what it means to me, I dont know what it means to you because you refuse to say. Funny thing about words with no agreed upon definitions, we tend to think we know what it means, until we find out that others dont agree. We do that with the words Pornography and Obscenity too. However, when we are going to ruin an individuals life with a criminal charge for going over a line we have an obligation to do better, we have an obligation to make the line defined and consistent. To refuse to do so, as you are claiming the right to do, is an abuse of the individual at the hands of the state.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Most people understand full well what consent means. And that includes you

.

So the issue now being raised in the US and other nations concerning rape by fraud is understood by most people? Laws that are sadly now on the books of a few states.

The issue that if your female sexual partner have any regrets after the fact of sexual intercourse and if there have been any voluntary drinking she have a good chance in some states of having you lock up for 20 years is understood by most people let alone agree with by most people?

Or that if your female partner had a change of heart in the middle of the act and it take you longer then seven seconds to react and withdraw you can end up in prison at least in one state is understood or agree with by most people?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The issue that if your female sexual partner have any regrets after the fact of sexual intercourse and if there have been any voluntary drinking she have a good chance in some states of having you lock up for 20 years is understood by most people let alone agree with by most people

right now the people who prosecute the law are often showing restraint, in large part because they realize where the lawmakers have not what a disaster for the law and the greater good would be the full implementations of the most strenuous interpretation of these laws. You might have noticed Bill, that this vary same restraint is bitterly criticized by firefly and her pals,as they aggressively complain about the conviction rate for sex crimes, and as they call for mandatory arrests laws and mandatory prosecution policies as an end run around the resistance of the system to carry out the radical laws that they have been able to get through state capitals. Being once burned by being forced to carry out bad law intended to protect children (or at least to create the illusion that we are trying to protect children from the alleged scourge of abduction and abuse) these professionals are loathe to take a second bite of the apple to do the same thing with adult women, who in theory should unlike children be able to look after themselves....and damn well ought to be encouraged to try to do so.

My sense is that this resistance from the system is primary due to the history surrounding child abduction and pedophilia laws, Which have been draconian, which the system did cooperate with, and which have largely been a failure. They suck up a lot of system resource on cases which are often essentially parental custody disputes, and they have created a class of lifelong criminals who are not allowed to live in most places and are largely not allowed to rebuild their lives after they have done their time. These are the sex offenders who are living as transients because the law and the hounding that they endure due to "megan's laws" make it impossible for them to live in a fixed abode or to work.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I love Hawkeye the fact that child porn laws sold to the population as a means of protecting our young people is now in danger of being used to ruin the lives of those very young people for the "crime" of creating and sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends or girlfriends.

Even in the cases where it is legal for a couple to have sex it is not legal for them to have sexual pictures of each other with a minimum punishment of four years and being register as a sex offender for live.

Sadly you can not depend on all prosecutors showing restraint or commonsense nor should you need to.

But as Firefly would say it the law!!!!!!!!!

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

I love Hawkeye the fact that child porn laws sold to the population as a means of protecting our young people is now in danger of being used to ruin the lives of those very young people for the "crime" of creating and sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends or girlfriends.

the DA's have backed off, as that was a step too far, for while it was supported by the law (thus showing how much interpretation goes into the law, because one does not get a law intended to get adults who victimize children to work on children who trade racy pics of themelves with out the ability to extensively interpret the statutes) the victim advocates had a hissy fit. There have been several conferences on this matter, and the DA's have agreed to suspend the use of child porn laws to combat sexting, and are looking for another way. There is great dispute on whether this is a matter for the law though, for the first time in a long time we are seeing some second thinking about what has become the conventional wisdom that the law is the solution to every perceived problem.

I dont even agree that this is a problem though, I think that if teens want to trade pics of themselves in the nude then they should be free to do so. If they want to trade sexual banter in text then they should have at it. If they want to trade pics of themselves engaged in sex I would have no problem with that as long as everyone in the pic agreed to the publication.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sadly you can not depend on all prosecutors showing restraint or commonsense nor should you need to.

Nor should we depend upon our sex partners to have the good sense to not turn us in for rape if they went along for the sex ride but later decided that they did not like it. The rights of men need to be protected by law, just as everyone's must be. When Firefly comes around with some version of "dont be concerned with what the law says, so long as your woman is happy with you you will have no trouble with the law" I am offended, for my rights should never depend up the whims of my woman. I would never accept my own enslavement under the terms of "if you are a good boy it will be fine". I am an equal with my woman, I am not her slave, and when the law treats me as a second class citizen because I am a man then Houston, we have a problem.....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The rights of men need to be protected by law, just as everyone's must be. When Firefly comes around with some version of "dont be concerned with what the law says, so long as your woman is happy with you you will have no trouble with the law" I am offended, for my rights should never depend up the whims of my woman. I would never accept my own enslavement under the terms of "if you are a good boy it will be fine". I am an equal with my woman, I am not her slave, and when the law treats me as a second class citizen because I am a man then Houston, we have a problem.....

AGREE ONE THOUSAND PERCENT

One wonder how Firefly would care for women freedoms to depend on the good faith of their partners as she wishes men to do.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

One wonder how Firefly would care for women freedoms to depend on the good faith of their partners as she wishes men to do.

The rape feminist position is that men are not to be trusted at all, but women are to be trusted always (and dont you dare use a lie detector test to find out the truth!).....though firefly is willing to admit that women are not honest and trustworthy 100% of the time, with her it is probably 99.9%. And that seems to be her position,women are so trustworthy than only rapists scumbags would have any trouble with the law leaving guilt and innocents up to women to decide, but leaving ANYTHING up to men causes the victimization of women.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

The rape feminist position is that men are not to be trusted at all, but women are to be trusted always (and dont you dare use a lie detector test to find out the truth!).....though firefly is willing to admit that women are not honest and trustworthy 100% of the time, with her it is probably 99.9%. And that seems to be her position,women are so trustworthy than only rapists scumbags would have any trouble with the law leaving guilt and innocents up to women to decide, but leaving ANYTHING up to men causes the victimization of women.

Men are not to be trusted and have the ability to rape. Women can be trusted and they have the ability to accuse men of rape. That's a novel way to control the population of the planet.

1 Reply

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know