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

no one disputes are a crime in the attempt to support her position. How she thinks this helps her IDK.

Justbrooke does not understand that drinking is also a great excuse for women who would like to provide that free piece of ass but wish the cover and the ability to blame the drinking and the man never her own desires for having stranger pickup sex

Quote:

Is there any evil you don't consider the FEMINISTS responsible for? How about global warming

Nothing else, as the movement lost power as younger women no longer saw a need for feminism the feminists concentrated on sex law as a way to force the culture the way they want it to go. And they moved largely behind the scenes, forming alliances with those in law and government who were sympathetic to the feminist desire to protect the victims. Working slowly and in quiet and with a hefty PR budget much of which comes from the government through VAWA they have been able to push through their agenda without a lot of resistance.

Those days are over.

Her logic is not sane as it seem to be it some stranger rapes/attacks have little to do with sex all rapes charge cases have nothing to do with sex but are power trips by evil men.

Bill and Hawkeye both have "strong" wives that either keep them or bully them

We deal with this all the time in BDSM, where the woman wants to be "forced" or "pushed" into sex acts that she wants to do but cant bring herself to do. These are dangerous women, men play with them at their own risk. Only the idiot man plays with them casually, you want to be in a committed relationship with them first.

I was even too dumb to get something in writing first!

Intrepid wrote:

Of course it your right to disagree as it is with everyone. I don't think Dys was disputing your right to disagree. He was stating, the same as I, that the fact that we disagree with something does not mean it does not happen.

As for scripture.....it also teaches not to judge.

I'm just a heathen but to my way of thinking, if the beatitudes define christianity (which I happen to think), Arella Mae, you ain't no christian.

I have not judged anyone to hell because I disagree with them nor would I ever consider doing so.

I had jump out of good airplanes for the weekend fun of it and taken a 300 pound aircraft to over a mile high many times but risking your freedom on the hope of a woman head is screw on tight is far more daring.

the party line is that all non consensual sex is forced sex which is simple assault that has nothing to do with the erotic not matter what the offender we feeling or thinking at the time.

The feminists made a hash of that argument when they pushed for the criminalization of marital rape and date rape, because no guy or gal who has even been through a wild romp with their partner is going to completely buy that.

It does not seem to be a problem now though, since it is only men who will get hurt if they don't behave.

No need to place safeguards for men into our sexual assaults laws as women can be truth far more then men.

Rape is your idea of a "wild romp"?

guess Lorena Bobbitt didn't enjoy those "wild romps".

So, if she says, "No", just ignore her. I mean, what's more important, her needs and wishes or your CONQUEST.

At trial, the man is presumed innocent, and the judge or jury that is charged with deciding the verdict is under an obligation to find him innocent unless the state proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

THE RAPIST'S HANDBOOK by HAWKEYE

Because you consider certain crimes "equally heinous" does not mean the law regards them the same way. For instance, we have many different legal charges to cover the killing of another person besides "murder". The punishment for each of these crimes may differ significantly, but, in each instance, a victim is dead. If you were to punish the offender simply for the fact that a victim is dead, why do we have, or need to have, all those other crimes, with all those varying sentences, when it comes to killing another person, why not just have murder? In some states the killing of a police officer is a capital offense, where the deaths of civilians might not carry an automatic death penalty. Is the life of a police officer really worth more than the life of someone else in the community, like a cardiac surgeon or a school teacher?

There are varying reasons why the law defines the killing of another human by different crimes. The same is true for why it regards and defines different types of sexual assaults as being different crimes,

I don't think you have any basis in fact for saying that a woman is as equally traumatized emotionally by a rape as she would be by having something else offensive done to her, like being urinated/defecated on. While both may be emotionally degrading experiences, one does involve a literal physical invasion of her body, an assault inside the body, which can also do considerably more actual physical damage than being urinated on.

I think you are also failing to fully appreciate the "assault" part of "sexual assaults". These aren't just regarded as sexual acts, sexual assaults are classified as crimes of violence. You can't just look at these crimes from the perspective of degree of emotional trauma to the victim, there are different degrees of violence to the human body, of physical trauma, involved with different sexual assaults, and people vary in their emotional reactions to trauma.

When women were regarded as the property of their husbands, her rape was considered to be a crime against her husband, and not against the woman herself, and the crime was considered a theft. Rapes of unmarried women were sometimes not even regarded as crimes. Not until women were regarded as independent, legally separate human beings, did rape even come to be recognized as a crime against the woman. And, until fairly recently, the rape laws, and the treatment of rape in the criminal justice system in the U.S. and Canada, were significantly biased against the female victim and in favor of the male defendant. One reason that "sexual assault" replaced "rape" in the Canadian system was to emphasize the violent and aggressive nature of the crime rather than its sexual aspects.

Male rape has a somewhat different history

Quote:

Historically, the rape of males was more widely recognized in ancient times. Several of the legends in Greek mythology involved abductions and sexual assaults of males by other males or gods. The rape of a defeated male enemy was considered the special right of the victorious soldier in some societies and was a signal of the totality of the defeat. There was a widespread belief that a male who was sexually penetrated, even if it was by forced sexual assault, thus "lost his manhood," and could no longer be a warrior or ruler. Gang rape of a male was considered an ultimate form of punishment and, as such, was known to the Romans as punishment for adultery and the Persians and Iranians as punishment for violation of the sanctity of the harem (Donaldson, 1990).

Nicholas Groth, a clinical psychologist and author of Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, says all sexual assault is an act of aggression, regardless of the gender or age of the victim or the assailant. Neither sexual desire nor sexual deprivation is the primary motivating force behind sexual assault. It is not about sexual gratification, but rather a sexual aggressor using somebody else as a means of expressing their own power and control.

Yes, I post to this point many pages back. Rapists typically are not acting on their base physiological desires, but rather their insecurity and desire to have power over another individual.

firefly wrote:

In some states, the word "rape" is used only to define a forced act of vaginal sexual intercourse, and an act of forced anal intercourse is termed "sodomy." In some states, the crime of sodomy also includes any oral sexual act. There are some states that now use gender-neutral terms to define acts of forced anal, vaginal or oral intercourse. Also, some states no longer use the terms "rape" and "sodomy," rather all sex crimes are described as sexual assaults or criminal sexual conduct of various degrees depending on the use and amount of force or coercion on the part of the assailant .
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361

Most of the time, when people talk about male rape they are talking about forcible rapes committed by males, where the victim is also male, and anal penetration is involved. Those rapes are now equivalent legally with rapes of females by males.

English law chooses to reserve the term "rape" exclusively for a crime that involves male penetration of a woman's vagina without consent. That does not mean that they do not similarly punish women who commit a crime that involves penetration of a man's anus without consent.

Quote:

Under English law, it is possible for a woman to 'rape' a man, but the woman would be prosecuted for the offence of assault by penetration and not for the offence of rape... Section 2 of the 2003 Act introduces a new sexual offence, "assault by penetration", with the same punishment as rape. It is committed when someone sexually penetrates the anus or vagina with a part of his or her body, or with an object, without that person's consent.

So, what difference does it really make if the crime is called "rape" when the victim is female, but "assault by penetration" if the victim is male, as long as the punishments are equivalent? The English system equates the unlawful penetration of the woman's vagina by a male with the unlawful pentration of the man's anus by the female. That seems reasonable.

I'm not sure that when a female has sexual intercourse with a man, without consent, that we are talking about "rape" as "rape" has been understood historically in the law, or even in the general culture. And I am not at all sure it is completely equivalent to male on female rape or male on male rape in its seriousness as an aggressive or violent offense.

I'm not sure that this man was brushed off because of his gender. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the sex occurred, let alone that it was forced. And that would be the problem with the police following up on stories like this, where an adult man alleges that a woman forced him to have intercourse, but there are no witnesses or any evidence to substantiate the attack. One could argue that the police showed sexist bias because the complainant was male, but there really isn't evidence of that either.

Also, in this story, as in many stories (mostly outside the U.S.) where men claim such things, the motive given was that the woman was "sex starved" which is inconsistent with generally accepted motives for sexual crimes as acts of aggression or violence. The alleged victim in this case was possibly perpetuating that same myth about why a woman would do that to him. Why do people assume a woman would not force sex for the same reasons men do--domination, power, humiliation of the victim, etc.

I think male victims of sexual assaults by females have to be urged to come forward to report such crimes. There are not enough meaningful statistics to evaluate the extent of the problem. And we don't know how law enforcement and the criminal justice system treats the problem of forced intercourse of adult men by women. If we can't find the cases, and look at the punishments given out, I'm not sure we can jump to conclusion that existing laws are unfair to men. These cases have to wind up in courtrooms before we can find out how the criminal justice system is handling them. I want male victims treated fairly too.