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

Well done ! Pavlov would be proud of a mongrel like you ! Women in distress !!! Wont someone protect the poor poor pitiful women ! They are like babies who cant defend themselves !

Especially with words, their chosen battlefield. Did you see the physical assault we did ?? What an upper cut. No wonder you are trying to defend them. They are incapable of rational thought.

I want to have all my children with a staunch defender like you ! Kiss me, my hero ! Take me into your arms and protect me ! What a man !!

How is your Libby Lobby meetings going, firefly ? Any problems with the non-Lesbians ?

We know what you consider rape. Any woman who says yes than thinks about it a month later and says no. You are an idiot. You think no woman any where is incapable of lying. Magnificent animals really, women. Not capable of the rational thought required to lie. You are an insult to human intelligence, especially to women.

I did ?? I think I am starting to appreciate the depth of your problems.

So everyone supports the current economic policy ? Do you really believe everyone supports everything poli's do ? Really ? Everyone ? Is there a referendum every time ?

I was wondering if Mr Tender was advocating that we react to the ponderings of the women on this thread with pats on the head, and tidings of pride at how they have managed to formulate a thought, with the idea that the men would later retire to the smoking room and conduct business, with no further thought of the show that the women provided. This is the year 1911, yes??

Women need to be protected in the arena of ideas??!! Once we decide that we are staking our names to the conclusion that the advise from on old was correct...women are indeed the weaker sex, and their brains are not suited for the conduct of the affairs of building a civilization. They not being good enough to compete with the men in ideas need protection...says Mr Tender.

Confronting a woman on her ideas is emotional rape?? What the **** does emotion have to do with the conduct of ideas? The person who is dealing in emotion is lost. And rape? what....we are out to prove that we can expand the definition of rape even farther..depower that word even more?

Lying once more Firefly as you know that most people have not a clue about what had been done to the rape laws and what is now being done to them.

There had been not only been no public debates but no attempted to inform the public of the subject.

Only lying to them about how common rape and sexual assault happen to be. Hell if one in a hundred is aware that reported rapes is at a 30 years low I would be surprise indeed.


Hell is going to be up when the public does wake up however.

Stop your sniveling old man, you were provided with a sustained propaganda campaign....deal!

How do we know the level of intoxication ? Was she breath tested or blood analysed ?
If she wondered out onto the freeway, would we legislate against freeways, claiming women rights ?

Hawkeye eventually some prosecutor with a strong desire for his fifteen minutes of frame and little commonsense is going to file charges under the new concepts of sexual assault/rape again some high profile and well like public figure.

The fall out should be interesting indeed.

Bill, in the last two weeks we had almost that...An allegation was made against a Mexican pop singer, he was in America at the time, the Americans deported him, and then there was sizable demonstrations demanding his release in Mexico. With in a few days the Judge dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. Why we went to all that work to transport and detain a guy for a few days when a judge almost immediately claims that there is not enough evidence to go forward IDK, but you have to wonder if the Judge decided that there was no way the population was going to stand for liberal sex laws making a criminal of one of the biggest names in Mexican Pop music over some normal rock star/groupie sex. Maybe what he did was a criminal act according to the new law, but that does not mean that the state is free to take action against him. If the population does not support the state action the state is restricted in its options.

The feminists greatly desire to move public opinion in favor of the laws that they created, and they will often claim (offering no evidence to support their assertion of course ) that they have already accomplished this and that those of us who object are rape sympathizers or assholes or whatever, but you and I know that they are lying.

The fact that you constantly accuse others of lying, without any evidence to support that assertion, strongly suggests that you are the one who is doing all of the lying.

Let's look at your statements which are quoted above.

You say there were no debates about these laws, and no attempts to inform the public of the subject? Do you expect anyone to take that comment seriously? Didn't you even attend elementary school and learn how a bill becomes a law?
These laws were written and passed into law by all U.S. state legislatures, with quite public discussion and debate about them--there was nothing "secret" about them. The current sexual assault laws for a state are taught to high school students and are posted on virtually every college and university Web site as well as being provided on printed materials given to students. Anti-rape campaigns specifically to promote knowledge of the laws are on-going--and one of those campaigns was the inspiration for this thread. The public has been quite well informed

So, there is absolutely no basis in truth for your comments, BillRM. Who do you think is the real liar among us? Try looking in a mirror.

What supports your belief that, "most people have not a clue about what had been done to the rape laws and what is now being done to them"?

It seems to me that most people are quite aware of the current rape laws and how they define the crime of rape. In fact, most of us have been discussing those specific laws for about 385 pages in this thread.

In fact, the only people who appear to be ignorant of the content of the current rape laws are you, Hawkeye, and Ionus.

You, for instance, have recently been complaining about rape by fraud laws, but, when challenged about your views, you were unable to post any of those U.S. laws, from the few states that have them, to explain exactly what you disagreed with in those laws. It was obvious you were unfamiliar with those laws and their content. You really should try reading a law before you attack it. All you have done is display your ignorance...over and over and over again.

Ionus seems to have little familiarity with the rape laws of Australia, where he lives. He has yet to cite a specific rape law from his country and explain exactly why he considers the law to be in need of change and what that change should be. Instead, his posts are mostly insults and put-downs of whatever others say and post, and they are heavily laced with vulgarities and blatantly sexism. That does not disguise his ignorance of the sexual assault laws of Australia, it simply allows him to display his boundless capacity for extreme nastiness.

And, Hawkeye, after 383 pages of ranting about the "sex laws", showed all of us that he was ignorant of the actual rape laws of the state in which he lives--the state of Washington. When confronted with the actual ONE SENTENCE rape law he had been carping about since this thread began, it was clear he could not even understand what the law actually said. Where that law specifically states that rape is sexual intercourse without consent, and the lack of consent must be clearly indicated in the words or conduct of the victim, Hawkeye still insisted that the victim's saying, "No" did not demonstrate a lack of consent. His inability to correct comprehend a very simple ONE SENTENCE rape law was appalling, and revealed how much he clearly distorts the meaning of what he reads. He said he would be happy with the rape laws of his state if it contained a "No means no" law, rather than the rape in the 3rd degree law currently on the books in Washington. What poor, dumb Hawkeye failed to realize, was that the law he totally misinterpreted is a "No means no" law--when the partner says, or indicates, "No", if sexual intercourse then occurs, it is considered rape. So, the law already in effect is one that Hawkeye actually agrees with--but, due to his ignorance of the actual law, he failed to realize that. Hawkeye made a complete fool of himself by clearly showing that his rants against the current rape laws of his state were based on ignorance and distortions and not the actual reality of the law or what it says.

So, the three people doing the most complaining about the current rape laws, Hawkeye, BillRM, and Ionus, are also the three people posting in this thread who have most blatantly displayed their ignorance of the actual laws and what these laws actually say and contain. Ignorance is not bliss, it is simply ignorance. And it is not coincidental that these same three individuals have avoided discussion of actual specific rape laws and, instead, filled their posts with sexist and misogynist comments, insults of all kinds hurled at women in general and female posters in particular, and paranoid conspiracy theories about "feminist" groups plotting in secret to overtake and control the government and all men.

And, what will be their response to this post? It's likely to be more personal insults, likely to be anti-female sexist remarks, likely to be an attack on any male poster who agrees with me, and likely to be more statements about paranoid "feminist" conspiracies, along with false accusations that I am a member of such groups.

They do anything but focus on the specific criminal rape laws of their state, with rational, well thought out comments about how those laws should be changed, if they they should be changed at all. That apparently is too intellectually challenging a task for them. Hurling insults, and generating conspiracy theories is about all they can handle. And the three buffoons actually think they are engaging in a debate of some sort. The only thing they are really doing is egging each other on in a misogynistic pissing contest. And no one really cares who wins that one.

Hearing and debates in congress/statehouse are nice to have but if the citizens are not up in arms about some issue or even aware of it normally our congressmen/women are the very best lawmakers money can buy and will roll over for any special interest that promise to furnish future campaign funding and or campaign workers. Meaningful hearings less alone debates happen in only a very small percent of the total legislation congress pass every years.

Hell a lot of time the lobbies for those special interests are the ones who write the very words of the bills that some lawmaker then will work the system to turn it into federal or state law.

Congress and the statehouses may be more honest then the Roman Senate in the last days of the Rome Republic but not by a great deal.

No dear heart 99 percent of the laws being pass in any session of congress the people are not aware of and in large part the details of most laws congresspersons vote on is beyond them also.

Good try however…………Firefly

Oh would you like me to suggest some books that would explain the way congress/statehouses work in the real universe Firefly or are you just one more spreading nonsense to support your cause?

YOU have children?

You did not answer the question. No surprise there.

You, obviously, don't know what I consider to be rape since your guess is totally wrong. I consider what the law has already provided to be rape. Of course, you hate women so much that you are unable to comprehend this. I would, therefore, have to assume that your hate is manifested in your need to consider that force is the only way to be intimate with a woman.

The fact that you refer to women as animals is quite telling of your sense of worth and seems to indicate low intelligence coupled with delusions of grandeur.

The fact that you consider lying to require rational thought would also be fodder for the mental health profession.

You, sir, are the insult to woman and also an insult to the men of this world. At least the sane ones.

Thank you, so much, for again displaying your total ignorance.

Rape laws are state criminal statutes--they are passed by state legislatures, and not by congress. You are so ignorant that, after 385 pages, you don't even realize we have been discussing state laws. And, specifically, criminal laws. The state government has a vested interest in making sure that the public is aware of the content of criminal laws, in order to make sure that the laws are not violated out of sheer ignorance. It is illogical to suggest that state governments in the U.S. want to keep criminal laws secret or little known--particularly when they pertain to sexual activities.

And these rape laws, which are written and voted into effect by overwhelmingly male legislatures, are publicly debated before passage, in quite open sessions, with considerable discussion about them. And, as I noted in my last post, they are constantly well publicized, particularly to high school and college students, as well as in anti-rape campaigns. And these rape laws aren't exactly "new"--they have been around for awhile, with no hew and cry about them from the general public. The general public is well aware of the current rape laws, and what they contain, and just isn't unhappy with them.

So, there isn't a word of truth in what you are claiming. Except that you appear to be ignorant of the current state rape laws and their exact wording. You don't even know that these are state laws and not federal laws. Well, then speak for yourself. The general public is well informed, even if you aren't.

Firefly future is on the march at Duke University.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2488505/posts

Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

"Duke's new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong," said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. "Members of the men's basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are 'perceived' as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct."

The new policy was introduced at the beginning of the school year with fanfare from the Duke Women's Center—the same center that apologized for excluding pro-life students from event space in a case FIRE won last month. Women's Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke's student newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, "The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop." (In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis that campuses like Duke are likely to harbor smarter sex offenders who are better able to outwit investigators.)

Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through "perceived power differentials," which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

"Of course, there is no way that everyone who was intoxicated during sexual activity, let alone 'perceived' as more powerful, is going to be charged with sexual misconduct," said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. "Add to that the provision about an unintentional atmosphere of coercion, and anyone can see that Duke's policy is impossible to rationalize or to fairly and equitably enforce. As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime."

The new policy even makes reporting of so-called sexual misconduct mandatory for any Duke employee who becomes aware of it, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victim.

Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different "jury" to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one's peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.

Other problems in the sexual misconduct policy, detailed in FIRE's letter to Duke President Richard Brodhead of March 4, include giving the complainant more rights than the accused, requiring the results of a hearing to be kept secret in perpetuity even if one is found not guilty or is falsely accused, and allowing anonymous and third-party reporting so that the student may never be able to face his or her accuser.

FIRE wrote, "As a private university, Duke is not obliged to agree with the authors of the Bill of Rights about the value of the right to face one's accuser. Nevertheless, Duke ignores their wisdom at the peril of its own students and reputation." Duke has declined to respond to FIRE's letter in writing.

"More than any other school in the nation," Shibley said, "Duke should be aware that its students deserve the best possible rules and procedures for ensuring that rape and sexual misconduct charges are judged fairly. Sexual misconduct is a serious offense. Duke students deserve a policy under which true offenders will be punished but the innocent have nothing to fear."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be careful guys if you put "too" must pressure on a woman to consent to having sex with you the label or rapist will be apply.

The degree of non-threatening pressure is up in the air so good luck.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=37+Colum.+J.L.+%26+Soc.+Probs.+57&key=cbdc7fde1657917e283a4350a7ade5a4

The current definition of force in rape law allows the use of non-physical forms of coercion to compel sex. Because rape law only recognizes force that is physical, an under-inclusive definition of the crime has led to unjust acquittals. Heretofore, expanding the definition of rape in order to prohibit non-physical force has been challenged as unworkable, potentially criminalizing too much behavior in pursuit of sex. Contract law, however, provides penalties for nonphysical coercion, including emotional and psychological force. The contractual doctrines of duress, undue influence, and unconscionability measure non-physical force without proscribing all forms of bargaining. This Note explores the difference between free will and coercion in rape law and contract law. The comparison between rape law and contract law suggests a possible reform of the force standard in rape law. The new standard, based on contract measures, would provide a new definition of rape that forbids non-physical coercion and at the same time is neither over- nor under-inclusive.

Seriously, what sane and rational person would want to have sex with anyone they had to pressure into it in any way? There obviously is a reason they don't want to have sex with them. If someone didn't want to have sex with me oh well! I'm not so insecure that someone telling me no is going to cause me to try to cajole them, force them, bribe them, or anything else to that effect.

Sane and rational people know the difference between rape and non-rape. Sane and rational people would understand that no one on this thread has posted a single thing about it being okay for a woman or a man to lie about being raped. We all know that it is not okay to do. Sane and rational people understand that false allegations of rape are out there but they are not the case in every case of accused rape as some like to make it seem.

It is my opinion that any man or woman, for that matter, that must somehow force another person into having sex with them, is insecure and will scream the loudest when stricter laws concerning rape are spoken of. Why would anyone be upset about a law if they have no intention of ever breaking it?

One thing I do find humorous, Bill doesn't seem to believe in God but he mentions hell? Seems pretty irrational to me. Those three remind me of some men I've known in my life. The ones that boast the loudest about how "good" they are........................were always the duds.

http://www.studentaffairs.duke.edu/conduct/resources/sexualmisconduct

Sexual Misconduct
The tenets of the university’s Community Standard (honesty, fairness, respect, and accountability) are essential components of healthy interpersonal relationships. When relationships become intimate, these principles become paramount. Sexual intimacy requires mutual engagement in an environment of affirmative consent. Sexual misconduct against anyone by anyone, male or female (whether acquaintance or stranger), is unacceptable. Duke University is committed to providing an environment free of personal affronts against individuals and will not tolerate sexual misconduct in its community.

Duke University has developed this policy based on these fundamental principles:

Members of the university community are expected to maintain ethical standards of honesty and respect for others.
Sexual misconduct encompasses a range of behaviors, from inappropriate touching to rape, which must be confronted directly by the campus community.
The use of alcohol or other drugs can blur the distinction between consent and manipulation.
Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.Educational and preventative measures are necessary components of the university’s commitment to reduce sexual misconduct in its community.
Responding effectively to reports of sexual misconduct necessitates the coordinated efforts of several campus offices including Duke Police, Office of Gender Violence Prevention and Intervention in the Women’s Center, the Dean of Students Office, Residence Life and Housing Services, Counseling and Psychological Services, and Student Health.
The university will take seriously every report of sexual misconduct it receives by conducting a careful investigation and working to ensure that both complainants and accused students are given appropriate support and fair treatment.

------------------------------------------------
Sexual misconduct defined. Sexual misconduct is defined as any physical act of a sexual nature perpetrated against an individual without consent or when an individual is unable to freely give consent. Acts of a sexual nature include, but are not limited to, touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly; and/or rape, forcible sodomy, or sexual penetration (however slight) of another person’s oral, anal or genital opening with any object. Sexual misconduct also includes sexual exploitation, defined as taking non-consensual, unjust sexual advantage of another for one’s benefit or the benefit of another party. These acts may or may not be accompanied by the use of coercion, intimidation, or through advantage gained by the use of alcohol or other drugs.

Consent defined. The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity. Consent is an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions or words. It is an informed decision made freely and actively by all parties. Relying solely upon non-verbal communication can lead to miscommunication. It is important not to make assumptions; if confusion or ambiguity on the issue of consent arises anytime during the sexual interaction, it is essential that each participant stops and clarifies, verbally, willingness to continue. Students should understand that consent may not be inferred from silence, passivity, or lack of active resistance alone. Furthermore, a current or previous dating or sexual relationship is not sufficient to constitute consent, and consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity. Being intoxicated does not diminish one’s responsibility to obtain consent.

Conduct will be considered “without consent” if no clear consent, verbal or nonverbal, is given. It should be noted that in some situations an individual’s ability to freely consent is taken away by another person or circumstance. Examples include, but are not limited to, when an individual is incapacitated due to alcohol or other drugs, scared, physically forced, passed out, intimidated, coerced, mentally or physically impaired, beaten, threatened, isolated, or confined.
The use of alcohol or other drugs. The use of alcohol or other drugs can have unintended consequences. Alcohol or other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and effectively given. The perspective of a reasonable person will be the basis for determining whether one should have known about the impact of the use of alcohol or drugs on another’s ability to give consent. Being intoxicated or high is never an excuse for sexual misconduct.