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

@firefly,

Yes, with the edit that technically if both people are drinking, either of them could face a rape charge. We cannot assume the male consents anymore than the female.

A
R
Technically speaking

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Yes, with the edit that technically if both people are drinking, either of them could face a rape charge. We cannot assume the male consents anymore than the female.

Yes they should both be in prison fro raping each other that made sense.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

"No". You resent the fact that she can control, and deny, access to her bodily openings, and you have said so repeatedly. The rape laws will not change just to suit you. This control of access to her body will always rest with the woman.

Sorry no one care if she said no or yes but the where most of us draw the line is the crazy theory she can get drunk with her partner and turn a yes even a hell yes into a rape.

It not my fault that I had sex so it must be the other drunk in the room therefore I was rapes by the other drunk.

How silly and stupid can you be to back such complete nonsense but if you wish to do so then you will by logic need to lock both of them up for raping each other.

Unless you are claiming that only the woman need to grant consent in a sexual union and the man can be rape.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with responsible behavior on the part of men under the current rape laws.

Huh so only the man need to take along a breath or blood tester??????????

The woman is free if she wish to to get the man drunk and force sex on him at will as she is the woman and does not need sober consent from the man to have sex with him but the man does.

So she is not responseable for her one behaviors like a man and therefore is a child?

Ok we take your right to vote and sign contracts away from you once more and in place of those adult rights we will grant you all kind of special protections.

Sound more then fair to me it that is how you wish it to be.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You and Hawkeye seem to be totally outside the realm of realilty. The fact that only the two of you agree should at least give you some clue that your ideas are not acceptable to the "collective."

Given the foolishness that you have both spouted regarding YOUR definition of rape is of little consequence to the masses or the law and you would find yourself arrested in very short order.

Your apologetics for rape under intoxication would equate to someone using the fact that they were oto drunk to know the difference and should not be arrested for driving drunk.

Hawkeye thinks he make intelligent sense and you make none at all. Quite the pair.

0 Replies

You know the fun is thinking of all crazy results that follow from firefly wish to grant one side protections to woman in the area of sexual consent.

A woman is free to get a man drunk and have sex with him without his consent if she wish.

But of course the reverse is not true at all for firefly thinking as sex is must more important to a woman then to a man. Having something to do with who enter who body. I can not wait for some male homosexual rape trials as they should be fun under firefly thinking at least.

Under our common law and most states permission to have sex can not be granted ahead of time nor can it be granted after the event so if a married couple go out drinking in firefly world and then have sex when the woman is clearly drunk the man had rape his wife and there is no legal way for her to change that fact afterward.

Yes firefly no one is likely to know unless the wife complain but that is beside the point he had legally rape his wife and so I am a rapist in your eyes along with a very large percent of married men.

The wife if she become unhappy in a marriage does not need to turn to the divorce courts but just charge him with rape.

You can always check how crazy a law would be by following out what would flow from enforcing it.

One side consent requirements give very crazy results indeed.

0 Replies

I been picturing a firefly world where is matter who had penetrate who body as far as who need or does not need sober permission/consent to have sexual intercourse.

Now we have a good-looking male homosexual couple going out on the town and drinking to the same level where neither can grant sober permission for sexual intercourse.

They had a fight the next day and one wish to charge the other with rape.

Now case one the charging party was not the one who penetrated his partner body so he would have the same protection as a woman and his partner is clearly guilty of rape.

The other way around the charging party is the one guilty of rape and we take him away for 20 years.

If both had taken turns then both are guilty of rape and we take both away for twenty years.

Perhaps we would need to rewrite the rape laws to deal with homosexuals as another class under the rape laws in firefly world.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Now we have a good-looking male homosexual couple going out on the town and drinking to the same level where neither can grant sober permission for sexual intercourse.

They had a fight the next day and one wish to charge the other with rape.

Now case one the charging party was not the one who penetrated his partner body so he would have the same protection as a woman and his partner is clearly guilty of rape.

The other way around the charging party is the one guilty of rape and we take him away for 20 years.

If both had taken turns then both are guilty of rape and we take both away for twenty years.

Perhaps we would need to rewrite the rape laws to deal with homosexuals as another class under the rape laws in firefly world.

What does it matter if they are good looking or not? Are you fantasizing again?

Take turns? Rape is one sided and not a take turn kind of thing.

Once again, you prove that you have no idea or empathy as to what rape really is.

What a dufus.

0 Replies

Sex toys in firefly world I forgot sex toys if it matter who had penetrate who body with a sex toy.

Female homosexuals would be in the same boat as male homosexuals and who had rape who one more would depend of who had used a sex toy on her partner or if both share that task.

Next even more fun the poor woman victim in her drunken playful state reach over and insert a sex toy up her male partner rear end.

Now under firefly logic she would have lost her special protection as a woman by that act.

Going downtown and monitoring rape trials would be like going through the looking glass with Alice.

0 Replies

Oh Firefly as it is your position that it is the matter of the woman plumbing and male penetration of a woman body openings that matter on who need sober consent for sexual intercourse and who does not how about the case of just oral sex with no penetration of any woman body openings?

If it just good old 69 sex do we fall back on the need for equal consent rules or not?

Or does the fraction of the inch that a man tongue might “penetration” the woman body the deciding factor?

Firefly this is a fun subject indeed but kind of complex, we would need to write a hundred pages manual for the guys to be able to study carefully.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I'm crying reading this thread, 45 years later. Many would take me as neurotic, but no, at least not usually. Just reading this thread reminds me of the blowhard opinions out there. ..

You plan to allow one conceited bully and one uneducated airhead to define your life experience for you? Please take a step back for perspective. You'll see the sad Hawkeye-BillRM con-man duo for what it is. Their closest literary equivalent are the King and the Duke in Huckleberry Finn - and like them, the 2 we got here will end up tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Even if it takes another 60 pages to do it Smile

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Yes, with the edit that technically if both people are drinking, either of them could face a rape charge. We cannot assume the male consents anymore than the female.

That depends on where you live, and how the sexual act of rape is defined.

In the U.K, for instance, the female could not be charged

Quote:

Rape, under the sexual offenses act 2003 is the non consensual penetration of the mouth anus or vagina with a penis. Women cannot be charged/ convicted of rape. They can be charged with other sexual offenses though, such as sexual assault etc,

In NYS, for instance, the female could not be charged with rape

Quote:

Definitions According to New York State Penal Law
"Sexual intercourse" has its ordinary meaning (penis to vagina penetration) and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.

And, in NYS, since rape is defined as sexual intercourse, without consent, a female would not be charged with rape.

The woman might be charged with other sexual assault crimes, just not rape. NYS separates oral sexual contact and anal sexual penetration from vaginal penetration

And, in rape situations, there are different legal degrees of rape which differ in the severity of the punishments for these offenses.

Quote:

"Oral sexual conduct" means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the anus, or the mouth and the vulva or vagina.

So, the woman could, hypothetically, be charged with an offense involving oral contact without the consent of the partner in NYS.

Therefore it is important to read and understand the rape and sexual offense laws where you reside.

These are the laws in NYS for sexual offenses, including rape. I previously posted NYS date rape 4 times in this thread.
http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/security/assault/Penal_Law.html

Only Hawkeye and Bill are making this situation more confusing than it actually is.

Mainly that is due to the fact that they are both uninformed and ignorant of specific rape laws in specific jurisdicions. Neither of them has referred to specific rape laws, or provided the wording of any specific rape laws. They are also confusing rapes with other types of sexual assaults. So almost nothing that either of them are saying about rape should be given serious consideration until they begin referring to specific rape laws in particular jurisdictions, and provide links to those laws. They are talking about laws, without specific knowledge of the law. And they are often misinformed. NYS, for instance, clearly states that the use of force is not a necessary element in date rape, yet Hawkeye and Bill keep talking about force. Their hypothetical scenarios are meaningless because they don't refer to specific laws. Often they are referring to sex acts or sexual assaults/offenses other than those defined as rape in the law. Similarly, they confuse the issue of "consent", because they are not referring to the wording of specific laws. Lack of consent is actually made rather clear in the laws. And the topic of this thread is rape, and not all sexual offenses.

Hawkeye and Bill should first familiarize themselves with specific rape laws, and quote directly from those laws, in discussing this topic. Otherwise, they are discussing only their fantasies, and not specific laws.

The sexual offense laws, including rape laws of U.S. states can be found on many college and university Web sites because they want their students to be informed of such laws. The laws posted on those sites would be for the state in which the school is located. For locations outside the U.S., you can check rape laws on the internet.

Most of us are trying to have a serious discussion on this topic. A serious discussion is an informed discussion.

3 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Definitions According to New York State Penal Law
"Sexual intercourse" has its ordinary meaning (penis to vagina penetration) and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.

And, in NYS, since rape is defined as sexual intercourse, without consent, a female would not be charged with rape.

It certainly sounds to me as if a woman could be charged with rape, provided that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. The excerpt you provided here does not indicate that the person performing the rape has to be the person with the penis.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

It certainly sounds to me as if a woman could be charged with rape, provided that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. The excerpt you provided here does not indicate that the person performing the rape has to be the person with the penis.

She certainly could be charged with statutory rape, because that is legally non consensual, and women in NYS have been charged with that. But we have been discussing situations involving adults in this thread.

I cannot find any instances of a woman actually being charged with the rape of an adult male in NYS. But, as you point out, it should be theoretically possible to bring such a charge.

It is also difficult to find any instances of any woman being charged with the rape of an adult male in the U.S. I found one case in Pennsylvania where a woman was charged with forcible rape and torture in 2009, but the charges were then dropped and I found no info to indicate they had been refiled. It is possible that she was re-charged with sexual assaults other than rape.

So, theoretically it may be possible to charge the woman with rape, but it is also unlikely to happen, particularly in a date rape or acquaintance rape situation.

The woman could, however, be charged with other sexual offenses.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Mainly that is due to the fact that they are both uninformed and ignorant of specific rape laws in specific jurisdictions. Neither of them has referred to specific rape laws

there are lots of different rape laws, as well as lots of different approaches to using the law that exists...for instance some places will have a law on the books and not use it where others will have the same law and get creative (ie aggressive) about using it. I am talking about the general tone and tenor of rape law, how it has changed, and the direction that we are going. The feminists have been clear that they dont intent to stop trying to move the law towards more restrictions and towards gaining more power for women, there is no reason to expect that they will not. They are not totally stupid in that they know too much change too fast will increase the resistance, and so they are going step by step, little by little, counting on the frog in the hot water method to keep resistance down.

I am not going to get bogged down in current law because current law has not been with us for very long, and will probably not be with us for very long. To understand this subject one must look at they dynamics of rape law, the evolution of rape law, and we have seen enough change and have enough knowledge of where the feminists want to go to put together a pretty good idea of what the future looks like if the citizen continue to allow the feminist to write the sex law for all of us.

I dont want to go there. In think it will suck for me personally, I dont think that it will be good for women or for men, and I think that continuation of trying to use law for something that law is not suited for will diminish the law. However my major objection is that sex law in increasingly becoming unjust, and we in America already have way too much injustice. We should not be adding more.

0 Replies

Here is a case that involved a woman who was drunk, legally intoxicated, and the person charged with rape is an NYPD officer. He claims the sex was consensual, the prosecucution asserts that the woman was too intoxicated to be able to legally consent.

Quote:

Kenneth Moreno -- NYPD officer charged with rape of drunk woman
Apr-28-09 8:23pm

Kenneth Moreno, a New York City police officer, has been charged with raping a drunken woman after escorting her home. His partner, Franklin Mata, has also been charged with acting as a lookout.
NYPD officer Kenneth Moreno pleaded not guitly today to charges that he raped a drunken woman he escorted home.

His partner, Franklin Mata, is charged with acting as a lookout as well as misleading radio dispatchers.

Both could face up to 25 years in jail if found guilty of rape, burglarly and official misconduct.

From the New York Daily News:

Two city cops were charged Tuesday with raping a drunken woman they escorted home to her Manhattan apartment.

Officer Kenneth Moreno, 41, a 17-year NYPD veteran, raped the woman in her E. 13th St. apartment while his partner, Franklin Mata, 27, acted as a lookout and misled radio dispatchers, prosecutors said.

"(Mata) knew his partner was having sex with a semiconscious woman," Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said.

The cops pleaded not guilty after surrendering at the lower Manhattan court house.

They face up to 25 years in prison on rape, burglary and official misconduct charges in the Dec. 7 incident.

Investigators say the woman's blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, making her unable to legally consent to sex.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he rarely comments on cops accused of crimes, but wanted the public to know that the claims are a "shocking aberration" for the NYPD.

The cops denied the charges through their lawyers.

"Officer Moreno is eager to confront the evidence against him," said his lawyer, Stephen Worth.

Mata's lawyer, Edward Mandery, said his client "obviously denies the allegations."

Moreno and Mata were stripped of their guns and badges in December after the woman claimed she was raped when Moreno and Mata helped her into her E. 13th Street home in the early hours of the morning.

Mata, who investigators suspected stood guard while the assault took place, was placed on desk duty with the NYPD's fleet services while the investigation was underway. Moreno was reassigned to administration duties at a Queens courthouse.

The cops met the woman after answering a 911 call from a cab driver who said a passenger had thrown up in his car and did not have money for the fare.

Video surveillance shows the officers helping the visibly intoxicated woman into her building at 1.10 a.m.

They are seen leaving her apartment about seven minutes later, but returned a second time for 17 minutes at about 2.50 a.m.

They then return a third time just before 3 a.m., with a key, and stay inside the building for 34 minutes.
http://www.zimbio.com/Kenneth+Moreno/articles/1/Kenneth+Moreno+NYPD+officer+charged+rape+drunk

The woman, who had been having drinks with female colleagues earlier in the evening, before her contact with the police, told a friend about the alleged attack later that day and called the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, according to the NY Post.

This case won't just hinge on he said/she said. The women apparently sought medical treatment, so DNA is likely available. Her blood alcohol level was also
apparently measured, and there were witnesses to her drinking behavior and her apparent degree of sobriety just before her contacts with police.

I think the police may have a very hard time proving consent in this case.

But note, the police, and not the woman, are the ones being considered responsible for this alleged rape. The woman is not considered responsible--drunkeness is not a crime.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Investigators say the woman's blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, making her unable to legally consent to sex.

I am not so sure that this is a winner for feminists, because while in theory women would be fine with this standard because it will never negatively impact them, they also might come to the conclusion that this is where sex law becomes intrusive and unreasonable. I know that given this standard I have raped dozens of times, it is unreasonable to me.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

when I said above that sex law is unjust I was referring to being unjust to men, but also that it is unjust to individuals. It is an assault on individual rights, our sexual rights. The state has used the victim-hood of women as a trojan horse to assert itself into our sexual affairs. Once it is in the door it will not stop using coercion to get individuals... to get us.... to practice state approved sexuality. It was only three decades ago that we had near agreement that the police had no business being in our bedrooms , but my how easily we have been willing to give that right away.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I know that given this standard I have raped dozens of times, it is unreasonable to me.

Same here.

One wonder if the women are ready to do most of the work in the society as more of the men are lock up behind bars. We already have somewhere like 4 percents of our males lock up. More men behind bars by percents of total population then any other country in the world.

I think in any case the next time I "rape" my wife my guilty conscience will force me to turn myself in.

You know other then the charging of our teenagers under the child porn laws for sending each others sexuality pictures I can not think of any sex related laws more ridiculous then some states sexual assaults laws.
Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

I am sure locking up the men under this theory is going to benefit the women in society in some manner.

Bill, I am pretty sure that the idea is to give women the power to throw men into the criminal system. If women can do this for things that routinely happen in real life then women gain a great deal of power over men, as many men will always be one pissed off woman away from arrest. So you damn well better do what you woman wants when she wants, dont be giving her a reason to be mad at you.

You best get on that honey-do list, and do it right!

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know