Are people really victim when it comes to beign raped?

Wow, that was such a stupid retort. I mean mine. Rhymes with "wooltit." That's just dumb.

0 Replies

might I say.....retarded?

0 Replies

I thought of sheep's mammaries.

Somehow I thought Gus would like that.

0 Replies

spendy, does celibate mean no masturbation?
Excuse my ignorance, im just a poor innoccent tearaway.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
No means no.
By your definition then a) through d) are rape and the man must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?

Why not? A woman can say "no" at any point -- so can a man, although that scenario may be considerably less commonplace. Consent, once given, may be withdrawn at any time -- and that's not some kind of foreign concept. If I were to invite you into my home, for instance, and then you proceeded to act in a manner that I found disagreeable, could I ask you to leave? And if you didn't, would I be entitled to charge you with trespass? Of course I would. Indeed, you'd consider it unjust if it were otherwise. So why should sex be any different?

Chumly wrote:

What about if the man is being masturbated by the woman, and he is tied down, reluctantly but not forcibly, then sometime before he ejaculates he says no, as his circumstances are similar to a) through d). Yet the woman does not stop and holds the man down and continues until he ejaculates. Should she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?

Sure. Why not?

Chumly wrote:

What about if a) though d) are still relevant as per the example above, and the woman has completed masturbating the man, yet despite his continued protests, she rubs her vulva against his semi erect penis until she reaches orgasm. Should she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?

Sure. Why not?

0 Replies

OK Joe,

just to clarify before moving ahead, am I to assume then that you place no credence on the circumstances prior to and after the "rape" and as such the individual in question must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

OK Joe,

just to clarify before moving ahead, am I to assume then that you place no credence on the circumstances prior to and after the "rape" and as such the individual in question must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?

You ask about my "credence" -- what is that?
I give the circumstances weight when they
Are pertinent and none when they are not --
And that's the limit of my "credence" in
The circumstances that you've listed here.
So if the suspect faces charges or
Does not depends upon the facts involved;
That's always how a prosecution works.

0 Replies

Hi Joe,
I did not ask about your credence, I asked what credence you place on the circumstances prior to and after.

Chumly wrote:

just to clarify before moving ahead, am I to assume then that you place no credence on the circumstances prior to and after the "rape" and as such the individual in question must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?

joefromchicago wrote:

I give the circumstances weight when they
Are pertinent and none when they are not --

A truism with the equal weight as saying you eat when you are hungry, and thus having the same absence of meaning in this context.

joefromchicago wrote:

And that's the limit of my "credence" in
The circumstances that you've listed here.

Again I did not ask you about your credence.

joefromchicago wrote:

So if the suspect faces charges or
Does not depends upon the facts involved;
That's always how a prosecution works.

It sounds very much like you think facts of this type are wholly objective, indisputable and are definitively circumscribed by the prosecution and the law. If so please explain the law, the prosecution, what you perceive the facts to be in the case you wish to address and further what the apropos punishment should be under the law.

0 Replies

And, indeed, the job of the prosecution IS to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

The job of the jury is to determine guilt.

The job of the judge, if someone is found guilty, is to determine sentence.....based, in part (there are a number of somewhat competing factors a judge must take into account)...on the circumstances of the offence.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

And, indeed, the job of the prosecution IS to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

It's the job of the prosecution to establish their case. Whether that means to the fullest extent of the law is another matter entirely, and hence goes to the heart of part of my question where I ask: "and as such the individual in question must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other criminal act?"

I am getting some dinner.......

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Joe,
I did not ask about your credence, I asked what credence you place on the circumstances prior to and after.

Well, then your question really makes no sense.
If I believe a fact is credible
Then I will give it credence, to be sure --
And if it isn't credible, I won't.
Now, I assume that your descriptions here
Are accurate, and so I have no cause
To doubt that they are anything but true.
If, on the other hand, they're incorrect,
I'm confident you'll let me know.

Chumly wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
I give the circumstances weight when they
Are pertinent and none when they are not --
A truism with the equal weight as saying you eat when you are hungry, and thus having the same absence of meaning in this context.

Perhaps for one who does not understand
What "credence" means -- as I suspect
The situation really is with you.

Chumly wrote:

Again I did not ask you about your credence.

If you're not asking me for mine, then whose?

Chumly wrote:

It sounds very much like you think facts of this type are wholly objective, indisputable and are definitively circumscribed by the prosecution and the law.

You're incorrect (and look up "circumscribe" --
You've misinterpreted that word as well).

Chumly wrote:

If so please explain the law, the prosecution, what you perceive the facts to be in the case you wish to address and further what the apropos punishment should be under the law.

The facts are just as you have set them forth
(If you've forgotten them, they're in this thread);
I know naught else but what you have described.
And as for punishment, that all depends:
What jurisdiction are we in? With what
Offenses has the suspect in the past
Been charged? What ages are the suspect and
The victim here? I'd need to know these things
Before I could decide what punishment
Is merited (not "apropos" -- oy vey!).

0 Replies

Quote:

Santana: Rape is not a sexual act

Lol, Santana never ceases to amaze me.

0 Replies

Rape is a violent physical assault, the sexual act is merely coincidental--the means by which the violence is perpetrated.

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Quote:
Santana: Rape is not a sexual act

Lol, Santana never ceases to amaze me.

I certainly agree with Set. It is an act of anger, agression and control.

There may be some grey areas here, as in so called date rape. I could imagine that in some cases the woman might be giving mixed signals.

I was once almost date raped, but I talked the man out of it. In that case, the guy was not a crazed rapist, but someone who had different intentions than I did.

0 Replies

Vega, are you male or female?

Id say all people who have been raped are rape victims.How can you say they arnt?

As for 'are there things they do to bring it on themselves'?
No, how does an 80 year old woman bring it on herself to be raped while her house is being burgled.
If your refering to provocative outfits, does the same apply to men as well.If their arse looks amazing in a certain pair of trousers, how do we women manage not to rape the guy.

Its more to do with the rapist in my opinion.The persion has it in their mind they are gona force themselves on someone and they dont care who.

Why would anyone want to make a rape victim feel more sh*tty about themselves by telling them it was their own fault??!!

0 Replies

I think one point that may be instructive is to see rape as what it is - sexual battery. And to understand what battery is, in a legal sense.

Definition of battery - battery is, at it's most basic essence, deliberate touching which is unwanted by the recipient of the touch. It's a law about personal bodily integrity. You deserve - everyone deserves - to be able to walk down the street and not have your hand held, your pregnant belly touched (if applicable), your butt slapped or even your face kissed. Injury isn't required, although it's obviously more serious if an injury occurs. Intent is required because accidental or incidental contact is fine, e. g. if you and I rub shoulders on a crowded sidewalk.

Definition of rape (see the second definition on the page) - rape is
(1) sexual intercourse (that's the definition on law.com; the reality is that a number of jurisdictions put anal rape and sodomizing with an instrument under the rape umbrella, too, but we'll go with the law.com definition for the purposes of this post), that is, penis in vagina. No insertion, no rape.
(2) it must be unwanted - that doesn't mean it can't, in reality, be pleasant or at least not violent. It just has to be unwanted. Your next door neighbor might be an amazing sexual dynamo, but if you don't want to have sex with him or her, yet he or she accomplishes the act anyway, then you have an element of rape. Passed out persons, drugged persons and overly drunk persons are incapable of consent. Children are, by law, incapable of consent, even sexy 16-year-olds.
(3) it must be accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation - hence physical injuries, which are evidence, are not required. Threatening to kill someone's spouse if intercourse doesn't happen is an element of rape.

Consider battery - the law gives everyone autonomy over their own bodies. You have the right to not be touched if you don't welcome the touching. Same with rape. You have the right to not engage in intercourse if you don't want to, even if you change your mind, even if you're the man, even if you're wearing sexy clothes, even if you're cute, even if you're on a date, even if the other person has paid for your meal or your house. Even if you're married.

You have the right to autonomy in your body. That's the essence of both laws. All the rest is window dressing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Santana: Rape is not a sexual act

Lol, Santana never ceases to amaze me.

I certainly agree with Set. It is an act of anger, agression and control.

Ha what a hoot!
Does rape involve sex? No! Well bugger me!

Quote:

Rape is a violent physical assault, the sexual act is merely coincidental

So its a coincidence that it involves a man ' violently attacking a female'. It nothing to do with a sexual urge?

0 Replies

RaceDriver205 wrote:

Quote:
Rape is a violent physical assault, the sexual act is merely coincidental

So its a coincidence that it involves a man ' violently attacking a female'. It nothing to do with a sexual urge?

I see your point but there is a theory that rape has more to do with holding power over someone.
In my mind there are differnt types of non physical rape,bullying, intimidation,verbally humiliating someone about their private life in public is a type of rape.
Its control over someone.If someone calls you a slapper and it reduces your enjoyment of your sex life then you have been verbally raped.

0 Replies

Rape is a form of battery. The instrument used to injure another person is not a gun, knife or truncheon, it's a penis.

Yes, there's an erection involved. There is penetration and all of that, if you must insist, RaceDriver205. But there's a world of difference between rape and a consensual sexual act, even a violent consensual sexual act, and that is what Setanta (that's his name, not "Santana") is telling you.

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

Rape is a form of battery. The instrument used to injure another person is not a gun, knife or truncheon, it's a penis.

Yes, there's an erection involved. There is penetration and all of that, if you must insist, RaceDriver205. But there's a world of difference between rape and a consensual sexual act, even a violent consensual sexual act, and that is what Setanta (that's his name, not "Santana") is telling you.

just to clarify...doesn't always involve a penis. There are cases of men being raped by women.

Bottom line. Rape is not about sex, it's about control

0 Replies

Are people really victim when it comes to beign raped?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know