@hawkeye10,
Quote:there need be no injury or no resistance to sex under the definition of forcible rape, there only needs to be force applied to get sex.
You are confusing the way the law reads, regarding forcible rape, with the evidence of victim injury that might be presented at trial to support a criminal charge of forcible rape.
At trial, the injury to the woman would be the evidence that force was used--and that the sex was not consensual. The law itself simply defines the act of forcible rape--what is done by the rapist. But, until a few decades ago, a women who was not injured, tended not to be regarded as a "legitimate" rape victim--there was the suspicion that she "really wanted it" or that she wasn't really raped--and that is the mind-set that Akin is trying to take us back to.
Many women are too frightened to fight back, or frightened that, if they do resist, they will be severely injured, so their bodies show no evidence of the use of force--and force is often not an element in incest, statutory rape and acquaintance/date rape--that does not mean these are not "legitimate" or "real" rapes, or what you call "rape-rape"--and state laws all recognize such rapes, which are done without force, as very real and legitimate rapes.
Quote:what is wanted is to get the government out of the business of dictating in micro detail the terms under which the citizens engage in sex...
The government doesn't dictate anything beyond requiring consent, consent as it is legally and clearly defined in the sexual assault laws of every state, for lawful sexual activity. When the other person indicates lack of consent, or is legally unable to give consent, the act becomes the crime of rape--whether or not force was used. That's the way the laws of all 50 states read--and that's what people like you, and BillRM, and Todd Akin refuse to accept, and a deep mistrust of women, and a lack of regard for women, unless that attitude.
You go even one step further than Akin, because you often try to deny rape, or to claim there is nothing wrong with rape, asserting that it is "normal" sexuality.
Quote:abnormal means that it is not normal. what has been defined as rape in the modern definition is in fact normal in human sexuality as well as is normal with other species. This has been proven by science. You can not like this fact all you want, but you can not call sexual aggression abnormal.
http://able2know.org/topic/158723-231#post-4404331
You also seem unable to distinguish between real life criminal sexual assault and erotica or fantasy. You lump them together to suggest that rape is somehow acceptable.
And you, and Akin, just don't like the non-forcible definitions of rape, which are part of the state laws in all 50 states, and have been part of those laws for decades, because you, like Akin, don't feel they refer to "legitimate" rape,
real rape, "rape-rape".
Quote:it used to be use of physical force over demonstrated resistance to put a penis into a vagina or arse. That is less that 5% I am guessing of what rape is now.
http://able2know.org/topic/158723-184
This comment of yours sums up how you see the rape laws--and women.
You and Akin are both cut from the same cloth. You both want to turn the clock back, and deny women the right to control their own bodies, including sexual access to those bodies, and to have those rights backed up by laws.
