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

@bobsal u1553115,

I agree with you that legal rape is any damn thing that the lawmakers decide it is at any moment in time but the misused of that power had begin to turn a very evil act into a you got to be kidding misdeed and in my opinion harm women who had been rape in the old old meaning of the term by placing them in the same class as a wife that no longer is allow to consent to sex with her husband at the near end of her life or the adult males that can not consent to having sex with a teacher.

Legal rape concept as it get further further and further from the age old meaning of rape is starting to reduce our horror over rape and to desensitize us to the horror of the term.

As I stated in reply to the title yes now thank to our lawmakers a woman can ask in fact she can beg to be rape and that go even to her husband under some conditions.

We are all loser thanks to run away lawmakers with special note of real rape victims

An no those three women we had been talking about are not rape victims in the old meaning of the term and by placing them in the same class as women who had been rape in fact by prison employees you are once more harming the real rape victims.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

As I already stated a wife in a nursing home can be raped by her decades long husband if someone declared she can no long grant legal consent...

Being married has nothing to do with it, if the person is not able to give informed consent is the key part.

If a woman consents to sex with a man once, then say falls into a coma should the man be able to have sex with the comatose woman?

This case you are referring to is probably not that clear a case of being able to give consent or not (and yeah, that line can be tricky) but just because you are married to someone doesn't mean that you have a lifetime guarantee of consent to sex and that seems to be the argument you make when you rail against the fact that men used to be able to rape their wives and now can not do so anymore.

A sensible argument from your position is that you could say that the determination of inability to give consent was in error but you don't argue that, you rail against rape being applied to cases of marriage. It should be obvious to you that rape is possible within a marriage, but it sounds like you object to married women being protected from rape by their husbands.

Quote:

in fact a woman can beg to be "rape" and afterward if the legal system decide that she did not have the right or ability to grant consent at the moment of the sex act for whatever reason

No, not for "whatever reason". You can object to where the lines have been drawn sometimes but it's obvious that there are cases where this is absolutely justified and it's simple: whether they can give informed consent.

You probably wouldn't agree that if a 3-year old girl "begs to be raped" that this is legitimate consent. When people are severely impaired, or if someone is mentally handicapped the same principles apply. If an adult woman lacks the mental capacity to give informed consent it's the same principle of the 3-year old girl. If she was drugged out of her mind and gave consent in that state it is not a legitimate consent and should be obvious to you.

You should watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

She was not in a coma she was just had the normal decrease in mental abilites with old age an she was for that reason denial her rights as well as her husband rights to maintain their sex life.

But I find it interesting that you are defending taking away the rights of old people to maintain a normal sex life. Given that I am far from young any longer it nice to know that the state will protect me from having sex with my partner at some point.

An it is for whatever reason indeed as the state had been finding more and more reasons of late to take away the rights repeat the right of adults to consent to sex and all in the name of protecting adults from their own 'poor' judgments.

Off hand I can not think of a more basic right then the human right of adults to form their own sexual partnerships.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

She was not in a coma she was just had the normal decrease in mental abilites with old age an she was for that reason denial her rights as well as her husband rights to maintain their sex life.

And that may well be a case where the line was incorrectly drawn (nursing homes are full of bad policies and rules and abuse and all sorts of imperfections), but you tend to rail against the whole concept of the definition of rape being able to include married couples.

Quote:

But I find it interesting that you are defending taking away the rights of old people to maintain a normal sex life. Given that I am far from young any longer it nice to know that the state will protect me from having sex with my partner at some point.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I've not said one word in support of taking the rights of old people to have sex away (only those incapable of giving consent) and you are again being dishonest in your interlocution with me.

This is a legitimate concern you have but you should try harder to see the other side of the coin, there is some degree of mental degradation that should qualify as incapacitating someone from giving consent to anything.

But you don't argue that hey, here and there the line is drawn poorly, you argue against the whole concept of rape being able to happen with married couples.

When you do so it makes you seem pro-rape, and not merely objecting to situations where lines have been incorrectly drawn, you often sound like you want no lines (e.g. rape should not apply to married people).

Quote:

An it is for whatever reason indeed as the state had been finding more and more reasons of late to take away the rights repeat the right of adults to consent to sex and all in the name of protecting adults from their own 'poor' judgments.

I think you are exaggerating and I'm pretty sure the case you are referring to (Henry Rayhons, right?) in the first place resulted in an acquittal. There have always been incorrect cases brought before courts ever since they have existed.

http://time.com/3833358/nursing-home-sex/

Quote:

Off hand I can not think of a more basic right then the human right of adults to form their own sexual partnerships.

Sure, and I agree (along with many medical experts) that most of the time dementia is not an impediment to giving informed consent. But it does complicate things and nursing homes have a hard job. Most of these cases are not laws but nursing home policies anyway.

And they have tough ethical issues to deal with that often cause them to opt for simpler (if less fair for the residents) policies to deal with it.

Here is a real case that presents an example (from the article I linked above):

A nursing home found two elderly patients kissing etc. They both have dementia and were both married to other people but thought that their counterpart was their own spouse.

What do you do here? They are giving consent but their dementia is such that they don't even recognize that the person is not the husband or wife that they think they are with, and they both have husbands and wives whose concerns complicate things further.

What would you do? Do you see why nursing homes have a hard time with their "sexual expression policies"? I agree that they have for the most part not served elders well but that is not a legal issue but a policy issue in private organization just like when Catholics say priests can't have sex.

The trend is actually towards addressing this and increasing the liberties of sexual expression that elderly people have, and the complications that arise are what you are hearing about. Historically it was easy to just stop them and not bother caring about their rights.

Now that nursing homes are starting to establish sexual expression policies they are struggling with edge cases that come up when sex in the nursing homes starts getting going.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

resulted in an acquittal.

Wonderful a husband needed to risk spending the rest of his life in prison and spend god know how must of their total life savings to defend his and her right to a sex life and it no big deal as he was acquittal????

How many of us would had not taken that risk and allowed the state to end our sex life instead?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I never said it was "no big deal" to the individual. He was wronged and that sucks. It unfortunately happens all the time in all sorts of legal subjects. But it does not represent this legal encroachment on elder sex that you are making it out to be nor does it in any way invalidate the concerns that brought the case in the first place. We aren't facing a world in which old men having sex with their old wives are being put in jail like you make things sound.

People are wrongly accused of murder all the time. Some suffer enormous damage as a result. That doesn't mean the law against murder is wrong. That doesn't mean society is going to hell in a hand basket. You'll always be able to find miscarriages of justice.

That is no basis upon which to throw the baby out with the bath water. There is clearly a point past which dementia precludes consent. For example, if a janitor in a nursing home asks a late-stage dementia patient who doesn't even know what planet she is on if she wants to have sex and she says yes do you think this is appropriate?

You can always find an edge case where someone is wronged, that doesn't invalidate the entire concept.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Next I an so happy that at least the states medical licensing boards and I am fairly sure soon the states criminal laws will protected me from forming a sexual relationships with any of my doctors.

An the tend is to also to provide similar protects from any of my lawyers.

Soon adults will need to consult a database to see who they can consent to sex with and who they can not and all in the name of protecting us from our assume bad judgment.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

None of your doctors or lawyers want to have sex with you anyway Bill, you aren't missing out on anything.

Really you don't have much legitimate substance to base your fears on, it's just a big slippery slope fallacy you see where you assert things are inevitably going to get worse.

But maybe the sky is not falling, and maybe your fears are unfounded. And just maybe, you should consider the flip side of the coin. Yes, these things can cause bad situations sometimes, do you consider whether they can stop any? Which do you think is more common? People increasingly being protected from harm or people increasingly being harmed?

I suspect I know which way you lean, but you should really consider more than gut on this and look into it. There are far more cases of bad things being precluded than there are bad things precipitated by the increased protections for women against sexual assault.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

While banning sex with someone who is unaware of his or her surrounding for whatever reason I never had must of a problem with but for treading damn lightly when there had been a long term and ongoing sexual relationship long before any disability had shown up, An of course that go even more so for a couple that is married

If I and my partner go out drinking one night and she get completely wasted that is not the same situation as if I just met her at a bar and taking her home had sex with her under the same situation.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

None of your doctors or lawyers want to have sex with you anyway Bill, you aren't missing out on anything.

Not complete true but true she was not my doctor even those she did enjoyed seeing how high she could get my heart rate. Thanks for bringing back some wonderful many decades old memories with that comment.

Quote:

it's just a big slippery slope fallacy

Once more tell that to the man who was charge with raping his wife at the nursing home how far you can fall down that slope.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

While banning sex with someone who is unaware of his or her surrounding for whatever reason I never had must of a problem with but for treading damn lightly when there had been a long term and ongoing sexual relationship long before any disability had shown up, An of course that go even more so for a couple that is married

Then take heart, the majority of humans share this position and despite the perception you have of things getting worse in this regard they just aren't.

Quote:

If I and my partner go out drinking one night and she get completely wasted that is not the same situation as if I just met her at a bar and taking her home had sex with her under the same situation.

The majority of humans would not want this to be sanctioned and we are just not moving toward a direction where it would be, like you suspect.

What is happening is that previous cases that did not have protection (e.g. man being able to rape wife violently is an obvious one) and that deserve protections are getting them and in the process sometimes people get some **** wrong.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more tell that to the man who was charge with raping his wife at the nursing home how far you can fall down that slope.

This is still the slippery slope fallacy.

Just because one guy got charged with something that he should not have doesn't mean we are headed down that slippery slope you allege.

Ever since there has been the legal instrument of the charge of rape there have been people who were unjustly accused of it (e.g. black kids getting lynched for having consensual sex with white girls who later claimed rape because their interracial sex is frowned upon).

You haven't every made a good argument that the slippery slope you incessantly raise the alarm about is happening, and the occasional case of a man being unjustly charged doesn't make that case.

Even if the man had been convicted wrongly that has always happened too, but this time the system did exactly what you would want and did not convict the man. Yet you still see this as the specter of the slippery slope toward you not being able to get your elderly sex on, and you just don't provide any substantiation for this fear other than the slippery slope fallacies that forums focusing on "men's rights" tend to obsess over.

And you keep ignoring any conversation about evolving positions improving anything. Sure, you showed us a case where a guy got charged for sex with his wife with dementia that got acquitted, that sucks, but why don't you ever acknowledge the thousands and thousands of cases of spousal rape that are not granted much deserved protection?

Can you address that? Things are rarely all good or all bad, and people who cannot acknowledge the flip side of the coin are not reasonable. I've acknowledged that as greater protections against sexual abuses have been erected that there have been some cases where these new legal instruments have resulted in harm to some individuals. Can you do the same and acknowledge that these new legal instruments may be preventing harm for many more? Can you even acknowledge that possibility?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Laws should not be lightly put on the books as all laws that I know of can and had been misused and had harm innocent people. So you need to weight the cost/benefit ratio of any law.

An example of that is the child porn laws that even I have no problem with except for the lengh of sentences in the US but sadly those laws had been used to harm the very class of people it was written to protected IE minors charge with producing CP by taking and sending pictures of themselves to lovers or would be lovers.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Laws should not be lightly put on the books as all laws that I know of can and had been misused and had harm innocent people. So you need to weight the cost/benefit ratio of any law.

Sure, and you flatly refuse to engage in any discussion of the benefits here and only focus on the rare misuses. For example you again chose to ignore all of this part of my post:

"And you keep ignoring any conversation about evolving positions improving anything. Sure, you showed us a case where a guy got charged for sex with his wife with dementia that got acquitted, that sucks, but why don't you ever acknowledge the thousands and thousands of cases of spousal rape that are not granted much deserved protection?

Can you address that? Things are rarely all good or all bad, and people who cannot acknowledge the flip side of the coin are not reasonable. I've acknowledged that as greater protections against sexual abuses have been erected that there have been some cases where these new legal instruments have resulted in harm to some individuals. Can you do the same and acknowledge that these new legal instruments may be preventing harm for many more? Can you even acknowledge that possibility?"

Quote:

An example of that is the child porn laws that even I have no problem with except for the lengh of sentences in the US but sadly those laws had been used to harm the very class of people it was written to protected IE minors charge with producing CP by taking and sending pictures of themselves to lovers or would be lovers.

This is yet another overblown claim. It is quite true that CP laws and sexting have intersected and society has had to adjust to deal with it but I know of no minor has ever gone to jail for sending photos of themselves.

Sexting is very new and society is adapting to it well, we want parents to be able to have a legal instrument to prevent their kids from sending out nude pics of themselves because there can be serious repercussions.

Many young people have been blackmailed by the nudes they sent, some have committed suicide, some have even consented to be raped in order to not have them sent to everyone they know, and others are being duped into sending nudes to pedophiles.

There is a legitimate case to disallow sexting for minors who are not yet able to comprehend the consequences, and yes sometimes cases of this have had other laws awkwardly used to address it but it's just not true that we have a serious problem with CP laws sending teenage sexters to jail or anything.

As for the length of the sentences for CP viewership I think you are very much in the wrong here, the people who consume this material generate demand for more of the horrific abuse that it represents. The people who consume this material further victimize the victim (it is worse to have your rape published for others to masturbate to). The people who consume this material desensitize themselves to it and seek stronger such sensation leading some to participate in it.

To say that these sentences are unjust is a grossly misplaced sympathy. These people's acts contribute to causing great harm and deserve appropriate punishments.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

First we hear of the man charge with raping his wife only because he was willing to take the risk and paid the price of challenging the state so how many thousands/ten of thousands of others with mates in nursing homes when told that they could not have sex was not willing to run that risk?

Quote:

cases of spousal rape

Do you know anything about the first case of spousal rape try in the US?

The state was eager to get a conviction under this. at the time new law. and they picked a couple where neither was too bright.

After the state spend god know how must money to get a convict the state loss and shortly afterward the couple got back together.

When the state join a couple in their marriage bed you open one hell of a can of worms and from what I know of the result of this law I am not sure if the benefits had outweigh the harm done.

Quote:

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-40.htm

False spousal rape charge led to decade in prison
Top
December 3, 1999 — Embroiled in a hotly-contested divorce Marine Corps Sgt. Brian Foster was awarded custody of their children in California. Then his wife, Heather, fled to Colorado with the boys and sought the help of a feminist attorney specializing in women's rights.
The California judge issued a kidnapping warrant for Heather Foster. She then claimed she fled her husband's abuse.
Colorado, being a "safe haven" state, Heather was neither arrested nor charged.
Marine Sgt. Foster was then forced to negotiate once again for custody of his children. When those negotiations broke down Sgt. Foster found himself charged by his wife's attorney with assaulting, raping and threatening his wife.
As a result of false allegations of marital rape and domestic violence, Sgt. Foster was convicted by a general court martial in December 1999 of all charges and sentenced to 17 years confinement, stripped of his rank, all pay and allowances, and given a dishonorable discharge.
He served nine years, two months and 17 days of that sentence, most of it at the maximum security United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, before being released and his rank restored on March 14, 2009, after a court of appeals vacated all findings of the trial court.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Your English grammar stinks!

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

First we hear of the man charge with raping his wife only because he was willing to take the risk and paid the price of challenging the state so how many thousands/ten of thousands of others with mates in nursing homes when told that they could not have sex was not willing to run that risk?

Nursing homes have typically prohibited sex due to the complications they did not want to deal with. It is actually the trend of them opening up to the reality of elder sexuality and establishing sexual expression policies in nursing homes that is causing these cases. See this article:

Sex in the Nursing Home. Facilities are finally grappling with the fact that residents have sex lives

The laws aren't keeping old people from having sex, the nursing homes simply did that as private policies and as they began to establish policies allowing for elder sex in their care this debate on dementia and consent began.

You act like we are trending towards greater disapproval of elder sex but the opposite is demonstrably the case. The baby boomer generation is one of much greater sexual liberty and their aging is fueling this new debate as they refused to become sexless as they age like those in previous generations often had to.

Quote:

Do you know anything about the first case of spousal rape try in the US?

The state was eager to get a conviction under this. at the time new law. and they picked a couple where neither was too bright.

After the state spend god know how must money to get a convict the state loss and shortly afterward the couple got back together.

Again, you focus exclusively on a few bad cases (so far all of which were eventually corrected by our legal systems). You flatly refuse to talk about the benefits of prohibiting spousal rape.

Do you really want it to be perfectly legal to rape one's spouse just because some people were wrongly charged with rape? Every crime on the books that has ever existed has caused miscarriages of justice. People have been executed and imprisoned falsely for murder, but I don't see you going around bemoaning that murder is defined as a crime.

Quote:

When the state join a couple in their marriage bed you open one hell of a can of worms and from what I know of the result of this law I am not sure if the benefits had outweigh the harm done.

It's easy not to be sure when you refuse to consider the benefits. You bring forth a few anecdotal stories of illegitimate charges but can't bring yourself to say one word about the many thousands of legitimate cases of spousal rape that these laws seek to protect against.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Lord using the child porn laws to punish children for sextxting is a good idea in your mind!!!!!!

So if the number of children that are ruin for life by being charge with such a crime is small we should not care?

Hell I do not know if you remember the photo booths that you could have a private personal picture taken for 25 cents or so but getting a picture of your girlfriend on your lap and hopefully with her shirt undone was a big deal in my lifetime.

Human nature does not change only technology.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

To say that these sentences are unjust is a grossly misplaced sympathy.

It not so must sympathy as being annoyed ay the waste of resources that no other first world nation seem fit to apply.

The US have ten times the number of our population behind bar then any other first world nation now.

For the six hundreds thousands or so in direct cost to keep a Miami firefight who never harm one child directly in prison for 20 plus years we could send how many children through college for example?

The UK Izzy nation have far far less punishment for having CP and strangely they seem to had less CP then we do and less child molesting cases for that matter,

Of course with the crime rate down in the US and less longer sentences being given out for low level drug dealers we need to find another group to fill our prisons up and all the police have to do is boot their computers and monitor file sharing networks and they can meet what ever the demands is to keep the prisons full.

This group made the perfect replacement for black low level drug dealers as how many would dare to stated that we are being too hard on them?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Lord using the child porn laws to punish children for sextxting is a good idea in your mind!!!!!!

No, and I never said anything of the sort. I said that preventing children from sexting has validity and that because it is a relatively new phenomenon there were not great legal instruments to deal with it.

And yes in some cases it did actually equate to "child porn" distribution, in situations where some were collecting and distributing hundreds of other kids photos and videos and sharing them. In some cases they were coercing the nude pics (e.g. one young girl who committed suicide flashed her breasts once to someone who recorded it and blackmailed her into further "shows" with the threat of releasing it).

If a teenager films two teenagers having sex and distributes this video to hundreds of people they are in fact distributing child porn. There are mitigating circumstances and so far I haven't heard of any case where these children were jailed but there is good reason to give parents a legal instrument to protect their kids from sexting extortion etc.

It shouldn't be child porn laws that deal with this and our society recognizes it, those laws predate the sexting phenomenon and complicate the response to it.

High school sexting scandal complicated by child pornography laws

And the response is to update the child pornography laws so as to distinguish these cases separately. So far 12 states have already done so and more are in the process of doing so.

Sexting case highlights quandary over child porn laws

Quote:

The case illustrates the quandary authorities face with sexting cases. Most states have yet to update child pornography laws to account for minors who are caught exchanging explicit selfies. The laws, some written decades ago, carry stiff penalties including prison time and a requirement to register as a sex offender.

"No one even imagined how easy it would be for anybody to have a little device in their pocket with pictures like this," said Diana Graber, co-founder of Cyberwise, a group that teaches online safety for parents and teachers.

So far, more than a dozen states have reduced penalties in recent years for minors convicted of sexting. Texas, for example, made sexting a misdemeanor in 2011 for teenagers 17 years or younger.

http://www.worldmag.com/2015/11/should_sexting_teens_be_charged_with_child_pornography

Quote:

In early November an anonymous student from Canon City High School, a school of 1,000 in a small southern Colorado town, called a state student safety hotline with a tip about the widespread sharing of explicit photos via text message, referred to as sexting. School officials investigated and initially turned over one phone with several hundred photos to police. Some students were reportedly using a password protected app that looks like a calculator to collect and hide nude photos of themselves and fellow students. An unspecified number of students have been suspended, and the high school forfeited its last football game of the season due to ethical questions about the players.

“We’re not out to hang every kid,” said Canon City Police Capt. Jim Cox. “We don’t want the victims to think they did something wrong, but we do want to know what happened.”

Under Colorado law, the possession of an explicit photo of a minor, even a photo shared between two consenting minors, is a felony. A conviction often requires registration as a sex offender. Fremont County District Attorney Tom LeDoux said he takes the implications of that very seriously, and would only file charges if “absolutely necessary.” He is focusing the investigation on whether any adults were involved, whether anyone was coerced into sharing photos, and whether any illegal sexual contact resulted.

“It is possible there will be no criminal charges filed at all,” LeDoux said. Officials estimate the Canon City investigation may take up to 30 days.

Similar cases are raising questions about child pornography laws, and whether sexting minors should face felony charges. Last week, two Long Island 14-year-olds were charged after one of them shot video of the other having sex with a girl and sent it to other teens. The two boys face felony charges, and nearly 20 students at a neighboring school were suspended for viewing, possessing, or sending the video. Last year, courts charged two North Carolina 16-year-olds, a boyfriend and girlfriend, with felony sexual exploitation of a minor for exchanging nude selfies. A judge reduced the charges to misdemeanors after a public outcry.

Quote:

So if the number of children that are ruin for life by being charge with such a crime is small we should not care?

We do care, society is not acting how you accuse and blindly wanting to categorize this as child porn, those laws predated the phenomenon and failed to predict that they would need to distinguish between teenage sexting and child porn distribution. So they are now being updated because the majority of society recognizes that those laws are not an appropriate legal instrument for these cases.

But let's turn the tables on you, no child had ever gone to jail as far as I know for sexting, sure some faced some scary charges for a while but why do you only focus on that?

I can cite you dozens of cases from memory where children committed suicide after sexting blackmail, there was even a case where a guy would trick young boys into sending the pictures and then blackmail them so that he could rape them. Children need some protections from the enormous amount of sexting extortion that is going on but we all are in agreement that the decades-old child porn laws are not adequate to deal with this phenomenon and laws are being updated to deal with it.

You can't show me a single case of the harm you bemoan that begins to approach the dozens and dozens I can bring to the table where sexting was coerced and caused deaths, rape and more.

Your concern is incredibly selective.

Quote:

Hell I do not know if you remember the photo booths that you could have a private personal picture taken for 25 cents or so but getting a picture of your girlfriend on your lap and hopefully with her shirt undone was a big deal in my lifetime.

Human nature does not change only technology.

And the laws are adapting in response,the notion that society is headed toward charging teenagers for child porn for texting is categorically false. What is happening is sexting is a new phenomenon that old laws did not have exceptions for and they are being updated to reflect modern technology use. State after state are altering their laws to ensure that sexting is not a felony.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know