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

@mysteryman,

Quote:

While I dont want to sound like Bill and Hawkeye,

How about you just worry about what the truth is and what is right, and standing up for that?? Is that too much to expect out of you?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I have no problem with that.
However, you both have, at times, been rather insulting to some of the female members of this discussion.
And, to be fair, they have been rather insulting to you at times.

However, it is rather difficult to have an intelligent or honest discussion when both parties are insulting each other.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

And the West Point case did not lead to a conviction.

How wonderful that he was not convicted however his life was seriously harm and the full power of the military prosecutors did their very best to placed him in prison for rape due to the young lady regret.

And yes I had indeed posted cases where there were convictions bury in the thousands of postings I had done on this thread.

A numbers of them also dealing with the military schools if memory is serving me correctly.

I guess you dishonest game playing will required me to prove once more that you are a very dishonest person.

Oh as your position had always been that in such cases the man should had been convicted your calls for cases seems to be a smoke screen in any case.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Do you think a lawyer would allow you to sign your Will if you were severely intoxicated?

Your lawyer had a duty to you to act in your best interest however a sexual partner does not had any such duty.You are responsibility for you own actions as an adult drunk or not drunk.

That includes driving a car or having sex..............

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

However, it is rather difficult to have an intelligent or honest discussion when both parties are insulting each other.

My contempt has been well earned.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

However, using your argument, and taking it to an absurd level, how can a person ever be convicted of drunk driving, especially if they kill someone?
After all, if they were drunk, they were not capable of making the decision to drive, and cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Being drunk is not a valid defense for a criminal act. If you commit a crime while drunk, you are still held legally responsible for your actions.

The person who is raped is not the one committing the criminal act.

When an action, any action, legally requires the consent of the other person, the responsibility for being sure they have consent falls on the person taking the action.

If you want to take my property, you have to be sure you have my consent, otherwise you can be charged with stealing.

If the law defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent, the male, as the one taking the action of penetration, must be sure he has consent, as the sexual assault laws of that state define consent--and this generally means the other person must have the mental capacity to knowingly consent, that they are not mentally or emotionally impaired, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not in a state of impaired consciousness, have the ability to resist, etc.. Each state's sexual assault statutes spells out the conditions under which consent is not legally present, just as each state defines the meaning of "consent".
Just as one is expected to know the traffic laws of a state if one drives in that state, one is expected to know the sexual assault laws if they engage in sexual activity in that state.

No one forces any male to engage in sexual intercourse with an intoxicated female, or with a sober female either . If there is any doubt about her legal capacity to consent, whether due to her age, or due to her state of conscious awareness, the male should not have sexual intercourse with her unless he is willing to risk a possible rape charge. And the possible rape charge is most likely to happen when the two people do not know each other well, or know each other at all, and are not involved in an ongoing relationship that includes consenting sexual activity.

In reality, the rape cases involving an extremely intoxicated female are the least likely to result in a rape conviction, or even make it to trial, because the female's memory of events may be so hazy that her credibility becomes an issue. Unless there are witnesses, videos or pictures of the sexual assault, injuries, or medical evidence to support both her level of intoxication as well as a rape charge, these cases generally go nowhere. And very often, the female who was raped while intoxicated is too embarrassed to even report the rape. Men who rape very intoxicated females know that the odds are they won't be charged or convicted, and that's one reason they take the risk. But, any man who takes that risk is responsible for his actions and he might get charged and might get convicted, and the female who was too drunk to consent, or even to resist, is not to blame for that--she was not the one who committed a crime or violated any criminal laws.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

But, any man who takes that risk is responsible for his actions and he might get charged and might get convicted, and the female who was too drunk to consent, or even to resist, is not to blame for that--she was not the one who committed a crime or violated any criminal laws.

As always you are unwilling to consider that the laws as they are currently written might be unfair and be a cause of injustice, your only argument is " THE LAW IS THE LAW!" as if it were handed down by God and is immutable. You are using circular logic to evade the objection to the law.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

If the law defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent, the male, as the one taking the action of penetration, must be sure he has consent, as the sexual assault laws of that state define consent--and this generally means the other person must have the mental capacity to knowingly consent, that they are not mentally or emotionally impaired, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, not in a state of impaired consciousness, have the ability to resist, etc.. Each state's sexual assault statutes spells out the conditions under which consent is not legally present, just as each state defines the meaning of "consent".
Just as one is expected to know the traffic laws of a state if one drives in that state, one is expected to know the sexual assault laws if they engage in sexual activity in that state.

Call me when the state voids all contracts between citizens because one of them has ingested a mood altering substance. Till that time the state is giving women special treatment by way of the sex laws, and considering that women are doing better than men are in our society treating women as the disadvantaged one is an act of compounding the imbalance between the genders. If you want to continue to advantage women in this way you need to be justifying the granting of the advantage.......repeating "THE LAW IS THE LAW!" is not going to cut it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

As always you are unwilling to consider that the laws as they are currently written might be unfair

Since both parties must be consenting, I don't see the "unfairness". The man demonstrates his consent by his actions in initiating sexual intercourse and penetrating the female. If the female, or another male, were to penetrate him anally, without his consent and against his will, they would be guilty of sexual assault.

There is nothing "unfair" about requiring consent.

You can't enter my home, or take my car, without my consent. And you have no right to put your hands on my body and try to have intercourse with me without my consent.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

In reality, the rape cases involving an extremely intoxicated female are the least likely to result in a rape conviction, or even make it to trial, because the female's memory of events may be so hazy that her credibility becomes an issue

You were right there front and center in 1963 telling blacks that they did not need concern themselves with the unjust laws in the South because almost no was was lynching niggers by that time....right? *biting sarcasm*

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You can't enter my home, or take my car, without my consent. And you have no right to put your hands on my body and try to have intercourse with me without my consent.

Consent can be anything from a written contract to not getting your ass kicked when you try to do something with someone else. Until and unless you are willing to define consent you have no right to make arguments that revolve around the word consent, because you are not saying anything.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Call me when the state voids all contracts between citizens because one of them has ingested a mood altering substance.

But a contract can be voided under such circumstances.

Quote:

If a person signs a contract while drunk or under the influence of drugs, can that contract be enforced? Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract. Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-forms-contracts/business-forms-contracts-overview/business-forms-contracts-overview-enforceable.html

And, in reality, in most cases where a man rapes an intoxicated woman, he "knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person". And you know, very well, that is the case.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Until and unless you are willing to define consent you have no right to make arguments that revolve around the word consent, because you are not saying anything.

Each state's sexual assault laws define "consent". That is the only valid definition to use when determining whether a sexual assault occurred. That is the definition a jury would use.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Here is one of many cases of a man getting fucked over by the states insane theory of consent

Quote:

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - Having sex with someone who is unconscious constitutes sexual assault, even when the victim consents during relations to being choked to the point of blacking out, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday.

In a six to three decision, the top court overturned an Ontario appeal court ruling and reinstated a sexual assault conviction on a man who had sex with his partner during an mutually agreed-upon erotic asphyxiation session.

"The definition of consent for sexual assault requires the complainant to provide active actual consent throughout every phase of sexual activity," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority, said. "It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance."

The case involves an Ottawa couple, referred to as J.A. and K.D. During sex one evening in 2007, J.A. placed his hands around K.D.'s throat and choked her until she was unconscious, according to testimony.

K.D. testified she consented to being asphyxiated and that the couple had experimented with the activity before. She said she was out cold for less than three minutes.

Upon coming to, she realized her hands were tied behind her back and that J.A. was inserting a dildo into her anus.

He removed the implement 10 seconds after she regained consciousness and the couple had vaginal intercourse. J.A. cut her hands loose when they were done, according to the testimony.

K.D. filed a complaint with police two months later, saying she had consented to being asphyxiated but not to the sexual activity. She later recanted the story, saying she made the allegation because J.A. threatened to seek sole custody of their young son.

After a trial, J.A. was found guilty of sexual assault. The Ontario Court of Appeal later set aside the conviction and dismissed the charges.

The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which intervened in the case, hailed the Supreme Court decision for affirming legal protection for women who are vulnerable to sexual assault by predatory men.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE74Q60020110527?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

So it seems now if in Canada if my partner has a ball gag in her mouth and cant talk if I do anything to her that we not preplanned and she decides after the fact that she wants to **** me over, I am a sitting target. Likewise, If I wake her up with by ******* her it seems that I am now a criminal even if we had agreed the night before that this is what we wanted to do. What we see here is part of the state's relentless drive to shut down the citizens right to practice the erotic arts, of it inserting its prudishness as it claims the right to be the decider of what people can do sexually. The Bible thumping Puritans of old are I am sure rolling around in their graves pissed off that they did not think of using an alleged thread to women as Trojan Horse to get into regulating sexuality by way of the law. They could only ruin a mans reputation in the community if he resisted them, now we can lock a man up for life for failing to practice only "proper" sexuality. WE WIN! *sarcasm*

The theory of consent does not work for sex law, the entire idea needs to be thrown out, and we need to go back to sexual violation being an act of force above physically demonstrated objection...that if the woman is not trying to beat the guy off of her then it is not rape. Getting beat by you woman is a clear line between go/no go , and a clear line is reguired out of consideration for justice.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Until and unless you are willing to define consent you have no right to make arguments that revolve around the word consent, because you are not saying anything.

Each state's sexual assault laws define "consent". That is the only valid definition to use when determining whether a sexual assault occurred. That is the definition a jury would use.

the question in this thread is not who IS a criminal, it is who SHOULD BE a criminal. You are again practicing your standard evasion of the relevant questions, on purpose, because you are dishonest like that....

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

So it seems now if in Canada if my partner has a ball gag in her mouth and cant talk if I do anything to her that we not preplanned and she decides after the fact that she wants to **** me over, I am a sitting target

Upon consideration it appears that since consent must be ongoing then if the woman (not the man, naturally) is unable to give continual consent then I am ready to be fitted with a rape charge. All use of bondage in conjuction with either a gag or a hood would seem to be illegal in Canada now. I have no doubt but that soon the feminists will be able to move the goal posts to making all bondage and all incapacitation of the mouth illegal. Holding her head and face ******* her is a goner for sure, and, and , and, and....

Nice job sex haters! It will be back to nothing but straight missionary sex soon for those who desire to evade the long reach of the state.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Interesting as how in hell can you get a conviction if the victim take the stand and testify for the defense? A non jury trial perhaps?

In any case this is Firefly dream come true as she clearly wish to take the power to decide sexual acts that is acceptable away from both parties and place it in the hands of the state.

Footnote as two months after the event there would off hand be no way of proving anything my bet is that the husband feelings he had done no wrong openly talk to the police.

IE he talk himself into a conviction.

Hawkeye please take note that if you ever are looking at a similar investigation that the best course of action is to keep silent and ask for your lawyer.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

if the woman (not the man, naturally) is unable to give continual consent then I am ready to be fitted with a rape charge. All use

Give her a button she can press or some such signing device as silly as that seems.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Hawkeye please take note that if you ever are looking at a similar investigation that the best course of action is to keep silent and ask for your lawyer.
Well, Firefly has always said that it is just a matter of time before my insubordination earns me a trip to the clink! I am told that I need to learn who my boss is (hint: it is the state)

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I'm not dishonest, I believe that consent is necessary.

I believe that those who engage in sexual activity without the consent, and against the wishes, of the other person, should be considered criminal.

And I'm not going to require that people risk getting killed, or seriously injured, by trying to beat off or physically resist their attackers.

Consent in regard to sexual activity is no different than consent in other areas of law. Consent signifies willingness, agreement with what the other party wishes to do--and that can be determined by communication between the two parties, something you seem averse to doing. If you are unclear about whether I want you to enter my home, you should ask, you do need my consent to lawfully enter my property. You shouldn't shove your way in and expect me to bean you with a baseball bat if I don't want you there.

And this is not about women controlling men--it's about one person sexually assaulting another person--engaging in sexual contact and sexual behaviors against the will, and without the consent, of the other person. Women can sexually assault men, men can sexually assault other men, and women can sexually assault other women, as well as men assaulting women. You are so hung-up with your own personal power issues with women, you seem incapable of viewing the topic with any degree of objectivity. Sexual assault laws protect you too.

I said this before, and I'm going to repeat it...

You resent the power of another person to deny you what you want, particularly what you want sexually--and you have voiced that resentment loud and clear throughout this thread. You may fancy yourself as a sexual freedom fighter but you sound more like a toddler who is throwing a temper tantrum because mommy just said you can't have a cookie, and, if you try to steal the cookie, you'll get spanked. Your thinking is really that juvenile. You resent a woman's power to say, "NO" to your sexual actions--toward her--and you blame feminists for their role in helping to codify that into law. Stop sulking, and grow up. Women have civil rights too--including the right not to be sexually assaulted, by you or anyone else.

Your absurd sense of entitlement--your belief that you have the "right" to use other peoples' bodies--against their wishes--for your own sexual gratification--is downright nuts. You cannot express your "sexual freedom" at the expense of other people, by disregarding their wishes in the matter, when it involves their bodies. If this throws a damper on the thrill of "conquest" for you, that's just too bad. If you cannot find sexual gratification with freely willing and consenting partners, that's just too bad. If you want to violate the laws, and you get caught and punished, that's just too bad.

Yes, the state can tell you what you can and cannot lawfully do regarding sexual contact with others--because the state represents the will of the people in those matters--those sexual assault laws were written and voted into effect by duly elected representives of the people, and most people accept them, appreciate the need for them, and have no difficulty living within their bounds. That's democracy, Hawkeye. That's what a civilized society is about.

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know