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

Oh and then there is the drive to go beyond the issue of intoxication and consent to cases where there is any imbalance of power between the two parties or any misstatements of facts during the courtship IE rape by fraud.

In other word turning the act of having sex for a man into a very high risk activity indeed.

That is certainly the case with both BillRM and Hawkeye.

Hawkeye continually tries to assert that sexual assaults are within the realm of normal and acceptable sexual behaviors--which is why he has been unable, throughout this thread, to address the crime of rape. He quibbles about notions of "consent", as though he cannot understand the difference between "Yes" and "No" or determine whether a partner is willing or unwilling, he speaks of "ravishment" (i.e. rape, meaning sex without consent) as though it should be part of any "real man's" behavioral repertoire, and he justifies his need to release his sexual impulses, irrespective of a partner's wishes, by narcissistically calling them his "rights".

Anyone who continually refers to women as "bitches", let alone-"man-hating bitches", has no regard or respect for women as other human beings. To Hawkeye, women are no more than pieces of meat to satisfy his sexual needs, and he refers to the "good stuff" the way one refers to a prime cut of meat, which is why he denigrates the need to communicate and establish whether the women are consenting--he has no interest in what the other person wants or does not want--his focus is on his achieving a "conquest" and his own impulses, and anyone, or any law, that interferes with his sexual impulses, and the way he wants to express them, legal or not, he personally attacks.

This isn't just "stupid" on his part, it is ridiculously ego-centric and self serving. The man admits to being deviant in his own sexual behaviors, yet he seems to believe that his standards of sexual conduct should become the norm--however skewed and different these standards are from the majority view. His re-writing of the sexual assault laws is like thieves re-writing burglary and robbery laws to suit themselves.

No one cares what Hawkeye does in private with another consenting adult. But, if he is unable to comprehend his own state's definition of "consent"--which is given in the sexual assault laws of the state of Washington--and he asserts his "right" to ignore or disregard those sexual assault laws, what Hawkeye feels are private matters might well become public and criminal matters. If Hawkeye doesn't like the idea that his sexual behaviors might be regarded as criminal, he should try to stay within the bounds of law.

Like BillRM, Hawkeye's posts serve to illustrate the need for this thread, and the need for sexual assault laws. People like Hawkeye just aren't able to distinguish between consenting behavior and sexual assault--something the law assumes any reasonable person is capable of doing.

Hawkeye and I both had large moral problems with the game playing you and people like you had been doing with playing with the rape issue using the consent issue and getting some of your ideas written into some of the states laws.

I love your position of how dare Hawkeye claimed the right not to obey an insane law just as how dare homosexuals had dare to disobey anti-sodomy laws before the supreme court throw them out.

You and others game playing over the consent laws is just as evil as the anti-homosexuals was in the past in getting their nonsense written into the law codes.

Not only are you moving to take away rights of men but also the rights of women to consent to sex with such people as their GP or lawyer and boss or .............

If that idiotic statement were true, then most sexually active men would be arrested for rape. Don't be such a drama queen.

If a man ignores a woman's drugged or intoxicated state, and the fact that she cannot give knowing consent in such a state, he is disregarding the law--whether or not he is intoxicated is irrelevant--being intoxicated is not a legitimate or acceptable defense to a criminal charge. A drunken driver who hits a drunken pedestrian is still guilty of drunken driving.

Rape laws in the U.S., and certainly in the state you live in, do not define as rape "any imbalance of power between the two parties or any misstatements of facts during the courtship". You either have not read the laws, and their exact wording, or you are too intellectually challenged to comprehend them. But, until you do read them, and understand them, you should refrain from further comment. You continue to make yourself look like a fool--an ignorant fool.

That a man in his 60's still does not understand the sexual assault/rape laws of the state in which he lives, and what those laws say, and do not say, is rather pathetic.

This thread isn't "coming to life", you are just as ignorant of the actual rape laws, and their wording, as you were when this thread started--which is why responding to you is pointless, and listening to your repetitive distorted drivel is a waste of time.

Most homosexuals was not charge with the crime of sodomy so by your logic they was gay drama queens concerning such laws being on the books!!!!



An if a woman ignores a man state of intoxication no harm had been done?

Noe only a man had a legal duty/burden to check and judge a partner level of intoxication with a rape charge hanging over him if the DA who was not there happen to disagree with his judgment?

He is in fact then in the position of being her legal guardian when it come to the question of whether this adult woman consent is valid or not!!!!

That is on it face insane.................

Again, you fail to comprehend that sexual assault/rape laws refer to non-consenting sex. I really am concluding you must be brain-damaged if you fail to understand that.

You are being as idiotic as someone who says that burglary laws interfere with a person's right to freely give away his property.

Dummy, the "consent issue" is what separates rape from wanted sexual interactions. And, if you have a problem with "the consent issue" you are advocating disregard for the wishes of the partner in sexual encounters.

You confuse anti-sodomy laws, which applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and which tried to control private consenting behaviors, with laws designed to prevent an assault--an unwanted and non-consenting assaultive contact by another person? Well, I guess we should just let people punch and bite either other, maybe even stab each other, even when the recipients of such assaultive actions are not consenting to such unwanted treatment. And people should feel free to take another's property, with or without the other person's consent. We should just throw the whole "game playing" idea of consent out of all of our laws, right? People should have no right to control the access of another person to their bodies, or to their property, according to you.

The issue of consent is a fundamental aspect of all state laws pertaining to sexual assault. All criminal laws regarding assaults of any type, including sexual assaults, are meant to protect one individual from the harmful and unwanted actions of another person. If you think these are "insane laws" you are just as morally adrift as your buddy Hawkeye.

Dummy the issue should be was force or the threat of force used or the woman being in a state on unconsciousness or nearly so as in not being aware of her surrounding should be the test when it come to rape.

You know the old standards that had serve mankind well for hundreds of years.

Otherwise you get into mind reading over the issue of was the consent granted freely or not freely and until men are given the power to read the minds of their partner the question of rape should end when the woman give consent when she was not under force or the threat of force by the man.

Consent being either direct words to that effect or no actions by the woman that would give a reasonable man a question that he does not had consent.

Yes those laws was apply equally to homosexual couples and heterosexual couples and the was not on the books as an anit-gay measure at all!!!!!!!

Lord are you willing to be dishonest here and in a manner that a 10 years old can detect at that.

Those "old standards" did serve mankind well--they allowed men to rape women with impunity.

The world has changed...women can now even vote.

Bye BillRM. Go read your state's rape laws, you might learn something.

Of course they did, because men suck......according to you.

They stop women from claiming rape because of regret after the fact and people like you playing games over whether the consent the woman granted her partner at the time was valid or not valid.

It treated women as adults who have some responsibility to clearly communicate with their sexual partners.

Hawkeye she is clearly looking forward the the day when the laws are so out of line that most men could be consider to be a rapists under them.

Only the good will of their female partners will keep them out of prison as such.

Firefly had not been willing to share any of her background as all as the rest of us had done but at a guess she never grow up around men and have no male children.

To her men at best are all would be rapists only held back barely by the law.

Given her constant underlying assumption that men suck I figure she thinks that most men are either violators of women or would do so without much second thought. I am sure that she could regale us with stories about how men have abused women for thousands of years, and they got away with it because the women were weak, but NO MORE! The main problem with this story is that it soon becomes clear that according to her the only time women are not being abused is when men have been successfully oppressed.

Maybe it is just me, but I am opposed to all oppression....

Hawkeye I can not picture our friend Firefly ever being in a close sexual relationship with any man in her life as otherwise she would know what nonsense she is bringing forward on this website.

Hell she even once claimed that video games would have the power to turn young men into rapists.

A few hours of treating women figures on a computer screen badly would undo the years of being around women from their mother to their sisters to their teachers to their classmates.

That one posting alone was enough to tell me of her insane views of one half of mankind.

Nah...when you get down to it you realize that while her message that men suck is overt she does not think very highly of women either. She is the one who insists that the state must treat women as children for their own good, it is women that she accuses of being passive victims for generation upon generation. I dont think Firefly likes people very much...almost certainly something when wrong with her childhood, maybe no one would play with her and so she has been spiteful ever since. Her ideal job would be being a bureaucrat in North Korea, where she could do her utopia building while hurting people with impunity.

You are correct in that she does not view women as adults with full adult rights and responsibilities.

They need to be shelter from us evil men and our lust full drives.

They need the nanny services of the state because they can not be trusted to take care of themselves, this assumption is built into everything Firefly has to say on the subject. And look! According to her all down history men raped women with impunity because women either could not or would not take care of themselves. They are so weak and helpless don't you know......clearly the Bible is correct that Eve was fashioned out of Adam's rib, that women are second rate to men.... Firefly keeps telling us this is so. *sarcasm*


Why women put up with the condescending malarkey that these feminists continually dish out I to this day do not understand.

At a guess most of them are far too busy raising their sons and daughters, working and having a relationship with their partners to pay too must attentions to the feminists.

Of course the problem is that their sons lives could be ruin by laws passed in their names for their "protections".

It nice to know however that my grandfathers and my great grandfathers and so on was free to rape at will before the Fireflies of the world got the laws change.

I think that women assume that because the Feminists act clueless about reality that they are also irrelevant so why bother to complain, but the fact is that the feminists have for the last almost twenty years put most of their effort into their partnership with the state..... they weld their power behind the scenes. Silence is consent no matter what the feminists say to the contrary, women owe it to themselves and to men to put down these man hating bitches with vigor, and while we are now hearing some conservative women objecting the the feminist claim that men suck and the women need government to protect them from men we dont hear anywhere near enough objection...yet.

http://askville.amazon.com/American-women-feminists-sort-stats/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2435560

No. Only 26% in a 1999 Gallup poll self-identify as feminists.
I found other vague references to "less than half" from a 2001 Gallup poll (http://americanobserver.net/2007/04/25/feminist/, citing another article (not freely available), which also does not have the exact number), but nothing more current.

The specified reference source has numbers from 1992 and 1999:

Around that time, millions of women began to reach the same conclusion. In 1992, a Gallup poll found that 33% of American women considered themselves to be feminist (pdf file). But seven years later, the Gallup poll reported that number had plummeted to 26%. And one CBS poll noted that 22% of women said that being called a feminist would be an “insult.” But substitute the word “women” for “feminist,” and you come up with a very different story. A 1998 Pew survey found that 67% of females (and 66% of males) were favorable to the “women’s movement.”

So a large majority of American women do not consider themselves to be feminists, but still support the women’s movement. An obvious and startling conclusion emerges: Women no longer believe that feminism represents their interests or needs. Sources: http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey31.htm