25
   

1 in 5 women get raped?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 02:06 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
A woman's health care choices regarding abortion are her private business, to be decided upon by her and her physician, and not by you.

the government does and should regulate the practice of medicine.
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 06:41 pm
I love how my posts about "Made to penetrate" got voted down into the negatives, yet no one (including firefly) was able to come up with strong counter arguments about the points I made.

Nope, no in-group bias going on at A2K! None at all! Rolling Eyes
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 10:26 pm
@nononono,
It's a waste of time trying to point out anything to you.

I had already pointed out to you that "made to penetrate" is not part of sexual assault law--it is mainly a research category that has not gained legal acceptance as a specific form of sexual victimization. When it occurs, the perpetrator could be charged with a type of forcible sexual contact, but not with rape. 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.

"Made to penetrate" is clearly not rape, or the equivalent of rape--rape, as an act, is clearly defined and described in the laws. "Made to penetrate" does not fit a legal definition or description of rape. Whether you regard it as the equivalent of rape is totally irrelevant--the law does not.

And, when you claim that someone, like Max, who was asleep when his girlfriend gave him oral sex, was "made to penetrate", you are being truly absurd. Someone who is sound asleep, and totally passive and unaware, cannot be made to do anything. His girlfriend might have committed a sexual assault, since her actions were initiated before he was awake and aware enough to consent, or resist, but Max wasn't made to do anything. You don't even seem to correctly understand what "made to penetrate" refers to.

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.

There is no valid argument you are making. All you are demonstrating is your ignorance of existing rape law.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, this thread topic is about the rapes of females.
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 11:21 pm
@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"?

Very Happy
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 11:44 pm
@nononono,
Quote:

The laws ARE bias. And I proved it.

If the laws were biased against men, a woman couldn't be charged with raping another woman, but they can be, and they are, when they have violated the rape laws.

You haven't proved a damn thing. Laughing

nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 11:47 pm
@firefly,
nononono said:
Quote:
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...


Still waiting...
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 03:06 am
@nononono,
(Whistling)...

Still waiting...
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 04:00 am
@nononono,
(Twiddling my thumbs)

Still waiting...

UNLESS, you concede firefly.

In which case, I would immediately give you kudos, and recognize your ability to recognize logic and critical thinking.

bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 06:38 am
@nononono,
Hawkeyw10 and nononono are one and the same.
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 06:42 am
@bobsal u1553115,
are you jealous bob?
nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 06:44 am
@nononono,
Still waiting...

(Not holding my breath though. As firefly seems to be wholly allergic to logic and critical thinking. Not to mention being unable to acknowledge solid points in those who don't fit in with her ideology (feminism!) ...)
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 05:42 pm
@firefly,
So, I just want to make sure I understand your position.

In the following two scenarios:

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.

You believe that the man in scenario A has committed an act that's morally worse than the woman in scenario B. And that it's perfectly Ok for the man in scenario A to be punished more harshly under the law than the woman in scenario B, and therefore the law should not be changed as it is not bias against men. And the reason you feel this way is because he has a penis, whereas she does not... Because penis = bad.

Am I correct that that is your position firefly?
nononono
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 05:49 am
@nononono,
So let's recap, shall we:

A few things that firefly has admitted to (and I can back this up with quotes if need be):

~She's stated that making fun of a minority group of people's suffering is A Ok.

~She's stated that if someone is married to a member of the opposite sex, they are INCAPABLE of being sexist/bigoted.

~She's stated that men who commit sexual assault are somehow more vile than women who commit sexual assault, simply because of their gender.

Let the record show these things, and let it NEVER forget them.

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 07:05 am
@nononono,
And why would I be?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 07:06 am
Republican Lawmaker Not Sure Sex With Unconscious People Really Is Rape
As if "unable to give consent" isn't the very textbook definition of rape.
By Kali Holloway / AlterNet
February 5, 2015

Print
Comments

It seems yet another Republican lawmaker is confused about what rape is. In this case, Utah State Representative Brian Greene, while considering a bill that would ensure unconscious victims are protected under the legal definition of sexual assault, expressed a few concerns. Namely, his belief that there are special cases in which having sex with someone who is out cold might not really be rape.

“I hope this wouldn’t happen, but this opens to door to it,” Greene begins in a video of the hearing. “An individual has sex with their wife while she is unconscious—or he, if that’s possible, I don’t know—a prosecutor could then charge that spouse with rape.”

Yes, indeed, a prosecutor could! Because that is literally and precisely how rape works. I’m not sure why we need to keep having this conversation.

Greene then went on to say that having sex with someone who is unconscious might qualify as rape “in a first-date scenario. But to me, not where people have a history of years of sexual activity."

By that argument, should you pass out in the company of a lover or spouse—or an ex, even—with whom you've previously had sex, it’s pretty much impossible to be raped. What’s that? You were literally too incapacitated to possibly be able to give consent? Greene still isn’t sure that qualifies as “rape" rape.

In any case, the Utah legislator came to his senses just long enough for the bill to pass by unanimous vote.

Watch the video of Greene wondering what rape is:

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 07:53 am
Obama delivers sexual assault message at the Grammys: ‘It has to stop’
Source: MSNBC

President Obama made a surprise appearance at the Grammys on Sunday night – in the form of a powerful PSA for the White House’s sexual violence awareness campaign, “It’s On Us.”

In the ad, President Obama tells viewers that nearly one in five American women will be raped, and nearly one in four will experience some form of domestic violence. He then urges viewers to take responsibility for ending rape and sexual assault, saying: “It’s not okay – and it has to stop.”

Obama also called on artists at the Grammys to get involved, telling viewers, “Go to itsonus.org and and take the pledge. And to the artists at the Grammys tonight, I ask you to ask your fans to do the same too.”

“It’s on us – all of us - to create a culture where violence isn’t tolerated, where survivors are supported, and where all our young people – men and women – can go as far as their talents and their dreams will take them,” Obama said.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-grammys-delivers-message-about-sexual-assault?
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 10:36 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
“It’s on us – all of us - to create a culture where violence isn’t tolerated..."


Quote:
HS football players charged with attempted rape in broom attack
By KOMO Staff
Feb 6, 2015

Warning: This story contains graphic language

SEATTLE -- Five Juanita High School football players accused of trying to rape a special needs student with a broom stick were charged in juvenile court on Friday with attempted rape.

The five students, who are all 14- or 15-years old, are accused of abusing a 17-year-old special needs student last December in the locker room at Juanita High.

Kirkland police were called to the high school on December 22 after getting a call from a woman claiming her nephew had been sexually assaulted with a broom stick, according to court documents.

The boy's aunt told police she had been contacted earlier in the day by the school's athletic director, who told her there had been "an incident" between her nephew and members of the football team.

The victim -- a senior in the school's special needs program -- told police he had been hanging around the locker room with members of the school's freshman football team when five of the players started to tease him about finding a picture of his girlfriend, according to court papers.

The teasing continued, and one of the players eventually called the victim into the shower area, where police say he and the other players grabbed the victim and pulled down his sweatpants and underwear.

Once his pants and underwear were down, one of the players began "jabbing" the victim in the thigh and buttocks with a broomstick, according to prosecutors. The victim later told police one of the players recorded the attack on his cell phone.

Police say one of suspects soon said, "this isn't funny anymore" and the teens stopped their attack.

The victim told police he was contacted that night by head football coach Shaun Tarantola, who said he was "sorry that happened."

Detectives later tracked down and interviewed several witnesses to the attack. One witness said he had "no doubt" the attack was planned and that the players were "trying to stick the broom in (the victim's) rectum," according to court documents. Witnesses also said the attack was a form of hazing known as a "jubie," which is when "someone is held down and a broomstick or finger is stuck up that person's rectum," according to police.

Witnesses also said the attack appeared to be in retaliation for an event earlier that day when the victim and several football players were throwing ice water at each other.

When detectives interviewed the five suspects, all but one either blamed someone else or denied taking part in the attack. The fifth player admitted his role in the incident. When asked what his plan was, he told police, "I was going to stick a broom up (the victim's) ass," according to court documents.

The suspects, who are not being named because they are minors, were all charged Friday in juvenile court with second degree attempted rape. Prosecutors don't believe the assault was sexually motivated, but falls under the category of rape because the suspects "attempted or threatened penetration with a broom handle."

The boys will be arraigned on February 20.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/HS-football-players-charged-with-attempted-rape-in-broom-attack-291116071.html
wmwcjr
 
  3  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 11:30 am
@firefly,
Do the Gang of Three and other MRAs ever express any outrage over male-on-male assaults such as this one? No, they don't. Their sole obsession is women. They only concern themselves with the victimization (real or imagined) of males by females. They don't concern themselves with the victimization of males by other males. Their view of "men's rights" is actually quite limited. In their minds the victimization of males by other males doesn't count.

Hawkeye's reaction to an assault like this is to show contempt for the victim. He hates victims and loves bullies. He cites concern for bullied kids as evidence of the "wimpification" of America. His mantra is "Boys will be boys," even if the victim ends up having to wear a colostomy bag. Hawkeye would just laugh about it and say that the victim deserved it because he was "weak."

Nononono finds his allies where he can, even if he has to check the bottom of a garbage can. Never mind that hawkeye's bad reputation has been well-earned over a period of years. It has little to do with politics, but a lot to do with morality and just plain decency. I wouldn't let him near either of my daughters. In short, he's just an evil guy.

As for nononono labeling his critics as Marxists, I guess he's learned well from Joe McCarthy and the John Birch Society. As a black man, nononono should remember that the Birchers attempted to discredit the civil rights movement of the 1960s by labeling it a Communist conspiracy. Once again, nononono makes an odd choice of ideological comrades.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 12:26 pm
@wmwcjr,
There are plenty of us who support both women's rights and men's rights.
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2015 12:49 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

There are plenty of us who support both women's rights and men's rights.



That may well be true. But it doesn't seem to be so on a2k.
 

Related Topics

HOW COME . . . - Question by Setanta
Men who defend feminism? - Question by whatthefudge
Teach Men Not To Rape? - Question by nononono
Does every woman have her price...? - Question by nononono
Men Are Bad, Baaaaaaaaaaad. - Question by nononono
Misogyny - Discussion by chai2
Elliot Rodger - Question by FOUND SOUL
Best Looking Team at the Olympics? - Discussion by hawkeye10
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 01:48:07