@firefly,
Quote:It's a waste of time trying to point out anything to you.
Translation: "I'm pig-headed and ideological, and I can't concede that
sometimes you make valid points."
Quote:Rape is a penetrative act done to a victim--someone who is "made to penetrate" is not having their own mouth, vagina, or anus, penetrated. That's an essential distinction.
And as I pointed out "rape" as it is currently defined under the law is bias against men. The term needs to be re-defined.
Quote:Someone who is sound asleep, and totally passive and unaware, cannot be made to do anything.
So by that reasoning, I guess it wouldn't be rape if a random man climbed through your window and fucked you while you were asleep then. I mean, you weren't aware of it. You weren't made to do anything...
Quote:The rape laws are no longer gender-biased, as you claim, because they are no longer solely based on an act that involves a penis penetrating a vagina. If either a male or female penetrates a male's anus, with fingers or an object, without consent, that is rape as well--as the federal definition of rape, the CDC definition of rape, and state laws all make clear.
The laws ARE bias. And I proved it.
nononono said
Quote:Let's say his girlfriend woke him up by putting his penis inside her vagina and humping him. According to the current definition of "rape" that would not be "rape". It would be considered "Made to penetrate."
Now reverse the participants. Max wakes his girlfriend up by putting his penis inside her and humping her. In this instance his girlfriend could legally claim "rape" and the state could prosecute Max accordingly.
Both these situations involve people being made to participate in sex while unconscious, but only one under the law is viewed as "rape". Literally the only difference in these scenarios is the gender of the person initiating the sexual contact. The intent and desired outcome are exactly the same.
And that's why sexual assault laws are not "gender neutral." If they were "gender neutral", the laws would focus on the act itself instead of the genitals of the perpetrator.
In the hypothetical examples I gave of Max and his girlfriend no, they're the same thing. The intent is the exact same. How are they any different? They're both instances where one person is being forced to have sex against their will.
How old are you firefly? Do I really need explain how heterosexual sex works to you? Have you
ever had sex before?
See, when a grown up man loves a grown up woman very much, after a bottle of wine and some pillow talk, he puts his penis inside her vagina (or her mouth, or her butthole), and that's called "Making Love". See, the penis is a man's sexual organ (it's also where his pee pee comes out.) It is on the
OUTSIDE of his body. The vagina is a woman's sexual organ (it's also where her pee pee comes out.) It is on the
INSIDE of her body. Now as you can see from these facts, one gender
inevitably is bound to do
much more penetrating during sex than the other.
How is unwanted sex somehow more vile simply because it's a man doing it to a woman?
Scenario A) A man has coitus (penis in vagina sex) with an unconscious woman.
Scenario B) A woman has coitus (penis in vagina sex) with an unconscious man.
How are these two acts ANY different in regards to being a violation of a person's body? How is it that only one of these acts should be viewed as rape? Now I'm not disputing what the current legal definition of "rape" is, so quit telling me that I don't understand it. I'm arguing that the current definition is bias against men.
Why should it be that unwanted coitus should be considered a more serious criminal act under the law simply if a man was the one who initiated it? How is that NOT bias against men? Can you answer me that using logic and not diversion tactics like telling me that I don't understand the current laws? Hmmm firefly? can you do it? I'm waiting...
Quote:And, in case you hadn't noticed, this thread topic is about the rapes of females.
And that's another lovely diversion tactic that feminists like yourself like to use. You people claim that
any viewpoint that contradicts yours is "off topic". Well, the Time magazine article I posted about made to penetrate made the point that issues like made to penetrate show exactly how the CDC's 1 in 5 statistics are hogwash. I'd say that's
VERY relevant to the topic of this thread. But I'll go one further...
Max, since you started this thread, do
you think my points and articles about made to penetrate are "
off topic"?