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

@BillRM,

Sorry, but you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

You have misunderstood the definition of rape throughout this entire thread. The issue with rape is NON CONSENT. It does not have to involve force at all. You wanted a state law and I posted one.
Here is NYS "no means no" law again

Quote:

Rape 3rd & Sodomy 3rd. Penal Law 130.25 and 130.40 – Class E felonies.

1. Sexual intercourse,

2. without consent

3. where the lack of consent is not due to "incapacity to consent." That is, the victim actually expresses lack of consent by words and/or actions during the incident. Use of force is not required. No means no.

The new definition of lack of consent in Penal Law 130.05(2) adds "circumstances under which at the time of intercourse, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the [defendant’s] situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances."
http://www.correctionhistory.org/northcountry/html/knowlaw/sarasummary3.htm

That has been the problem with you throughout this entire thread. You don't even know what rape is as defined by the laws.

I didn't make up these definitions, these are the laws. RAPE IS SEX WITHOUT CONSENT.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't really understand what other people have been talking about, and you don't understand the information that's being posted, even the info you've posted (you misunderstood the ruling in that Maryland case) And you have the gall to insult anyone else who posts in this thread?

You're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself with your ignorance in this thread.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I would love to know how you can have sex with a woman that does not desire it without using force or the threat of force.

That would be some magic trick.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:286SL-oeAwOh_M:http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6474/1228864232254qb6.png

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Deciding whether the woman is describing a rape is up to the police. If it ever comes before a jury, the evidence would have to support the woman's version of events to get a conviction. A D.A. won't take a case to court unless they think they can get a conviction. And convictions are hard to get in date rapes. So, a woman with a flimsy story is unlikely to get her case to the point of trial.

It's up to the jury to try to sort out the truth on the basis of the evidence.

The problem with Bill is that he is denying what the rape laws define as rape, or he is just unable to understand what they say.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

I think I going to place him into my ignore file as he had not come up with anything at all that is worth reading.

Not a intellectual of any kind.............

0 Replies

Firefly, I don't know what more you could say.

This is a feed blitz and listening isn't part of the program.

Intrepid said any woman with brains is out of here. Intrepid and I are not routinely on the same page but agree on this. You are giving smart answers to a wall, like you enjoy bouncing the ball.

Please don't feed these guys, they thrive on it. I'm not against getting them, but not in this manner.

I may be forced to come up with corny phrases.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

I would love to know how you can have sex with a woman that does not desire it without using force or the threat of force.

That's not the issue. And no one here is going to instruct you on how to be a rapist.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Look at the law again. After it says force, or threat of force, it says OR...OR..OR

When percieved threat became the standard we went very, very wrong. For something to qualify as threat of force it should be required to be a threat of force beyond all reasonable doubt, not what the woman had in her mind. If the womans perceptions do not square with what the man did according to a jury then the charge should be thrown out, but as I understand it the jury instruction are more that if the jury comes to the conclusion that the woman said yes because she was in fear it does not matter how unreasonable her fears were.

Quote:

At present we do not know what happened between Kobe Bryant and his alleged victim. I believe that the possibility of unintentional perpetration should be part of our understanding of the issue, whether or not it is applicable in this case. While allowing for this possibility, we must also be clear that lack of intent to rape should in no way be construed as lack of responsibility for raping. If consent was not freely and clearly given then an accused perpetrator had no justification for sexual intimacy. One of the important educational tasks in our efforts to end sexual assault is to teach men about the conditions of consent and the possibility of unintentional perpetration. However large or small their numbers, these men are excellent candidates for rape prevention education because they do not want to rape.

http://www.ncherm.org/pdfs/article04-berkowitz.pdf
Alan Berkowitz is a nationally recognized expert in the prevention of sexual assault prevention. He has developed innovative programs to foster men's responsibility for preventing sexual assault and written extensively about this subject

What we are talking about is mixed signals, but according to the saviors this is rape, and presumably if they are calling it rape they think that rape charges, and the resulting hefty penalties, should be applied TO THE MAN ONLY. So much for pursuing justice and fairness.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The problem with Bill is that he is denying what the rape laws define as rape, or he is just unable to understand what they say.

You might what to come up with one example where the New York law of would would declare that a raped had occur that would not be cover by force or the threat of force.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I agree, osso.

Well, at least the law is now clear to anyone else who reads this thread.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00362/stop_rape_280_362433a.jpg

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

For something to qualify as threat of force it should be required to be a threat of force beyond all reasonable doubt, not what the woman had in her mind.

The current legal standard is what a reasonable person would take as a threat of force.

I had hear they wish to change that to what a reasonable woman would view as a threat of force!

God help us............

0 Replies

@firefly,

But you keep talking with creeps. I'm over it, I insist. It has taken me a while.
You've explained for us very well. You can rest. Rigamaroles aren't all that useful.

Asshats will scalp themselves.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

CAN YOU READ

Rape 3rd & Sodomy 3rd. Penal Law 130.25 and 130.40 – Class E felonies.

1. Sexual intercourse,

2. without consent

3. where the lack of consent is not due to "incapacity to consent." That is, the victim actually expresses lack of consent by words and/or actions during the incident. Use of force is not required. No means no.

The new definition of lack of consent in Penal Law 130.05(2) adds "circumstances under which at the time of intercourse, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the [defendant’s] situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances."
http://www.correctionhistory.org/northcountry/html/knowlaw/sarasummary3.htm

Ask Hawkeye to explain it to you if you still can't get it.

I can't waste my time with you.

3 Replies

@firefly,

I understand it is hard to be quiet, but back off and consider the usefulness. You are dealing with internet loving lunkheads. Reminds me of Coleridge, and the battering crags of the sea.

You write well, and I'd like to see you listened to. A2k may not be mature enough for a while.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Duke rape policy: If you’re perceived as “powerful,” it wasn’t consensual
By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
04/07/10 1:05 PM EDT
Duke University’s new sexual misconduct policy can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered “powerful” on campus, according to the non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The policy cites “perceived power differentials” which “may create an unintentional atmosphere in coercion.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/duke-rape-policy-if-youre-perceived-as-powerful-it-wasnt-consensual-90102177.html#ixzz0ulQkAqPJ

reality, what the man did, and what the man meant to do all mean not a damn thing, the only thing that counts is that the woman believed (or says that she believed) that she felt pressure to say yes, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable that belief was. A total fantasy can put a man behind bars on sex crime charges, and most likely will also result in the ruining of his life.

I got to hand it to women, they have succeeded in parleying sex law into some serious power over men. Congrats, smashing job!

0 Replies

@firefly,

And once more how do you have sex with a unwilling partner without force or the threat of force?

It just word games but then I already know you love words games.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

RAPE APOLOGIST BINGO

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

RAPE APOLOGIST BINGO

I cant speak for Bill, But I am an advocate for Justice, and a crusader for a more effective approach to sexual aggression than this bull-**** we currently do, tyvm..

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

For myself had no problem in punishing real rape however I would like to see anyone who is proven in a court of law to had level false charges of rape to find her ass in prison for 20 to life also.

Something that strangely firefly does not support.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

r myself had no problem in punishing real rape

I bet we could not find ten men in America who do, this "rape apologist" BS is the other sides attempt at using language to frame the debate, in this case they are making an emotional appeal to freeze our position out of the debate. I think of myself as a freedom fighter, but they call me a terrorist because it helps their position to do so (btw, I hope for consistency this means that we are no longer obligated to take as true the identifiers people choose for themselves on race...for instance a man who is only a fraction black calling himself Black Obama). I understand that I am despised on this issue here, but I am also right, and justice cares not how unliked my position is. And Justice will prevail in the end, it will just take awhile to get there.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know