NationStates Jolt Archive

Its often lamented that few minds are changed on the internet; while surely being increasingly more caustic is a form of change, it sometimes seem we never surrender our heartfelt convictions because of a post. But for me, nationstates has brought about a thorough reversal of one of my most heartfelt former beliefs, that the victim is fundamentally NOT to blame for being raped.

I was wrong. An NSG poster has explained to me, in several posts, that women deserve at least part blame for being raped IF they were dressed provacatively.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.

He sums it up most convincingly when he says:

Whats disgusting is the fact that some woman will wear clothing thats meant to cause attractions from the other sex and when some git gets attracted then sexually assaults her she gets no blame. What really gets me is if girls are so uptight about men taking advantage of them ect ect, then why do they try so hard to attract strangers they don't even know?

It is elegant, obvious, yet inexorably true. If a woman wants to be attractive, of course she deserves at least SOME blame for being raped.

The fact is, if a woman is going to present herself as attractive, this necessarily makes her culpable when men "take advantage of them", which naturally includes a monstrously horrific, intrinsically vicious violation of their choice, their bodies, their minds, their self-determination, their very capacity to feel safe in their own skin...these are all quite rightly forfeit if a woman is going to wear a skirt that a man will find attractive.

Now of course, as the Wise NSG poster states in other posts, the rapist should ALSO be punished. After all, the attacker's crime of forcibly penetrating a woman's body and subjecting her to damage so nightmarishly agonizing that entire fields of study have yet to fully understand let alone completely repair the damage done is ALMOST as vile as the woman's desire to be attractive in a way judged excessively provacative by some others.

So, I've changed my mind. The rapist is not solely responsible for rape unless the woman was appropriately dressed. Hopefully, the Wise NSG Poster will provide further elaboration as to what is appropriate dress.

Kudos to anyone who can guess who this poster is WITHOUT searching or having already seen these posts.

And ladies, go put a shawl on.

After all, as Wise NSG Poster said:

But as you well know men are wired to want to get on with attractive women. If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily. When women show off their stuff it's like waving bacon in front of a dog's nose.

So remember, girls of NSG: You are metaphorically comparable to meat. Keep your hamhocks wrapped, because there are now TWO men running around who believe the above quotes.

By coincidence, I have just put my views into the form of an Aesop's fable kind of analogy, clumsy but I think you'll get the point:

Well see, if you see a snake in the grass, you shouldn't go and pick it up. Now, when people are drunk, they're more likely to pick up the snake and hence get bitten, they should therefore receive lower compensation for the snake bite.

Now, exchange 'snake' with 'rapist', 'grass' with 'entire world' and 'pick it up' with 'show some skin and get drunk', remember that every rapist wears a t-shirt with a big sign saying 'I am a rapist' and you can see why it's pretty much the victims fault if they carry on regardless.

This is why we need to keep women in the home.

If they're so wise, why have they written 'ect'?

Said woman dresses that way to be looked at, not touched. Also, people should be able to control their urges. I can do it, and if I--as a person who isn't going to have premarital sex (i.e. a longer dry spell than most of the people on NSG)--can somehow manage to keep it in my pants, I don't think it'd be too much to expect for the rest of my gender to do the same.

Its like how people with nice things are to blame for getting burgled. If you didn't want your house to get broken into you shouldn't have bought such nice things and tempted the burglar.

Or when people get beaten up on the street by thugs. Thats what you get for looking so weak - if you looked tough then people wouldn't attack you.

Said woman dresses that way to be looked at, not touched. Also, people should be able to control their urges. I can do it, and if I--as a person who isn't going to have premarital sex (i.e. a longer dry spell than most of the people on NSG)--can somehow manage to keep it in my pants, I don't think it'd be too much to expect for the rest of my gender to do the same.

Step 1 : call doctor

Step 2 : pee in a cup at doctors office

Step 3 : have the lab test for testosterone

Said woman dresses that way to be looked at, not touched. Also, people should be able to control their urges. I can do it, and if I--as a person who isn't going to have premarital sex (i.e. a longer dry spell than most of the people on NSG)--can somehow manage to keep it in my pants, I don't think it'd be too much to expect for the rest of my gender to do the same.

Absurd. Why should a woman be allowed to dictate the response of the observer? Why should she be allowed decline to be touched while simultaneously and DELIBERATELY reflecting waves of light that propogate through the electromagnetic field to the unsuspecting and previously innocuous eyes of a poor man who will shortly be at the mercy of his natural desires?

Remember what Wise NSG Poster said:

If the infatuation level is high enough the instincts take over temporarily.

So, it is unreasonable for woman to think they should have even the most basic sovereignity over their sexuality. After all, if I DELIBERATELY post a picture of my motorcycle on craigslist, then I naturally must accept blame if someone comes and takes it from me by force. If their desire for a motorcycle is high enough, instincts take over.

As for your desire to keep it in your pants, you obviously just have poorly honed instincts and some measurable sense of personal responsibility.

This makes you a total pussy.

By coincidence, I have just put my views into the form of an Aesop's fable kind of analogy, clumsy but I think you'll get the point:

Well see, if you see a snake in the grass, you shouldn't go and pick it up. Now, when people are drunk, they're more likely to pick up the snake and hence get bitten, they should therefore receive lower compensation for the snake bite.

Now, exchange 'snake' with 'rapist', 'grass' with 'entire world' and 'pick it up' with 'show some skin and get drunk', remember that every rapist wears a t-shirt with a big sign saying 'I am a rapist' and you can see why it's pretty much the victims fault if they carry on regardless.

This is why we need to keep women in the home.

That's right. But even in the home, women need to not dress provactively, lest the mailman, appliance repairman, muscular and glistening Puerto Rican pool boy, or weird Uncle Larry happen by and the infatuation level gets high enough.

If they're so wise, why have they written 'ect'?

This is latten for ec tecera, which transliterates to "Swimsuits are almost by necessity at least somewhat revealing, thus the beach is a weapons free zone for sex offenders, happy hunting".

Its like how people with nice things are to blame for getting burgled. If you didn't want your house to get broken into you shouldn't have bought such nice things and tempted the burglar.

Or when people get beaten up on the street by thugs. Thats what you get for looking so weak - if you looked tough then people wouldn't attack you.

Exactly. This is why Feynman stopped publishing in physics. People kept seeing some of his ideas, and then it was at least partially his own fault when they would break into his house and try to eat his brains.

Step 1 : call doctor

Step 2 : pee in a cup at doctors office

Step 3 : have the lab test for testosterone

Be fair. He didn't say he wasn't going to have premarital sex by choice. Maybe he just lacks confidence, or doesn't want to jinx it.

Hmm, can't help but wonder if this thread won't run afoul of the rules...

That said, the idea that how a woman dresses means that she has some fault in being raped is seriously wrong. It would be akin to saying that because I have a job and make money, it is somehow partly my fault that I was mugged. Or because I breathe, it's partly my fault that I inhaled toxic fumes that had been released from a nearby factory.

lmao those were serious instructions! He needs to get his lack of sexual urge seen by a doctor lol unless he's on like blood pressure meds

Is it only me who is reading the OPs posts as highly sarcastic?

"That's right. But even in the home, women need to not dress provactively, lest the mailman, appliance repairman, muscular and glistening Puerto Rican pool boy, or weird Uncle Larry happen by and the infatuation level gets high enough."

Is it only me who is reading the OPs posts as highly sarcastic?
I couldn't decide if it was some form of poor satire or poor trolling. The poster has a history of both.

Clearly all us women should bow down to the wisdom of this poster. Just excuse me whilst I go get my Burka, so there's no chance of them being tempted by a glimpse of female flesh. What was I thinking believing that men had a semblance of self-control. Foolish me.

You convince me, let form a polical group and force this through as international law.

I have heard many muslim immigrants espouse this philosophy. Still they wind up in PRISON when they do it. By that logic then if a islamic man from a nation like Iran comes to America, Canada, Britain or France, then he has the right to rape EVERY women he see's and they should be partially to blame. After all their faces are covered.



I have been attracted to women in skimpy clothes, however i have never thought of raping them. Nor has anyone i know and some of my friends i knew long ago were serious sleaze bags.

This sounds very much like the philosophies espoused by SOME islamic immigrants where i live [I will not mention specifics or ethnicity to avoid cries of racism, its not all muslims just a small minority, at least here]. Many have thought it would be appropriate for them to rape a women who they declared to be a "whore" which was as simple as literally wearing a dress.

To me it seems a very immature why for rape. Rape is about power, whether its a man raping a women or man, or a woman raping a man or woman its almost always about power, and the other times its usually a deviant, freakish sexual fetish, which has to do in some large extent..with power. It also doesnt explain the 35% of women who dont dress provocatively that get raped. Or the elderly women who are raped, or why women rape women and men as well?

I'd guess, but I'm pretty sure those quotes were taken from a post in my thread on rape, so I don't get to play.

EDIT: Nevermind, it wasn't, I was just being me-centric. But the Wise Poster was on my shortlist anyway.

Is it only me who is reading the OPs posts as highly sarcastic?

Hammurab, sarcastic? Sir, you owe the OP an apology. You won't find a more sincere poster.

Step 1 : call doctor

Step 2 : pee in a cup at doctors office

Step 3 : have the lab test for testosterone

lmao those were serious instructions! He needs to get his lack of sexual urge seen by a doctor lol unless he's on like blood pressure meds
:rolleyes:

I couldn't decide if it was some form of poor satire or poor trolling. The poster has a history of both.
Wut? No, he doesn't. Sheesh, people!

Said woman dresses that way to be looked at, not touched.
Even that is an assumption often untrue.

It could be:
they like the style/colour/fabric of the clothing
they like the way they look in it when they look in the mirror and it makes them feel good
they are dressing to look good for their boyfriend/date/etc, but no other male
they are fitting in with the fashion
they are fitting in with the style their friends are wearing
they are fitting in with the type of event (ie going out to a club)
they are showing off their clothes to their friends
they are showing off their slim body to females to create jealousy
they are trying a new style of clothing
they are dressing up for a laugh
etc

In all the cases, the fact it may be provocative is something they are aware of, but aren't aiming for.

Ah, then, you would say that when a white woman is raped by a black man or some other minority, it is entirely her fault for tempting them beyond their capacity to resist?

I think there's more to this thread than meets the eye...

LOL TRANSFORMERS!

Blaming women because of their provocation of ‘men's natural desire is a load of essentialist BS. For a start i love the way you are so unhesitant in assuming that men/man = heterosexual. Secondly the way you've equated sexual harassment/rape as being part of a man's natural and unavoidable reaction as if men are dissolved of responsibility for their behavioural choices. Everything you’ve presented in you opening argument relies on an entwined bundle of heterosexist and patriarchal discourses that underlies the justification of violence against women and is more about policing the idea of “masculinity” than dealing with any genuine concern with women beyond their role in reaffirming your defensive assumptions of a narrow interpenetration of what it means to be a man. I am a man, but I am not and never will be the kind of man you justify and I’m more than perfectly fine with that.

That is the most ridiculous collection of arguments i've ever heard, a woman may dress up to attract a man, that said she would of course be the one who decides which man she wants to attract, she is in short not dressing up because she wants to have sex with all men but because she may want sex with a particular man of her choice.

And what on earth is the crap about 'infatuation levels' being high enough for a man to lose control. That is utter nonsense, I have of course been very attracted to members of the opposite sex before however I don't recall ever losing control of my actions. To suggest that a rapist doesn't know Exactly what he is doing is ridiculous, he knows what he's doing and he deserves the harshest punishments availible where the poor violated woman deserves all compensation availible.

Said woman dresses that way to be looked at, not touched. Also, people should be able to control their urges. I can do it, and if I--as a person who isn't going to have premarital sex (i.e. a longer dry spell than most of the people on NSG)--can somehow manage to keep it in my pants, I don't think it'd be too much to expect for the rest of my gender to do the same.

Absolutely right. I too am a man who believes that a woman (or a man for that matter) should be able to dress as they please without running the risk of unwanted sexual molestation.
Mohammed thought differently when he formulated the code of conduct for muslim women, but then, he was a sexual deviant who was unable to control his urges.
:hail:

Absolutely right. I too am a man who believes that a woman (or a man for that matter) should be able to dress as they please without running the risk of unwanted sexual molestation.
Mohammed thought differently when he formulated the code of conduct for muslim women, but then, he was a sexual deviant who was unable to control his urges.
:hail:

Sexual deviant or product of his time? He married a well-off middle-aged widow merchant after accepting her proposal. I can't imagine such a woman accepting much crap from anyone. of course what constituted "acceptable behaviour" and the social norms of the Arabian penninsula in the 590s and 600s and in the western world now are probably quite different i'm guessing. :rolleyes:

Absolutely right. I too am a man who believes that a woman (or a man for that matter) should be able to dress as they please without running the risk of unwanted sexual molestation.
Mohammed thought differently when he formulated the code of conduct for muslim women, but then, he was a sexual deviant who was unable to control his urges.
:hail:

It seems that some of his followers are of the same opinion:

"Australia's top Muslim cleric has been barred from preaching for up to three months, after comparing immodestly dressed women to "uncovered meat".

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali's comments, suggesting that women who did not wear a headscarf attracted sexual assault, have caused a storm of protest".

Sexual deviant or product of his time? He married a well-off middle-aged widow merchant after accepting her proposal. I can't imagine such a woman accepting much crap from anyone. of course what constituted "acceptable behaviour" and the social norms of the Arabian penninsula in the 590s and 600s and in the western world now are probably quite different i'm guessing. :rolleyes:

NOT a product of his time. It is well documented that his edicts were frequently modified when he found that he himself wished to break the rules. Don't forget that he married Aisha when she was only 6 years old and he was in his fifties. :eek2:

Well, I dunno. I don't think they're so much partially to blame as much as I think that maybe they should take responsibility for their own safety.

Yes, a woman should be able to be as big a cocktease as she wishes without getting accosted, but if you walk downtown drunk in the middle of the night in a skirt that's nearly a belt, you're just being retarded and if you're being so careless you pretty much deserve what you get.

And I know some people are whining about how other people should have self-control. Well you know what, watch the frigging news and see how much self-control people have. What sort of fantasy world are people living in that they expect men to behave as gentlemen in bars?

Men prone to rape should have self-control, but the reality is that clearly they do not and women need to take that into account whether it's fair or not.


Just my two cents.

NOT a product of his time. It is well documented that his edicts were frequently modified when he found that he himself wished to break the rules. Don't forget that he married Aisha when she was only 6 years old and he was in his fifties. :eek2:

How does the claim that he modified his own edicts to suit himself prove that he wasn't a product of his time? If anything it reinforces it becuase it suggests that even as the head of early Islamic movement he struggled to break out of those ingrained social norms and behaviours that ran aginst his new rules. Child brides are a common feature in many cultures. You and i would call that unacceptable behaviour but within those cultures it's acceptable and normal. Doesn't necessarily make it right but it's the done thing which once again doesn't disprobve that Mohammed was a product of his own cutural millieu.

I agree with the OP: all men are potential rapists who are incapable of controlling themselves, and, since it really isn't practical to imprison all males, we should simply pass laws which forbid them to vote, hold public office, or work outside the confines of the home.

Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it? It's like someone sticking their hand in a toaster then suing the company that made the toaster for burning his hand.


ohmygod he has convinced me too!

there are no bad products, there are just bad users.

we need tort reform NOW!

Yes, a woman should be able to be as big a cocktease as she wishes without getting accosted, but if you walk downtown drunk in the middle of the night in a skirt that's nearly a belt, you're just being retarded and if you're being so careless you pretty much deserve what you get.

Wow. I agree. Next time i see a cute guy with big hair, a bright tee-shirt and a pair of tight jeans drunk and alone on a street i think i'm going to rape him. Sure he might'nt like it but it's his fault for dressing in a way so obviously intended to attract homosexuls. He'll deserves what he gets for being so careless when off-his face and thinking he can trust men to restrain themselves from violently raping him.

rape isn't about attraction. It's about power.

Well, I dunno. I don't think they're so much partially to blame as much as I think that maybe they should take responsibility for their own safety.

Yes, a woman should be able to be as big a cocktease as she wishes without getting accosted, but if you walk downtown drunk in the middle of the night in a skirt that's nearly a belt, you're just being retarded and if you're being so careless you pretty much deserve what you get.

In that situation, you'd also be one of a very small percentage of rape victims who were attacked by a stranger on a dark street.

The average rape is committed by somebody the woman knows, in a place she is familiar with, and her clothes have absolutely nothing to do with it.


And I know some people are whining about how other people should have self-control. Well you know what, watch the frigging news and see how much self-control people have. What sort of fantasy world are people living in that they expect men to behave as gentlemen in bars?

Men prone to rape should have self-control, but the reality is that clearly they do not and women need to take that into account whether it's fair or not.


Just my two cents.
If women actually took your advice, and based their behavior on how to best avoid being raped, then they would need to conclude that they should never have male friends, family members, dates, or sexual partners, because those familiar men are the ones most likely to rape them.

Women would also conclude that they should avoid being in their own home or the home of somebody they know, since those are the places where they are most likely to be raped. They should be sure NOT to go out with male friends, dates, or family members, as they are far less likely to be raped if they go out alone.

Women would also have to avoid getting married to a man, as husbands represent a significant percentage of rapists.

Yet you seem to be telling women to change what they wear and not go to unfamiliar locations alone, neither of which are even remotely significant factors.

It's almost as if you're in such a hurry to make women responsible for their own rapes that you haven't bothered to learn what the hell you're talking about.

But that couldn't possibly be the case. Right?

Well, I dunno. I don't think they're so much partially to blame as much as I think that maybe they should take responsibility for their own safety.

Yes, a woman should be able to be as big a cocktease as she wishes without getting accosted, but if you walk downtown drunk in the middle of the night in a skirt that's nearly a belt, you're just being retarded and if you're being so careless you pretty much deserve what you get.

And I know some people are whining about how other people should have self-control. Well you know what, watch the frigging news and see how much self-control people have. What sort of fantasy world are people living in that they expect men to behave as gentlemen in bars?

Men prone to rape should have self-control, but the reality is that clearly they do not and women need to take that into account whether it's fair or not.


Just my two cents.

I agree with most of what you say but I can't agree that they DESERVE what they get.
A person who walks through a known crime area waving a large wad of cash is certainly being stupid and irresponsible and is begging to be robbed but I don't believe he DESERVES to be robbed.
A woman who wears VERY provocative clothing, gets drunk and makes provocative remarks to drunken men is being stupid and irresponsible but she doesn't DESERVE to be raped. However, if such a case were to come to court, I think that such circumstances should be used as mitigation when sentencing. :(

I agree with most of what you say but I can't agree that they DESERVE what they get.
A person who walks through a known crime area waving a large wad of cash is certainly being stupid and irresponsible and is begging to be robbed but I don't believe he DESERVES to be robbed.
A woman who wears VERY provocative clothing, gets drunk and makes provocative remarks to drunken men is being stupid and irresponsible but she doesn't DESERVE to be raped. However, if such a case were to come to court, I think that such circumstances should be used as mitigation when sentencing. :(
Why?

Seriously, why should they be mitigating?

I've had drunk, scantily clad women hit on me, and I didn't rape them.

I've been drunk and scantily clad and hit on somebody, and they didn't rape me.

It's really not hard.

Just don't rape anybody.

If you honestly think that you would have trouble resisting the urge to rape, then SEEK HELP NOW. Seriously.

If you honestly think that you wouldn't be able to control yourself in such a situation, SEEK HELP NOW.

And if you know you could and would, then please don't waste your time cutting rapists slack. They already get far more legal slack than any other violent offenders. They don't need more.

I agree with the OP: all men are potential rapists who are incapable of controlling themselves, and, since it really isn't practical to imprison all males, we should simply pass laws which forbid them to vote, hold public office, or work outside the confines of the home.

Look, no one would entertain the idea of these restrictions on any gender okay, you feminazi.

Shave your legs, take off your Doc Martens and dungarees, grow your hair long and put on some make up. Otherwise, how is a man going to assess whether he can control himself over you or not?

Perhaps any rapist who tries this as a defence could be sent to prison dressed in the clothes their victim was wearing to see how it works out for them.

Good Lord, not this shit again.

If I am playing with my Lego Blocks, and a bigger kid comes by, kicks me in the stomach and takes them away to play with himself, does anyone blame me for being assaulted, or the big kid for being an antisocial asshole?

If I am sexually assaulted by some asshole, how is it any different? *I* had no control over his behavior -- HE did.

Seriously, people, there is even a question about whose fault it is?!

I agree with the OP: all men are potential rapists who are incapable of controlling themselves, and, since it really isn't practical to imprison all males, we should simply pass laws which forbid them to vote, hold public office, or work outside the confines of the home.

As a gay man I find it wonderful to know that by the OP's logic I can go about raping straight guys at will. They shouldn't be enticing me!

As a gay man I find it wonderful to know that by the OP's logic I can go about raping straight guys at will. They shouldn't be enticing me!
Oh no, see, you don't count as a man because Real Men have magical magnets in their penises which propel them toward unwilling vaginas at such high velocities that they are incapable of resisting. If your magnet is either non-functional or (bizarrely) directs you toward something other than unwilling vaginas, then the reciprocal principle tells us that you are actually a woman. You might be misled by the fact that you have, you know, testicles and everything, but rest assured: if you don't feel compelled to rape women, you are clearly not a man.

Oh no, see, you don't count as a man because Real Men have magical magnets in their penises which propel them toward unwilling vaginas at such high velocities that they are incapable of resisting. If your magnet is either non-functional or (bizarrely) directs you toward something other than unwilling vaginas, then the reciprocal principle tells us that you are actually a woman. You might be misled by the fact that you have, you know, testicles and everything, but rest assured: if you don't feel compelled to rape women, you are clearly not a man.

Oy what happens when a man gets raped by a woman?

It's all very simple, Khadgar.
Obviously, he is not a man, and she is.

The OP is about as stupid as the people who say that my carrying a gun makes me a murderer (just as much as having a vagina makes a woman partially responsible for rape).

Rapists don't rape women because they're horny. Rape is about domination. It's About coveting something you don't think you can have. Clearly the best defense against rape therefore is to want sex.

http://www.mlive.com/saginawnews/news/index.ssf/2008/08/clare_county_man_finds_naked_c.html

Gosh, he didn't rape her. Will wonders never cease.

Why does cause necessarily have to equate with blaming the victim?

If I leave my car in an area of high car crime then I am placing it at high risk of being damaged/stolen etc. To acknowledge this fact does not have to imply that I am at fault for parking it there, or lessen the crime of the perpetrater. But you can't ignore that fact in any discussion about car crime.


Said woman dresses that way to be looked at, not touched. Also, people should be able to control their urges. I can do it, and if I--as a person who isn't going to have premarital sex (i.e. a longer dry spell than most of the people on NSG)--can somehow manage to keep it in my pants, I don't think it'd be too much to expect for the rest of my gender to do the same
It's harder for an alcoholic than a teetotaller to resist stealing a drink

Its often lamented that few minds are changed on the internet; while surely being increasingly more caustic is a form of change, it sometimes seem we never surrender our heartfelt convictions because of a post. But for me, nationstates has brought about a thorough reversal of one of my most heartfelt former beliefs, that the victim is fundamentally NOT to blame for being raped.

I was wrong. An NSG poster has explained to me, in several posts, that women deserve at least part blame for being raped IF they were dressed provacatively.



He sums it up most convincingly when he says:



It is elegant, obvious, yet inexorably true. If a woman wants to be attractive, of course she deserves at least SOME blame for being raped.

The fact is, if a woman is going to present herself as attractive, this necessarily makes her culpable when men "take advantage of them", which naturally includes a monstrously horrific, intrinsically vicious violation of their choice, their bodies, their minds, their self-determination, their very capacity to feel safe in their own skin...these are all quite rightly forfeit if a woman is going to wear a skirt that a man will find attractive.

Now of course, as the Wise NSG poster states in other posts, the rapist should ALSO be punished. After all, the attacker's crime of forcibly penetrating a woman's body and subjecting her to damage so nightmarishly agonizing that entire fields of study have yet to fully understand let alone completely repair the damage done is ALMOST as vile as the woman's desire to be attractive in a way judged excessively provacative by some others.

So, I've changed my mind. The rapist is not solely responsible for rape unless the woman was appropriately dressed. Hopefully, the Wise NSG Poster will provide further elaboration as to what is appropriate dress.

Kudos to anyone who can guess who this poster is WITHOUT searching or having already seen these posts.

And ladies, go put a shawl on.

After all, as Wise NSG Poster said:



So remember, girls of NSG: You are metaphorically comparable to meat. Keep your hamhocks wrapped, because there are now TWO men running around who believe the above quotes.

Since I believe in the legalization of nudity, I disagree with the above. Women should not be forced to wear strips of clothing over their body for the comfort of a man who is unable to control himself. Should women also be forced to wear veils? After all, they are beautiful, and they are choosing to showcase such beauty!

Not ONE woman I know would say something like "When women are blameworthy for being raped... ". Why ? They have only one head - the one on their shoulders - and they use it.

Men who say such a thing should go to jail and experience being raped repeatedly no matter how they´re dressed.

Apparently, many posters have not been on this forum long enough to know when Bottle is being sarcastic.

That's right. But even in the home, women need to not dress provactively, lest the mailman, appliance repairman, muscular and glistening Puerto Rican pool boy, or weird Uncle Larry happen by and the infatuation level gets high enough.

*Comes onstage wearing a fancy three-piece suit with a mini microphone on his tie*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND here's another edition of NSG's FAVORITE GAMESHOW, "TROLLING, JOKING OR INSAAAAAAAANE"!!

I'm your host, Heikoku Jayel, and I thank you for coming! The rules are simple: The contestants and members of the audience that correctly guess what he is get the grand prize, the contestant a social life and each member of the audience that guessed it correctly a potent turbo-flashlight to turn trolls into stone with! Second place goes to the contestant that guesses in accordance to most of the audience, he gets a year's supply of instant ramen for those long nights online, and each member of the audience from the majority gets a box of cup noodles!

Tonight's contestants, like an angel without a sense of mercy, he hails from Nagano, Japan, the Land of the Rising Sun, hentai anime and weird shit we all would like to emulate, let's all give a big hand to NERVUN!!!

*Crowd cheers*

The next contestant, a scholar in that area of knowledge your mother told you not to pursue because it gives no money, is from Great Britain, the land of royalty, palace guards with funny hats, great comedy and horrible, horrible cooking! Let's all give a big hand to PHILOSOPY!!!

*Crowd cheers*

And the third contestant, a fan of big, dark cathedrals and big, dark music, is standing just outside and to one side of the light at the end of the tunnel holding a bloody great big axe, GOTHICBOB!!!

*Crowd cheers*

Now, in this gameshow, as you all know, the MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE ALSO GET TO PLAY! So, you people be the judge, and feel free to tell me what he is for the extra prize for speed, a bootlegged DVD of your choice! Watch Hammurab! See what he says! Look at his actions! Isn't he cute, claiming women deserve to be raped based on hat they wear? Yes he is!

Now the only question left IIIIIIIIIIS...

IS HE TROLLING? IS HE JOKING? IS HE INSANE???

More after a short commercial break!

The OP is about as stupid as the people who say that my carrying a gun makes me a murderer (just as much as having a vagina makes a woman partially responsible for rape).

Not an entirely apt comparison, but it reminds me of a story: I talked to this lady who absolutely did not want to hear about guns ("they all kill people"), not even target flintlocks, which are all I care about. Then she admits to practicing daily with a real bow and arrow.

Do not misunderstand me: I fully comprehend someone disliking guns, or wanting to outlaw them. But one has to admit that this woman was a bit of hypocrite.

Oh no, see, you don't count as a man because Real Men have magical magnets in their penises which propel them toward unwilling vaginas at such high velocities that they are incapable of resisting. If your magnet is either non-functional or (bizarrely) directs you toward something other than unwilling vaginas, then the reciprocal principle tells us that you are actually a woman. You might be misled by the fact that you have, you know, testicles and everything, but rest assured: if you don't feel compelled to rape women, you are clearly not a man.

This thread is full of siggable quotes. I'mma go with this one.

The OP is about as stupid as the people who say that my carrying a gun makes me a murderer (just as much as having a vagina makes a woman partially responsible for rape).Heh. And you2re a tad too impulsive mate; the OP is being sarcastic in an attempt to express his astonishment at the Wise NSG Member's impeccable reasoning :)

Even that is an assumption often untrue.
<snip>
Well, yes, but I do think that a man should not be held at fault for looking at a beautiful/sexy/attractive woman just like a woman looking at a handsome/pretty/sexy man - as long as they are being respectful about it. Staring at a guy's arse or a girls legs incessantly would be what I call disrespectful and akin to any mild sexual harassment.

Absolutely right. I too am a man who believes that a woman (or a man for that matter) should be able to dress as they please without running the risk of unwanted sexual molestation.
Mohammed thought differently when he formulated the code of conduct for muslim women, but then, he was a sexual deviant who was unable to control his urges.
:hail:That age and people thought differently, not just Hz. Muhammet. Now, not all of the Muslims follow the same idea and although most of the population here are Muslims, if one rapes a woman and blames it on the woman's manner of dressing, he'd be the definite article kinda laughing stock :)

Cheerio!

Very bad women deserve rape. The following are examples:
1) Women who falsely accused men of rape. Actually, all women who perjure themselves in an effort to have someone wrongly convincted of any crime deserve the rape.
2) Child molesters and child abusers
3) Traitors who reside in democratic countries (is a female traitor a traitoress?)
4) Women who have tortured a person against their will or an animal.

These very bad women deserve other bad things as well.

Women who are attractive and flaunt their beauty with beauty enhancing clothing do not deserve rape. People who believe in that nonsense probably deserve a raping.

very Bad Women Deserve Rape. The Following Are Examples:
1) Women Who Falsely Accused Men Of Rape. Actually, All Women Who Perjure Themselves In An Effort To Have Someone Wrongly Convincted Of Any Crime Deserve The Rape.
2) Child Molesters And Child Abusers
3) Traitors Who Reside In Democratic Countries (is A Female Traitor A Traitoress?)
4) Women Who Have Tortured A Person Against Their Will Or An Animal.

These Very Bad Women Deserve Other Bad Things As Well.

Women Who Are Attractive And Flaunt Their Beauty With Beauty Enhancing Clothing Do Not Deserve Rape. People Who Believe In That Nonsense Probably Deserve A Raping.

Wtf? Wtf?

Very bad women deserve rape. The following are examples:
1) Women who falsely accused men of rape. Actually, all women who perjure themselves in an effort to have someone wrongly convincted of any crime deserve the rape.
2) Child molesters and child abusers
3) Traitors who reside in democratic countries (is a female traitor a traitoress?)
4) Women who have tortured a person against their will or an animal.

These very bad women deserve other bad things as well.

Women who are attractive and flaunt their beauty with beauty enhancing clothing do not deserve rape. People who believe in that nonsense probably deserve a raping.

Cruel. And. Unusual. Punishment.

Very bad women deserve rape. The following are examples:
1) Women who falsely accused men of rape. Actually, all women who perjure themselves in an effort to have someone wrongly convincted of any crime deserve the rape.
2) Child molesters and child abusers
3) Traitors who reside in democratic countries (is a female traitor a traitoress?)
4) Women who have tortured a person against their will or an animal.

These very bad women deserve other bad things as well.

Women who are attractive and flaunt their beauty with beauty enhancing clothing do not deserve rape. People who believe in that nonsense probably deserve a raping.

And if they are found innocent post facto, do they get to rape the governor/president or do they get to rape you for coming out with this painfully stupid idea?

Cruel. And. Unusual. Punishment.

Don't take this as a snide remark against you, it's just a sarcastic way of agreeing ith you, but...

Y'think?

Cruel. And. Unusual. Punishment.

The fact that we have protections from cruel and unusual punishments does not mean that bad people do not deserve bad punishments. The cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions is the declaration that we as a society are not going to engage in cruelty. To a certain extent this protection from cruel and unusual punishment is the recognition that although people may deserve such a cruel punishment in terms of what is just, there needs to be a limit on the fulfillment of justice in the interest of promoting a civilized society.

To put it crudely, the rapists of the bad people should not do so under color of law. Instead of being raped by the prison guard, one is raped by the other prisoners while the guard is conveniently monitoring a different part of the prison.

The fact that we have protections from cruel and unusual punishments does not mean that bad people do not deserve bad punishments. The cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions is the declaration that we as a society are not going to engage in cruelty. To a certain extent this protection from cruel and unusual punishment is the recognition that although people may deserve such a cruel punishment in terms of what is just, there needs to be a limit on the fulfillment of justice in the interest of promoting a civilized society.

To put it cruelly, the rapists of the bad people should not do so under color of law. Instead of being raped by the prison guard, one is raped by the other prisoners while the guard is conveniently monitoring a different part of the prison.

AAAAAND we're back from the commercial break of TROLLING, JOKING OR INSANE? !!! We no have a new participant, Glorious Freedonia! So, you all in the audience, tell us what you think!

AAAAAND we're back from the commercial break of TROLLING, JOKING OR INSANE? !!! We no have a new participant, Glorious Freedonia! So, you all in the audience, tell us what you think!

I give him a 6.5 out of 10, on the basis that there's no subtlety to the trolling.

Its often lamented that few minds are changed on the internet; while surely being increasingly more caustic is a form of change, it sometimes seem we never surrender our heartfelt convictions because of a post. But for me, nationstates has brought about a thorough reversal of one of my most heartfelt former beliefs, that the victim is fundamentally NOT to blame for being raped.

I was wrong. An NSG poster has explained to me, in several posts, that women deserve at least part blame for being raped IF they were dressed provacatively.



He sums it up most convincingly when he says:



It is elegant, obvious, yet inexorably true. If a woman wants to be attractive, of course she deserves at least SOME blame for being raped.

The fact is, if a woman is going to present herself as attractive, this necessarily makes her culpable when men "take advantage of them", which naturally includes a monstrously horrific, intrinsically vicious violation of their choice, their bodies, their minds, their self-determination, their very capacity to feel safe in their own skin...these are all quite rightly forfeit if a woman is going to wear a skirt that a man will find attractive.

Now of course, as the Wise NSG poster states in other posts, the rapist should ALSO be punished. After all, the attacker's crime of forcibly penetrating a woman's body and subjecting her to damage so nightmarishly agonizing that entire fields of study have yet to fully understand let alone completely repair the damage done is ALMOST as vile as the woman's desire to be attractive in a way judged excessively provacative by some others.

So, I've changed my mind. The rapist is not solely responsible for rape unless the woman was appropriately dressed. Hopefully, the Wise NSG Poster will provide further elaboration as to what is appropriate dress.

Kudos to anyone who can guess who this poster is WITHOUT searching or having already seen these posts.

And ladies, go put a shawl on.

After all, as Wise NSG Poster said:



So remember, girls of NSG: You are metaphorically comparable to meat. Keep your hamhocks wrapped, because there are now TWO men running around who believe the above quotes.
I remember that thread. It sure was an eye-opener. I learned a lot from that Wise NSG Poster. And I'm learning supplemental lessons from some equally wise posters in this thread, too. Shit, people are scary.

I give him a 6.5 out of 10, on the basis that there's no subtlety to the trolling.

Oh, Hotwife, you're mistaken as to what game show this is! This isn't my other gameshow, Rate Your Troll, this is Trolling, Joking Or Insane?. However, you said "trolling", so I'll take that as a valid answer! Are you sticking to it?

AAAAAND we're back from the commercial break of TROLLING, JOKING OR INSANE? !!! We no have a new participant, Glorious Freedonia! So, you all in the audience, tell us what you think!

What?!? Did you misread me? I am basically saying that bad people deserve bad things to happen to them. How is that insane, joking, or trolling? Instead of making an extreme conclusory statement why don't you identify what precisely it is that you disagree with to the point that you think that I am a lunatic or a troll.

What?!? Did you misread me? I am basically saying that bad people deserve bad things to happen to them. How is that insane, joking, or trolling? Instead of making an extreme conclusory statement why don't you identify what precisely it is that you disagree with to the point that you think that I am a lunatic or a troll.

No, you said that women convicted of certain crimes deserve rape. Which is why you're now in my gameshow!

Oh, Hotwife, you're mistaken as to what game show this is! This isn't my other gameshow, Rate Your Troll, this is Trolling, Joking Or Insane?. However, you said "trolling", so I'll take that as a valid answer! Are you sticking to it?

Trolling, because GF doesn't consistently post insanity or jokes.

Joking for the OP. Duh.

I'm going to go with insane for GF, because he claims he's not trolling.

No, you said that women convicted of certain crimes deserve rape. Which is why you're now in my gameshow!

Well, they do. They also deserve other punishments that they will never get because of human rights protections. Do not misread me. I am all about human rights and prohibitions on torture of prisoners. This does not mean that I believe that the criminals do not deserve that which will not be done to them. Do you understand my point?

Trolling, because GF doesn't consistently post insanity or jokes.

Very well! And might I remind you of the prizes in case you, as a member of the audience, are correct or in the majority! If you are correct, you will get a potent turbo-flashlight to turn trolls into stone with! And if you're incorrect but with the majority, you'll get a box of cup noodles! Now let's interview other members of the audience! Muravyets! I see you already gave an answer! Very well! Where do you come from? *Smiling*

Very well! And might I remind you of the prizes in case you, as a member of the audience, are correct or in the majority! If you are correct, you will get a potent turbo-flashlight to turn trolls into stone with! And if you're incorrect but with the majority, you'll get a box of cup noodles! Now let's interview other members of the audience! Muravyets! I see you already gave an answer! Very well! Where do you come from? *Smiling*
I'm coming from a place of bitterness and anger, and I already told you my answer, you insane joke of an editing (edit) troll. :fluffle:

Joking for the OP. Duh.

I'm going to go with insane for GF, because he claims he's not trolling.

Nigh every troll claims he's not trolling, Ms. Avyets, but he has said some very internally illogical things, so you might be on to something. Yours might not be the majority view, though, so you're unlikely to carry home the box of cup noodles!

I'm coming from a place of bitterness and anger, and I already told you my answer, you insane joke of an editing (edit) troll. :fluffle:

Well, Ms. Avyets, I misheard you back then, but then I understood...

You all are being mean. Do you want me to turn this conversation around and accuse you all of being trolls because you are claiming that bad people who do awful things do not deserve to have equally bad things happen to them?

Although I am going to stop short of accusing you of being stupid, trolling, or insane, I am asking you to back up your conclusory language with some arguments.

Nigh every troll claims he's not trolling, Ms. Avyets, but he has said some very internally illogical things, so you might be on to something. Yours might not be the majority view, though, so you're unlikely to carry home the box of cup noodles!
Dammit, and I was just getting hungry.

AAAAAND we're back from the commercial break of TROLLING, JOKING OR INSANE? !!! We no have a new participant, Glorious Freedonia! So, you all in the audience, tell us what you think!

Well for the OP I am definitly voting on Joking, there was clear sarcasm running all through that post.

I disagree with GF but my professional pride means I refuse to classify them as insane until a proper evaluation has taken place (gets out DSM-IV-R)

What was I thinking believing that men had a semblance of self-control. Foolish me.

Nope, real men are programmed by nature and/or by God to automatically go in rape-mode whenever they see even the suggestion of bare female skin. I can hardly contain myself at the moment, just thinking about it. Problem is, covering the sinful female body doesn't help... that only leaves room for perverse and immoral fantasies. I guess the fairer sex is screwed (pun intended).

Dammit, and I was just getting hungry.

If you need some fresh-baked troll, I can help you.

You all are being mean. Do you want me to turn this conversation around and accuse you all of being trolls because you are claiming that bad people who do awful things do not deserve to have equally bad things happen to them?

Although I am going to stop short of accusing you of being stupid, trolling, or insane, I am asking you to back up your conclusory language with some arguments.

:eek: Oh no, we're being mean! The horror of it all!

Now, as to actually refute your argument, it will take me all of five seconds. We got rid of corporal punishment for a reason, jails exist to keep truly dangerous people out of society, and to rehabilitate(sp?) others. Raping anyone, man or woman, in exchange for other punishments, does nothing to ensure the continued safety of society.

Rapists don't rape women because they're horny. Rape is about domination. It's About coveting something you don't think you can have. Clearly the best defense against rape therefore is to want sex.

I don't know, rape takes many different forms - I've met guys who've boasted about mass raping - though they didn't themselves think of it that way - an unconscious girl at a party. Some seemed to do it from group pressure, some out of domination, some cos they were horny and some because it all seemed so exciting.

'Rape' is a powerful word, it conjures up the idea of the lone nutcase sitting in a park waiting for the innocent person to jog past but there's simply many, many different forms of rape - which in my book is non-consensual sex - and many different reasons for doing it.

In every case, there was a victim who was abused, whose body was used without consent and that's the simple fact.

Reasons for rape don't really matter ultimately, any reasonable mind should know whether sex is consensual or not and the victim remains a victim regardless of reason.

Rolling squid;13920170']:eek: Oh no, we're being mean! The horror of it all!

Now, as to actually refute your argument, it will take me all of five seconds. We got rid of corporal punishment for a reason, jails exist to keep truly dangerous people out of society, and to rehabilitate(sp?) others. Raping anyone, man or woman, in exchange for other punishments, does nothing to ensure the continued safety of society.

So you shed tears whenever a child molester is beaten or raped by other prisoners then?

So you shed tears whenever a child molester is beaten or raped by other prisoners then?

no, because they are in prison, away from society, and the rape is being carried out by prisoners, not government employees.

Rolling squid;13920210']no, because they are in prison, away from society, and the rape is being carried out by prisoners, not government employees.

Then we are in complete agreement. That is what I posted earlier when someone read too much into my post and thought that I wanted to violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments.

Perhaps I went a bit further by applauding the guards who are a "little slow" at discovering that a child molester was under attack by another prisoner.

My votes on sarcasm. Anybody who can't see that is either really really new to NSG or has been here Waaaay to long.

Then we are in complete agreement. That is what I posted earlier when someone read too much into my post and thought that I wanted to violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments.

Perhaps I went a bit further by applauding the guards who are a "little slow" at discovering that a child molester was under attack by another prisoner.

no, we're not. No one deserves rape, no mater what they did. What happens to child molesters in prison is not ok per-see, and the guards should break it up, but that's not going to happen, so what ever.

So you shed tears whenever a child molester is beaten or raped by other prisoners then?

Shed a tear no, but I do not think necessarily that anyone, irrespective of what they have done, deserves physical or sexual abuse and torture. They do deserve to be punished and locked up, I may even say that I believe some people deserve to die (even if I am against the death penatly on the principle that mistakes are all too common) but I don't believe anyone deserves torture (including rape).

So you shed tears whenever a child molester is beaten or raped by other prisoners then?

Wait a second....

You're saying that that you approve of this? That people who commit vicious crimes and need to be removed from society and placed under armed guard are the true and correct arbitrator of justice?

Rolling squid;13920241']no, we're not. No one deserves rape, no mater what they did. What happens to child molesters in prison is not ok per-see, and the guards should break it up, but that's not going to happen, so what ever.

How you can believe that someone who rapes, perjures, betrays his democratically elected government, or tortures is somehow non-deserving of being raped is beyond me, espescially when you would apparently not be sad if such a person was raped? Do we have a different understanding of the meaning of "deserves"?

How you can believe that someone who rapes, perjures, betrays his democratically elected government, or tortures is somehow non-deserving of being raped is beyond me, espescially when you would apparently not be sad if such a person was raped? Do we have a different understanding of the meaning of "deserves"?
Hmm, I propose a whole new system of justice based on this.

We put everyone with evidence that he committed crime into a prison, and the prisoners sort it all out between themselves, what he deserves and when to let him go.

How you can believe that someone who rapes, perjures, betrays his democratically elected government, or tortures is somehow non-deserving of being raped is beyond me, espescially when you would apparently not be sad if such a person was raped? Do we have a different understanding of the meaning of "deserves"?

As I said, no one deserves to get raped. People will be, and that's an unfortunate fact of life, but no one deserves to be raped or tortured. We have prisons for a reason.

Wait a second....

You're saying that that you approve of this? That people who commit vicious crimes and need to be removed from society and placed under armed guard are the true and correct arbitrator of justice?

Not in arbitration. but I have no moral qualms with this concept that people who are beyond the law being able to carry out justice in a manner that the government may not. A man doing life without parole is beyond the law so long as he does not commit a capital offense. This way no free man has to lose his freedom in order that justice be delivered and government does not have to soil its hands with bestial behavior.

Not in arbitration. but I have no moral qualms with this concept that people who are beyond the law being able to carry out justice in a manner that the government may not. A man doing life without parole is beyond the law so long as he does not commit a capital offense. This way no free man has to lose his freedom in order that justice be delivered and government does not have to soil its hands with bestial behavior.

Now...take this to it's logical conclusion. Why is the government not able to carry out "justice" in this way?

Rolling squid;13920267']
As I said, no one deserves to get raped. People will be, and that's an unfortunate fact of life, but no one deserves to be raped or tortured. We have prisons for a reason.


I agree that this is the reality of the situation, except the prison part. Prisons don't seem to solve anything, especially in the case of rape.

I agree that this is the reality of the situation, except the prison part. Prisons don't seem to solve anything, especially in the case of rape.

well run prisons do, they help those who screwed up or want to rehabilitate do so, and they keep those who won't out of society. The problem is that few prisons are well run, on account of over crowding.

Just like many public schools, I'm afraid.

Just like many public schools, I'm afraid.

Yup. Our problem seems to be over-population. The solution? Either War or Genocide. You pick, I'm good with either.

Took me a couple of posts, but the OP is Trolling/Joking.

As for GF, the way he phrased "they deserve the rape" makes me unable to take his post seriously, so also a vote for Trolling/Joking.

Even that is an assumption often untrue.

It could be:
they like the style/colour/fabric of the clothing
they like the way they look in it when they look in the mirror and it makes them feel good
they are dressing to look good for their boyfriend/date/etc, but no other male
they are fitting in with the fashion
they are fitting in with the style their friends are wearing
they are fitting in with the type of event (ie going out to a club)
they are showing off their clothes to their friends
they are showing off their slim body to females to create jealousy
they are trying a new style of clothing
they are dressing up for a laugh
etc

In all the cases, the fact it may be provocative is something they are aware of, but aren't aiming for.

My mistake. Ultimately, the point is still that sex isn't her objective and that just because she dresses that way, it doesn't give people the right to rape her.

It's harder for an alcoholic than a teetotaller to resist stealing a drink

But is alcohol a natural biological urge?

The OP makes some very valid points! After all, as that Wise Poster pointed out so memorably, all men have the cognitive and decision-making capacities of dogs or, in some cases, toasters. Clearly, therefore, it is the responsibility of women to prevent these poor sub-sentient menfolks from being compelled to rape us. I do think, though, that rather than that Wise Poster's proposed solution in which women should apparently never wear anything attractive or go out in public, it might be more logical to prevent the toaster-brained masculine half of the species from ever having contact with women. Therefore, I suggest that we divide up the continents between the genders. Women can have, say, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the men can have Australia. This may lead to the extinction of the human race, but I figure that's a small price to pay for security.

The OP makes some very valid points! After all, as that Wise Poster pointed out so memorably, all men have the cognitive and decision-making capacities of dogs or, in some cases, toasters. Clearly, therefore, it is the responsibility of women to prevent these poor sub-sentient menfolks from being compelled to rape us. I do think, though, that rather than that Wise Poster's proposed solution in which women should apparently never wear anything attractive or go out in public, it might be more logical to prevent the toaster-brained masculine half of the species from ever having contact with women. Therefore, I suggest that we divide up the continents between the genders. Women can have, say, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the men can have Australia. This may lead to the extinction of the human race, but I figure that's a small price to pay for security.

Actually, if you devise a system by which insemination is used, it might not even result in serious depopulation problems. Mmm...

I do think, though, that rather than that Wise Poster's proposed solution in which women should apparently never wear anything attractive or go out in public, it might be more logical to prevent the toaster-brained masculine half of the species from ever having contact with women. Therefore, I suggest that we divide up the continents between the genders. Women can have, say, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the men can have Australia. This may lead to the extinction of the human race, but I figure that's a small price to pay for security.
It's simpler. We today have the technology for reproduction in artificial womb. The work on the process of combining the genes is not far from success, and then it will enable true homosexual reproduction.

With a bit of selection, the science will teach us how to give birth only to male children. We'll make planet Earth a gay place to be. For a gay universe.

[choir] For a gay universe!

Actually, if you devise a system by which insemination is used, it might not even result in serious depopulation problems. Mmm...


Right, and this is the part where the stork delivers the babies...

It's simpler. We today have the technology for reproduction in artificial womb. The work on the process of combining the genes is not far from success, and then it will enable true homosexual reproduction.

With a bit of selection, the science will teach us how to give birth only to male children. We'll make planet Earth a gay place to be. For a gay universe.

[choir] For a gay universe!

You're seriously suggesting the passive extermination of all females? That's not good. That's not good at all!

I even have a short movie promoting it!

Pt.1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi7ZIqDJ1I
Pt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVr8Gw9uR6w
Pt.3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbNoEoTet0



[Ending only]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx97K9jUxng

You're seriously suggesting the passive extermination of all females? That's not good. That's not good at all!

Indeed.

It should clearly be a lesbian universe instead.

Indeed.

It should clearly be a lesbian universe instead.

I demand access to this lesbian universe. I swear I'll just watch.

I demand access to this lesbian universe. I swear I'll just watch.

Don't be silly, Iffy. We've already established that men are incapable of just watching, but must necessarily rape any attractive woman. Some of the lesbians are bound to be attractive, after all.

Don't be silly, Iffy. We've already established that men are incapable of just watching, but must necessarily rape any attractive woman. Some of the lesbians are bound to be attractive, after all.

Pfft, this is real life, not porn. Everyone knows real lesbians are ugly and no man would have sex with them. That's why they're lesbians, duh. Because women don't have standards.

Don't be silly, Iffy. We've already established that men are incapable of just watching, but must necessarily rape any attractive woman. Some of the lesbians are bound to be attractive, after all.

Heck, I used that as a defense, that I'm a man, yesterday when they caught me humping a mannequin in a Victoria's Secret store and they congratulated me on my unusual self-control for a male in not humping the sexy attendant!

*Starts tossing his own excrements* OOO! OOO! AAA! AAA!

Pfft, this is real life, not porn. Everyone knows real lesbians are ugly and no man would have sex with them. That's why they're lesbians, duh. Because women don't have standards.

Considering some of the ill advised breeding that's taken place I begin to question whether they ought get higher ones.

How you can believe that someone who rapes, perjures, betrays his democratically elected government, or tortures is somehow non-deserving of being raped is beyond me, espescially when you would apparently not be sad if such a person was raped? Do we have a different understanding of the meaning of "deserves"?

Undoubtedly they deserve it. However, I should hope that some governments have invented a better method of dealing with delinquents than lex talionis in the past 3000 years. "Better method?" I hear you query. "Yes," I respond. "such as rehabilitation of detrimental figures, or in failing that, removal from the society which they might damage (such a removal often entails death, though there may be better ways).

Would I feel pity for a criminal who suffers what he deserves? No, I would feel more sorry for his victim. But I would also weep a tad for our society for using "reciprocation" as an excuse for sadism.

*Comes onstage wearing a fancy three-piece suit with a mini microphone on his tie* <SNIP>

ROTFLMMFAO! :hail:

AAAAAND we're back from the commercial break of TROLLING, JOKING OR INSANE? !!! We no have a new participant, Glorious Freedonia! So, you all in the audience, tell us what you think!

I'm going with the daring choice: Trolling AND Insane!

I'm going with the daring choice: Trolling AND Insane!

A bold choice! If you are correct, you will be entitled to ALL FOUR prizes!

Well for the OP I am definitly voting on Joking, there was clear sarcasm running all through that post.

I disagree with GF but my professional pride means I refuse to classify them as insane until a proper evaluation has taken place (gets out DSM-IV-R)

Well now, that might change my answer. Rules clarification, please, my fine host: Are we using a clinical definition of insanity or a lay mans definition? By lay mans terms he's nucking futs, but I'm not sure a psychiatrist would actually be able to diagnose anything.

Well now, that might change my answer. Rules clarification, please, my fine host: Are we using a clinical definition of insanity or a lay mans definition? By lay mans terms he's nucking futs, but I'm not sure a psychiatrist would actually be able to diagnose anything.

Wait, let me consult with legal... *Listens to transmissor* What? Lay man's? Lay man's it is!

Don't be silly, Iffy. We've already established that men are incapable of just watching, but must necessarily rape any attractive woman. Some of the lesbians are bound to be attractive, after all.

Well tie me up then. Just leave my right arm free.

That's right ladies... It's YOUR fault that you're attractive and sickos want to take advantage of you... Just like it's partially someone's fault if he or she gets murdered because he or she forgot to lock a window at night.

Yes, a woman should be able to be as big a cocktease as she wishes without getting accosted, but if you walk downtown drunk in the middle of the night in a skirt that's nearly a belt, you're just being retarded and if you're being so careless you pretty much deserve what you get.

This is the gold that such tongue-in-cheek threads weave from straw.

Wtf? Wtf?

Ditto.

You all are being mean. Do you want me to turn this conversation around and accuse you all of being trolls because you are claiming that bad people who do awful things do not deserve to have equally bad things happen to them?

Although I am going to stop short of accusing you of being stupid, trolling, or insane, I am asking you to back up your conclusory language with some arguments.

Sigged.

:eek2:lesbian universe?!?!?1

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to learn more.

Promise I would not rape anyone...

That's right ladies... It's YOUR fault that you're attractive and sickos want to take advantage of you... Just like it's partially someone's fault if he or she gets murdered because he or she forgot to lock a window at night.

And a grisly, grim "rolleyes"... :rolleyes:

That's right ladies... It's YOUR fault that you're attractive and sickos want to take advantage of you... Just like it's partially someone's fault if he or she gets murdered because he or she forgot to lock a window at night.

Well if thats the way the murderer got in I would have to say yes. You can make yourslef more vunerable for both types of crime. Whilst they should not occur in the first place the criminal will often choose the apparently softer or easier taget. In the case of rape the decision is about power and sexual gratification. If you dress up in a provocative manner you increase your chance of being raped. Just as if you leave all your doors and windows unlocked at night you are more likely to welcome an intruder into your house.

Wait, let me consult with legal... *Listens to transmissor* What? Lay man's? Lay man's it is!

Then I'm sticking with Trolling AND Insane. It's Trolling because he KNOWS what response that BS will bring, and he's insane for actually believing it.

Well now, that might change my answer. Rules clarification, please, my fine host: Are we using a clinical definition of insanity or a lay mans definition? By lay mans terms he's nucking futs, but I'm not sure a psychiatrist would actually be able to diagnose anything.

Clinically, there's no such thing as sanity or insanity. There is legally, but not clinically.

/pedant

How you can believe that someone who rapes, perjures, betrays his democratically elected government, or tortures is somehow non-deserving of being raped is beyond me, espescially when you would apparently not be sad if such a person was raped? Do we have a different understanding of the meaning of "deserves"?
I can't speak for the person you were responding to, but for myself, yes, apparently you and I do have different ideas of what people "deserve."

It seems we also have different ideas of right and wrong and different ideas of where we draw the line of things we will not do.

It breaks down like this: NO ONE "deserves" to be raped, because that is how horrible rape is. I would not wish it on anyone, not even a rapist or other violent criminal.

Second, regardless of what anyone in the world may or may not deserve, I would never think that that anyone "deserves to be raped" because rape really is that horrible and using rape as a punishment is morally evil and (as if that isn't enough) is a violation of human rights laws. Doing morally evil things is wrong. Doing illegal things is wrong.

Finally, third, I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else in the world has done -- what crimes they have committed or whatever. I will not violate my morals and my principles by wishing rape on another human being. Period.

EDIT: Here's a question for you: If you really think that rapists deserve to be raped, what are you going to do with all the rapists who do that raping for you?

One can always count on these forums for one's daily dose of SERIOUS BUSINESS.

EDIT: Here's a question for you: If you really think that rapists deserve to be raped, what are you going to do with all the rapists who do that raping for you?

Obviously a giant circle of rapists raping rapists raping rapists.. etc..

We can even have replacements jump in when some get tired.

Have you any imagination?

The type of people who believe what the OP says is the type of people who work for insurance agencies.

After all if someone crashes into your car, then the companies lay some of the blame on you for actually having your car in the way.

Well if thats the way the murderer got in I would have to say yes. You can make yourslef more vunerable for both types of crime. Whilst they should not occur in the first place the criminal will often choose the apparently softer or easier taget. In the case of rape the decision is about power and sexual gratification. If you dress up in a provocative manner you increase your chance of being raped. Just as if you leave all your doors and windows unlocked at night you are more likely to welcome an intruder into your house.
The bolded part is such errant bullshit, and I am sick of reading it in every rape thread. So I'll post to you the same challenge I posted -- and never got answers for -- to that Wise NSG Poster quoted by the OP:

If what you say is true then:

-- Account for the fact that the majority of rape victims are attacked in their own homes or work places.

-- Account for the fact that the majority of rape victims are attacked by people they already know.

-- Account for the fact that ugly women, old women, women dressed in unattractive ways (like nuns or women out running supermarket/family errands in crappy baggy clothes) get raped.

-- Account for the men and children who get raped.

I am sorry, but if the majority of rapes occur in the home/work place and are committed against women who are not dressed sexily, then there is no meaning to the claim that women make themselves more vulnerable to rape by going out looking sexy. Period.

Obviously a giant circle of rapists raping rapists raping rapists.. etc..

We can even have replacements jump in when some get tired.

Have you any imagination?
I do have an imagination, but it is currently overloaded trying to figure out why there are two spades on your ace of spades avatar. Shouldn't it be one spade? :tongue:

-- Account for the fact that ugly women, old women, women dressed in unattractive ways (like nuns or women out running supermarket/family errands in crappy baggy clothes) get raped.
One mans crappy baggy clothes is another mans..sexy clothes..
-- Account for the men and children who get raped.
Men and children can't dress provocatively?

I am sorry, but if the majority of rapes occur in the home/work place and are committed against women who are not dressed sexily, then there is no meaning to the claim that women make themselves more vulnerable to rape by going out looking sexy. Period.
Who are you to define sexy?

I do have an imagination, but it is currently overloaded trying to figure out why there are two spades on your ace of spaces avatar. Shouldn't it be one spade? :tongue:

Ace of spades.
Spades is plural I think.. uhm.

That's why.. yea.

Plus MSPaint has this handy little 'flip horizontally' tool.

Ace of spades.
Spades is plural I think.. uhm.

That's why.. yea.

Plus MSPaint has this handy little 'flip horizontally' tool.
Uh-huh...but then how many spades do you put on the two of spades? See, on account of the ace is the 1 card, and there's a 2 that follows it...etc.

One mans crappy baggy clothes is another mans..sexy clothes..

Men and children can't dress provocatively?


Who are you to define sexy?
Well there ya go. It's all in the eye of the filthy perverted raping dog-toaster beholder, I guess.

Uh-huh...but then how many spades do you put on the two of spades? See, on account of the ace is the 1 card, and there's a 2 that follows it...etc.
I... never actually thought about it like that. I guess I was too excited to realize we could have avatars.
Well there ya go. It's all in the eye of the filthy perverted raping dog-toaster beholder, I guess.
I agree even though you lost me at 'dog-toaster'.

I agree even though you lost me at 'dog-toaster'.

As established by the original Wise Poster, men are comparable to dogs and/or toasters, obviously. I mean, when you meet the average man, don't you just think, "He has the self-control of a toaster"?

I... never actually thought about it like that. I guess I was too excited to realize we could have avatars.

I agree even though you lost me at 'dog-toaster'.
I was referring back to further comments made by the Wise NSG Poster in that other, long ago thread, as mentioned by Poli, below:

As established by the original Wise Poster, men are comparable to dogs and/or toasters, obviously. I mean, when you meet the average man, don't you just think, "He has the self-control of a toaster"?
A toaster that's been pissed on by a dog. *nods*

I... never actually thought about it like that. I guess I was too excited to realize we could have avatars.

Aw, now you went and changed it. Coward. :tongue:

As established by the original Wise Poster, men are comparable to dogs and/or toasters, obviously. I mean, when you meet the average man, don't you just think, "He has the self-control of a toaster"?
Actually yes. You can never tell when a man is going to make a dinging sound. Just like a toaster. You also always expect it when a man tosses lightly burned bread in the air.
I was referring back to further comments made by the Wise NSG Poster in that other, long ago thread, as mentioned by Poli, below:
A toaster that's been pissed on by a dog. *nods*

Now, I resent that pissed on by a dog nonsense. As a man I am also an equally capable un-pissed on toaster.

Aw, now you went and changed it. Coward. :tongue:

For style points.

Only for the points.

Actually yes. You can never tell when a man is going to make a dinging sound. Just like a toaster. You also always expect it when a man tosses lightly burned bread in the air.


Now, I resent that pissed on by a dog nonsense. As a man I am also an equally capable un-pissed on toaster.
I would consider it more impressive if, as posited by the Wise NSG Poster, you could obey your instincts and randomly rape any random woman on the street after you got stuffed full of bread and pissed on by a dog. It would speak to the strength of your instincts and, thus, your he-manliness.

I would consider it more impressive if, as posited by the Wise NSG Poster, you could obey your instincts and randomly rape any random woman on the street after you got stuffed full of bread and pissed on by a dog. It would speak to the strength of your instincts and, thus, your he-manliness.

Does it have to be 'randomly' raping a 'random' woman? I don't think I can handle that sort of calculation... to be unnerringly random is something no bread consuming dog-piss scented man can accomplish without the intervention of a higher power.

Does it have to be 'randomly' raping a 'random' woman? I don't think I can handle that sort of calculation... to be unnerringly random is something no bread consuming dog-piss scented man can accomplish without the intervention of a higher power.
Pfft...I don't know, pal. I'm starting to wonder if you qualify as a Real Man (tm). :wink:

Pfft...I don't know, pal. I'm starting to wonder if you qualify as a Real Man (tm). :wink:

On the Scale of Manliness I'm somewhere between Real Men and Chuck Norris.

As established by the original Wise Poster, men are comparable to dogs and/or toasters, obviously. I mean, when you meet the average man, don't you just think, "He has the self-control of a toaster"?

Ahhh. Now I remember the Wise Poster.

On the Scale of Manliness I'm somewhere between Real Men and Chuck Norris.
Heh, who doesn't fall somewhere between those extremes? :tongue:

Since this debate is getting a tad bit onesided (gee... how odd) - let me play devils advocate once again.


Wait people are pigs for saying that women are partially responsible when wearing revealing clothing?! The whole point of wearing revealing and sexy clothes is to show off your sex appeal. They're basically saying, "hey guys I want you all to think I'm hot and desire to have sex with me" then when some sick bastard decides to listen to this desire they say they had nothing to do with it?

So, women of NSG, WHY do you actually dress that way if not to be attractive to potential sexpartners? Skimpy clothes, boobenlarging bras, layers of makeup and so on ?

Its like how people with nice things are to blame for getting burgled. If you didn't want your house to get broken into you shouldn't have bought such nice things and tempted the burglar.

Nononono. It is like you buying lots of nice stuff for your home, and then putting a big neon sign in front of it with "lots of expensive goodies inside this house. Almost no locks and no other protection !". Can one really say it is in no way your fault if you get burgled ?

Whats with all the threads about raping women? I mean i can understand the defending our sex thing, hell, i tried, to mixed results, to do the same...

But, it usually gets redundant, and there's not alot of headway to make on the subject as far as i can tell...

It's all very simple, Khadgar.
Obviously, he is not a man, and she is.

That sounds like a gruesome SVU crime report involving Alan Colmes and Ann Coulter.

Actually yes. You can never tell when a man is going to make a dinging sound. Just like a toaster. You also always expect it when a man tosses lightly burned bread in the air.

You know, I actually have a friend who I've seen toss bread in the air enough times that it wouldn't be terribly surprising.

Unfortunately, said friend is also in a very happy relationship with another guy. Does this disqualify him from manly toaster status?

So, women of NSG, WHY do you actually dress that way if not to be attractive to potential sexpartners? Skimpy clothes, boobenlarging bras, layers of makeup and so on ?
A mixture of social engeneering/media pressure and being what's culturally accepted as being attractive to the person I want to sex. I'm pro-choice, I want to have sex with the people I choose to and I don't want to have sex with the people I don't choose to.

A mixture of social engeneering/media pressure and being what's culturally accepted as being attractive to the person I want to sex. I'm pro-choice, I want to have sex with the people I choose to and I don't want to have sex with the people I don't choose to.

Hey Baby......lmao, i couldnt resist...

Hey Baby......lmao, i couldnt resist...

You can try to pick me up all you want, but it won't work.......













because I'm fat.









:p

For style points.

Only for the points.

Oh man, is that the guy I used to watch on TV before school in the morning, with the happy little trees and stuff? He used to scare me. :(

So, women of NSG, WHY do you actually dress that way if not to be attractive to potential sexpartners? Skimpy clothes, boobenlarging bras, layers of makeup and so on?

My parents never loved me enough?

Okay, they probably did, but society still tells me that I am incomplete without the adoration of men and the jealous scorn of women. This adoration and jealousy can and should be fulfilled by a number of means, but being physically attractive is by far the most important. Whether I want any sexual attention or not, I must be thin, curvaceous, coiffed, sexy, classy, innocent and lust-stirring. Then people might love me and I will have earned (some of) my space on earth (the rest will be earned when I launch a successful career, get married, raise a perfect family and give to charity).

...that was a lot more serious than I intended.

-- Account for the fact that the majority of rape victims are attacked in their own homes or work places.
-- Account for the fact that the majority of rape victims are attacked by people they already know.
I think we should also account for the fact that the majority of incidents legally punished as rape are extremely questionable and not really rape as we know it.

Main example here being "marital rape" - husband having sex with his wife without immediate permission, followed by her getting pissed at him later and suing. I agree that it's not a good thing, but hey - we treat these people as if they were the stereotypical psycho rapist from the dark alley, while the only things they really have in common are four limbs and one cock.

I think we should also account for the fact that the majority of incidents legally punished as rape are extremely questionable and not really rape as we know it.

Main example here being "marital rape" - husband having sex with his wife without immediate permission, followed by her getting pissed at him later and suing. I agree that it's not a good thing, but hey - we treat these people as if they were the stereotypical psycho rapist from the dark alley, while the only things they really have in common are four limbs and one cock.

And forcing themselves on unwilling people. I think Muravyets's very salient point was that the "stereotypical psycho rapist from the dark alley" is not in fact, as we've been led to believe, the average rapist.

And forcing themselves on unwilling people. I think Muravyets's very salient point was that the "stereotypical psycho rapist from the dark alley" is not in fact, as we've been led to believe, the average rapist.
There's a lot of difference between unwilling as in hitting a girl walking home and unwilling as in still going with your wife who doesn't feel like it tonight. The latter is bad too, but not on a comparable scale.

Also, due to general closeness of sex and force (many women expect assertiveness from the man), it's often difficult to determine the border between the expected assertiveness and something that can be classed as rape in court. Not to mention that there are instances of "rape fraud", i.e. consensual sex later with the "evidence" of the accomplice called rape and used for blackmailing.


I'm thinking whether I should keep a notebook where I'd ask a girl (or the wife) to put the signature confirming consensus to a sexual act, or if that will only make me more suspicious and the signature won't be sufficient proof without notary seal.
I know there must be some people here with experience in legal matters, any advice?

So, women of NSG, WHY do you actually dress that way if not to be attractive to potential sexpartners? Skimpy clothes, boobenlarging bras, layers of makeup and so on ?


As a rule I don't. Being a complete goth, when I go out it tends to be long skirts and corsets (though with significant amounts of clevage showing i will admit). And I dress that way not to attract people sexually but because I like to dress up and look good. Yes, it's nice to get admiring looks (even if I'd rather get them from girls than guys) but there's a big difference between that and dressing up specfically to attract a sexual partner.

This is ridiculous! All walks of women in the world are raped: fat, skinny; ugly; beautiful; sexy; white; black; indian; yellow; young; old; and the list goes on! Now, how about that 80 year old granny who wore that provacative moo-moo, slippers, and rollers in her blue hair? She was really advertising for it, wasnt she????

I'm thinking whether I should keep a notebook where I'd ask a girl (or the wife) to put the signature confirming consensus to a sexual act, or if that will only make me more suspicious and the signature won't be sufficient proof without notary seal.
I know there must be some people here with experience in legal matters, any advice?

Just insist on always having your lawyer present.

For style points.

Only for the points.

Oooh, and how well it's working. 100 style points and 1 happy little tree for you.

So, women of NSG, WHY do you actually dress that way if not to be attractive to potential sexpartners? Skimpy clothes, boobenlarging bras, layers of makeup and so on ?

I don't.

I have worn make-up perhaps ten times in my entire life. I wear primarily t-shirts and jeans. To get a sense for my personal aesthetic, just keep in mind that if I could wear PJs all the time, I would.

Funny story, though, that hasn't stopped guys from harassing me and, on a few unfortunate occasions, sexually assaulting me or attempting to do so.

My conclusion, based on over a quarter century of experience being female, is that I'm going to be harassed, hit on, touched with out my permission, and generally regarded as a walking blow-up doll by some peeople, no matter what I wear. The guys who treat women that way are going to do so no matter what you're doing or wearing or saying.

With that in mind, why shouldn't I wear shorts or a skirt when it's hot out? So what if it shows more leg. I get harassed in my sweatpants.

Why shouldn't I dress in ways that make me feel attractive? I get harassed when I'm looking dumpy and rumpled.

Why shouldn't I wear whatever the hell bra is most comfortable to me? I get harassed if I'm wearing a sports bra, an underwire, a cotton undershirt, or no bra at all.

I'm not particularly attractive, conventionally speaking, yet I've been harassed anyhow. Clearly, my attractiveness or sexual appeal are not the deciding factor.

I'm also not that much smarter than any other woman, so I'm not the only woman who's figured this out. Most of us have realized it by the time we're in college. Some guys are just assholes no matter what you're wearing, so you might as well wear whatever the fuck you feel like wearing because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference.

There's a lot of difference between unwilling as in hitting a girl walking home and unwilling as in still going with your wife who doesn't feel like it tonight. The latter is bad too, but not on a comparable scale.

So, it's worse for a total stranger to violate me than for the man who promised to love, honor, and cherish me for the rest of his life to violate me?

Heh. Heh. No.

Rape is rape.

There's a really easy way to make sure that your wife never turns around and sues you or accuses you of rape:

Don't fuck her unless she wants to fuck. I know it sounds crazy, but give it a try.

Also, don't worry that she can just throw random charges at you and get you sent to jail or something. Rape is punished less than any other violent crime, particularly when it's between a husband and wife, so she's more likely to be able to get you sent to jail for kicking her dog than she is to get you sent there for rape.



Also, due to general closeness of sex and force (many women expect assertiveness from the man), it's often difficult to determine the border between the expected assertiveness and something that can be classed as rape in court.

No, it's really not. See, if she consents to sex, it's not rape. If she doesn't consent, it's rape.

If you aren't clear, try ASKING. If you aren't sure if she actually wants to have sex with you, then WHY ARE YOU HAVING SEX WITH HER?!

Why do you want to have sex with somebody who isn't clearly interested?

Stop doing that. If she isn't assertive enough about her own wishes then talk with her and explain that you're not going to have sex unless you know she actually wants to do it.


Not to mention that there are instances of "rape fraud", i.e. consensual sex later with the "evidence" of the accomplice called rape and used for blackmailing.

...such instances being less common than false reports of car theft, mugging, and non-sexual assault.

Yet for some reason there's a certain sort of guy who lives in constant fear of a woman accusing him of rape.


I'm thinking whether I should keep a notebook where I'd ask a girl (or the wife) to put the signature confirming consensus to a sexual act, or if that will only make me more suspicious and the signature won't be sufficient proof without notary seal.
I know there must be some people here with experience in legal matters, any advice?
How about you just don't rape your wife?

If you're really that goddam paranoid about it, just make sure that every time you fuck your wife you get her screaming, "Yes, YES, for the love of God, YES, MORE MORE MORE!" loud enough to wake the neighbors. Then you'll have witnesses to back you up.

It IS awfully challenging to devise some way for the aliens no be able to see us.

At this point in time, I'm planning dense metal balls (eg iron) held in a magnetic field to exactly counteract gravity, kept in a state of excitement by mechanical jigglers. I am concerned that even such "Brownian" excitement may be predicatable, and therefore eliminated from the observations of the aliens. We must presume that they have gargantuan capacity for calculation (better computers, ay.)

So, I'm thinking something truly random should be included in my anti-surveillance home insulation. Perhaps iron ferrets. Or jigglers which take their cue from the decay of Caesium atoms. Or those strange objects, neither vegetable nor mineral, which sink to the bottom of a packet of Honey Nut.

Suggestions are welcome. This sense of "being watched" is ancient ... we really should do something about it.

If you're really that goddam paranoid about it, just make sure that every time you fuck your wife you get her screaming, "Yes, YES, for the love of God, YES, MORE MORE MORE!" loud enough to wake the neighbors. Then you'll have witnesses to back you up.

Or ... witnesses to HIS claim that you employed verbal abuse to force him to have sex.

?

Hmm, Bottle? You offered him the love of a being you believe not to exist? In exchange for moar sex?

Emotional abuse, no?

Women who dont want to be raped should wear armour plated nun's habits and drive around in tanks.

Women who dont want to be raped should wear armour plated nun's habits and drive around in tanks.

Nuns are good. I like nuns.

But all that military shit is quite unnecessary. All they need is the Love of God to repel advances.

Nuns are good. I like nuns.

But all that military shit is quite unnecessary. All they need is the Love of God to repel advances.

Yeah but if they go into some places in the Western World they'll need the tanks (where Angels fear to tread)

Yeah but if they go into some places in the Western World they'll need the tanks (where Angles fear to tread)

Where Anglo-Saxons fear to tread?

Nope, all they have to do is wave the Cross. Even us heathens who only wred the first twenty pages get the "Wrath of God" thing just fine. Even if that WAS a different book with the Believers Digest decided to lump in with the stuff about a guy who got nailed to a piece of wood.

So they're wearing a funny dress-up thing. Still you don't fuck with them, because of the "smiting" thing. We get the "smiting" thing. We don't want any of that, thankyou.

And that is why I am sexually excited by nuns.

So, it's worse for a total stranger to violate me than for the man who promised to love, honor, and cherish me for the rest of his life to violate me?
Heh. Heh. No.
So you would prefer to be raped by the stereotypical maniac rather than your husband one night in bed not ask you if you mind shagging tonight, and that being that one night you mind?
And you think the second case deserves an equal penalty?


Rape is punished less than any other violent crime, particularly when it's between a husband and wife, so she's more likely to be able to get you sent to jail for kicking her dog than she is to get you sent there for rape.
I know, but it's conservatism and common sense which keep the justice from
What bothers me is the more modern "liberal" misandrist attitude along the lines of "Attention! Attention! Remember that 99% cases of rape are between lovers or spouses! We must not close our eyes to this problem! Don't let overassertive boyfriends and husbands go unpunished! Always report date and marital rape!"
The trend is what bothers me.


No, it's really not. See, if she consents to sex, it's not rape. If she doesn't consent, it's rape. Should the consent be in the form of "Yeah, let's shag", or do other forms qualify? Does undressing and taking a provocative pose constitute consent? Just undressing (not for shower)?
Is it still consent after a bottle of sparkling wine? After a Franzia box? How many drinks can be taken before oral consent for it to be still valid?


If she isn't assertive enough about her own wishes then talk with her and explain that you're not going to have sex unless you know she actually wants to do it.
This works in an established relationship scenario, but what about more romantic situations, where it would break the romance and the whole "assertive alpha male" role?
Most times, men DON'T explain the woman they won't have sex unless she expresses explicit consent. The women do, but not always.


Yet for some reason there's a certain sort of guy who lives in constant fear of a woman accusing him of rape. It was a joke. And the discussion is more for the sake of it.

If you're really that goddam paranoid about it, just make sure that every time you fuck your wife you get her screaming, "Yes, YES, for the love of God, YES, MORE MORE MORE!" loud enough to wake the neighbors. Then you'll have witnesses to back you up.
I was thinking more along the lines of infrared CCTV, but then one would be arrested for illegal pornography, and pervert at that (in infrared!).

My point isn't that it happens often - it's rather that law and practice allow to accuse and prosecute a man for rape based on nothing else than evidence of a sexual act and words of the alleged victim.
And that's not a good thing. On one hand, rape has to be prosecuted, on the other, I'd reconsider whether we should call and classify all non-violent instances of sex lacking valid immediate explicit with the very emotionally charged term "rape". This isn't the only hole in the system, but a hole nonetheless.
"It's better to leave unpunished 10 criminals than to punish 1 innocent" - especially when we're talking about up to 15 years and eternal stigma - much more than "eye for eye" - rather like capital punishment for assault and battery. When we're not talking about the dark alley maniac stereotype.

Now, please don't take the defensive stance with the "you want to say rape is fine!" thing, I'm rather discussing it from the more theoretical point of view - or try to imagine a society with reversed roles to understand the alleged offender being a human too.

Abandons efforts to hammurab, gets popcorn.

*munch*

(where Angles fear to tread)

Given that the Angles were quite effective at conquering most of the British Isles, I'm sure there aren't that many places they don't want to go :D

Or did you mean angels :P

As a rule I don't. Being a complete goth, when I go out it tends to be long skirts and corsets (though with significant amounts of clevage showing i will admit). And I dress that way not to attract people sexually but because I like to dress up and look good. Yes, it's nice to get admiring looks (even if I'd rather get them from girls than guys) but there's a big difference between that and dressing up specfically to attract a sexual partner.

See, I think you get where I'm coming from.

You aren't trying to provoke any particular person. You're trying to confront everything, god or gods included. Ultimately, the only actor who can step forth and say "the cleavage, the piercings, and all the iconic references are Mine" is you.

Ego, good. Nun, good. Me like.

Given that the Angles were quite effective at conquering most of the British Isles, I'm sure there aren't that many places they don't want to go :D

Or did you mean angels :P

Angels!?!!!

*dies of orgasm*

I think i'll dig out a habit.

With you guys around i'll need it!

When I see an attractively dressed woman I often think "I'd like to have sex with her", but I've never thought "hey, I wanna rape that bitch". Meh, I guess I'm just not manly enough.:rolleyes:

When I see an attractively dressed woman I often think "I'd like to have sex with her", but I've never thought "hey, I wanna rape that bitch". Meh, I guess I'm just not manly enough.:rolleyes:

Maybe you're normal?

Maybe you're normal?

I was being sarcastic.

Oh, and don't call me "normal". My mother called me normal once. Once.;)

I was being sarcastic.

Oh, and don't call me "normal". My mother called me normal once. Once.;)

You can't frighten me! I'm dressed as a nun!

You can't frighten me! I'm dressed as a nun!

w00t! Nuns are really hot.:D

So you would prefer to be raped by the stereotypical maniac rather than your husband one night in bed not ask you if you mind shagging tonight, and that being that one night you mind?
And you think the second case deserves an equal penalty?



I know, but it's conservatism and common sense which keep the justice from
What bothers me is the more modern "liberal" misandrist attitude along the lines of "Attention! Attention! Remember that 99% cases of rape are between lovers or spouses! We must not close our eyes to this problem! Don't let overassertive boyfriends and husbands go unpunished! Always report date and marital rape!"
The trend is what bothers me.




What bothers me is your apparent belief that spouses, lovers and dates are entitled to sex, and that being assertive enough to just take it is not only not rape, but expected manly behaviour.

No person ever has the right to use another's body for sex against their will, no matter what their relationship is.

What bothers me is your apparent belief that spouses, It's what the marriage was initially devised for. If spouses have the right to (except for biological reasons) refuse each other sex for indefinite time without that being a basis for termination of marriage, then it loses most of its meaning.

Use of violence to enforce sex, however, is a crime, and should be judged and punished as violence for enforcing anything else. Sex between spouses is expected and shouldn't be a crime per se (for instance, if you fuck a random girl in her sleep, it's rape; if your wife, no).

lovers and dates are entitled to sex, and that being assertive enough to just take it is not only not rape, but expected manly behaviour. No, these aren't, and "just taking it" is not expected behavior. However, as practice shows, the expected behavior is often bordering on somewhat more assertive than normally. I don't even mention the alcohol intoxication cases. Is such an occasion bad? Yes. Is it as bad as the stereotypical dark alley lurker attack? No.
What I don't like is that this distinction isn't being drawn.

It's what the marriage was initially devised for. If spouses have the right to (except for biological reasons) refuse each other sex for indefinite time without that being a basis for termination of marriage, then it loses most of its meaning.

Marriage's original meaning was a man owning a woman to bear his children and be his slave. It could be accomplished by purchase or capture (carrying over the threshold). It took a long time for this slavery to become a monogamous function (in many countries it sill is not), and even longer for the sexual relationship to become monogamous (in most countries it still is not).

Do you truly think marriage should be employed in the manner it was "originally devised for"?

Heh, who doesn't fall somewhere between those extremes? :tongue:
Women usually.
You know, I actually have a friend who I've seen toss bread in the air enough times that it wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Unfortunately, said friend is also in a very happy relationship with another guy. Does this disqualify him from manly toaster status?
That depends on how happy and whether or not the bread is whole wheat.
Oh man, is that the guy I used to watch on TV before school in the morning, with the happy little trees and stuff? He used to scare me. :(
Probably. Unless there was some other guy on TV with happy little trees. Maybe that's just how your parents explained the pr0n tapes.

It's what the marriage was initially devised for. If spouses have the right to (except for biological reasons) refuse each other sex for indefinite time without that being a basis for termination of marriage, then it loses most of its meaning.

Use of violence to enforce sex, however, is a crime, and should be judged and punished as violence for enforcing anything else. Sex between spouses is expected and shouldn't be a crime per se (for instance, if you fuck a random girl in her sleep, it's rape; if your wife, no).

No, these aren't, and "just taking it" is not expected behavior. However, as practice shows, the expected behavior is often bordering on somewhat more assertive than normally. I don't even mention the alcohol intoxication cases. Is such an occasion bad? Yes. Is it as bad as the stereotypical dark alley lurker attack? No.
What I don't like is that this distinction isn't being drawn.

I'm pretty sure people were having sex before marriage was devised, and continue to have pre- and extra-marital sex; I'm pretty sure that marriage law is mostly about tax, property and inheritance and not about sex. I'm pretty sure there is more to most marriages that sex on demand.

I'd like to see your source for the bolded part, since that is not my experience and doesn't actually make sense either. To be violated at the hands of someone who is supposed to love and respect you is more humiliating and devastating than to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'd like to see your source for the bolded part, since that is not my experience and doesn't actually make sense either. To be violated at the hands of someone who is supposed to love and respect you is more humiliating and devastating than to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So you personally would prefer to be raped by an unknown guy in a dark alley, rather than have your boyfriend get on with it one date earlier than you've planned?



Marriage's original meaning was a man owning a woman to bear his children and be his slave. It could be accomplished by purchase or capture (carrying over the threshold). Not always, not everywhere. For the "purchase" part, is that why it was rather the bride who had to pay? Nice purchase.

and even longer for the sexual relationship to become monogamous (in most countries it still is not).
It won't ever be, unless we release a service pack for the human genome including a patch fixing apes' natural predominantly polygamic tendency.


Do you truly think marriage should be employed in the manner it was "originally devised for"?
Well, we take sex out of the marriage, now it's completely meaningless. Plus it's a point of tension between heteros and homos.
So I think it would make sense to solve their conflict by abolishing the formal marriage altogether.

So you personally would prefer to be raped by an unknown guy in a dark alley, rather than have your boyfriend get on with it one date earlier than you've planned?



you really don't see the second as rape do you? You scare me.

so, at what stage do i lose the right to say no? after a date? when I accept the date? when does he have the right to use my body against my will?

So you personally would prefer to be raped by an unknown guy in a dark alley, rather than have your boyfriend get on with it one date earlier than you've planned?
Honestly?

If I really had to choose, I'd rather be raped by the stranger in the dark alley, because then I might have a tiny chance of seeing my rapist go to jail. If I'm raped while on a date, there's virtually zero chance that the rapist will ever receive any punishment, since everyone will argue that I agreed to go out with him (and therefore gave up my right to decline sex).


Well, we take sex out of the marriage, now it's completely meaningless.

Stop using "rape" and "sex" as if they are interchangeable.

I would argue that if we allow rape to be an integral part of marriage, then THAT renders marriage meaningless. What the hell is somebody's vow to love and honor me worth, if they then proceed to rape me with impunity whenever they want?


Plus it's a point of tension between heteros and homos.
So I think it would make sense to solve their conflict by abolishing the formal marriage altogether.
I think it would make sense for all heterosexual guys to tell you to shut the hell up, and fast, because guys like you make lesbianism seem far too appealing.

you really don't see the second as rape do you?
Sometimes, sometimes not. If he just jumps on her, that's rape.
If the woman went with erotic massage, bringing the guy to the boiling point (sexual arousal is of chemical nature), and he reacted going too far - that's not good, but I don't see that as a crime deserving the same punishment as a violent sexual assault in the dark alley.
I'm not saying this is acceptable; but we have a habit of always overgeneralizing everything.


Honestly?
If I really had to choose, I'd rather be raped by the stranger in the dark alley, because then I might have a tiny chance of seeing my rapist go to jail. If I'm raped while on a date, there's virtually zero chance that the rapist will ever receive any punishment
Not really. A lot of rape convictions are for "date rape".

you really don't see the second as rape do you? You scare me.

so, at what stage do i lose the right to say no? after a date? when I accept the date? when does he have the right to use my body against my will?
Well, see, if you're on a date with him then CLEARLY you are going to have sex with him eventually, and if he wants to do it when you don't want to do it then what's the diff?

I mean, sex isn't something that two people do together, it's something men do to women. Men do sex to women when men want sex. If a woman doesn't want to have sex done to her then she should make that clear by wearing a full-body covering and declining to ever be alone with a man under any circumstances. Otherwise, she clearly wants sex from any and all men, and has automatically consented to any time of sex that a man wants to do to her.

And if we remove this concept from marriage then it will LOSE ALL MEANING!!!!1SHIFT!!

So you personally would prefer to be raped by an unknown guy in a dark alley, rather than have your boyfriend get on with it one date earlier than you've planned?

<snip>
Vault 10, to save space and time, I'm not going to pull quotes from all your posts, but please take this as addressing everything you have posted in the last few pages:

1) Everything you have said so far is actually claiming that men have a right to rape women. Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe that a man, under any circumstances, has a right to force sex on a woman against her will, i.e. rape her?

2) If not, would you like to take this opportunity to edit and clarify your statements?

3) If you do believe that, why do you believe it? And where do you draw the line between acceptable forced sex that you think "isn't really rape" and unacceptable forced sex that you think is really rape?

4) What terrible events your life -- I wonder rhetorically -- could possibly lead you to think that there is a "closeness" between sex and force? I wonder -- again, rhetorically -- whether you have ever had consensual sex? I have. I have often had consensual sex and experienced it as a woman, and I can assure you that, from the woman's perspective, there is nothing even remotely like force in consensual sex. Yes, there can be male assertiveness, but since I am a fully consenting partner, that is not like force.

Bottom line on issue #4: It is impossible for me mistake consensual sex for rape. I know when I'm willing, and I know when I'm not. I am not an exceptional creature, so I believe this is likely also true of women in general. If you hop on top of them when they don't want you to, they will not just think you are being as assertive as they want you to be.

5) Going back to issues 1-3, how do you account for the fact that the laws of most modern countries do not agree with you? They do not draw lines that make one kind of forced sex rape and another kind of forced sex not-rape. Instead, they make all forced/non-consensual sex = rape. Period. If you actually believe that men have a right to force sex on women under some circumstances, what is it that makes you right and the law wrong about that?

6) Your "understanding" of marriage is... idiosyncratic, to say the least. There is not a single fact in anything you say about it except one -- that sex is an expected and accepted part of marriage. However, you fail utterly to explain how society's expectation that marriage will include sex between the married couple includes an expectation of constant sex on demand for the man. You have failed to explain how one partner to a marriage (the woman) loses any right to say no to sex on any given occasion. You fail to justify your characterization of marriage as sex-slavery for the woman -- are you even aware that this is how your description of marriage looks? Are you even aware that you have put all the burden of having to give sex no matter what on the wife only, and not on the husband?

7) If, in your weird view, lack of sex renders marriage meaningless, kindly explain: (A) marriages of convenience, as between a gay man and a woman, who marry for financial or social reasons, but not for sex; (B) distant marriages, in which the married couple do not co-habit, such as military married couples who may be separated for several years at a time; (C) the fact that, if one partner in a marriage is sent to prison for several decades, this does not automatically annull the marriage, even though they will not be having regular sex with each other during that time.

8) Given your bizarre notions of marriage, including that lack of sex makes marriage meaningless, kindly explain the huge numbers of married couples in Europe and the US who report in public health and social trend surveys done by various academic and government groups every few years, that they actually have relatively little sex, yet do not seek divorce.

9) If, as you seem to believe, sex on demand for men is the main purpose of marriage, then please explain why the vast majority of laws governing marriage are about property and money, and the only marriage laws regarding sex are the ones that say that (a) the state recognizes that it's okay for married couples to have consensual sex, and (b) the state recognizes that a husband can rape a wife and that's illegal.

10) Finally (for now), if, according to your scary-ass world view, a woman loses all right to say no to sex when she gets married, then why do marriage ceremonies and legal documents regulating marriage require BOTH parties -- the man AND the woman -- to both be willing partners to the marriage agreement?

EDIT: One last point, in reference to the question I did quote, above: BOTH are rape, and BOTH are equally unacceptable. A woman does not have to choose which kind of rape she would rather endure, because she does not have to endure any rape at all.

Sometimes, sometimes not. If he just jumps on her, that's rape.
If the woman went with erotic massage, bringing the guy to the boiling point (sexual arousal is of chemical nature), and he reacted going too far - no, I don't see that as a crime of the same degree as a violent sexual assault in the dark alley.
Oh joy, another rape apologist.

Cause we really needed another one.

How hard is it to just not rape anybody? Seriously?

Like, are you just so used to women not wanting to have sex with you that you can't conceive of actually sleeping with WILLING women?

If she doesn't want to fuck, DON'T FUCK HER. It's not difficult. At all.

Yes, this might mean that you don't get your cock sloppy every time you want. Get over it and go rub one out.

Not always, not everywhere. For the "purchase" part, is that why it was rather the bride who had to pay? Nice purchase.

According to the Bible, the man has to pay the father of the Bride if he sampled the goods before the actual marriage (with or without her consent). Other cultures had similar customs.

Yes, this might mean that you don't get your cock sloppy every time you want. Get over it and go rub one out.

Some people don't have hands...

I thought you, of all people, would be more sensitive about this topic. They say that people without hands are the ones most likely to commit rape. However, they are also most often unsuccessful, which explains the lack of publicity given to such cases.

Honestly, some people don't have a choice. It's either rape, or wander around handless and sexless in the desert for days on end. Have some sympathy.

Some people don't have hands...

I thought you, of all people, would be more sensitive about this topic. They say that people without hands are the ones most likely to commit rape. However, they are also most often unsuccessful, which explains the lack of publicity given to such cases.

Honestly, some people don't have a choice. It's either rape, or wander around handless and sexless in the desert for days on end. Have some sympathy.

/thread

Honestly, some people don't have a choice. It's either rape, or wander around handless and sexless in the desert for days on end. Have some sympathy.

1- Pay a hooker.

2- Find a tree with a hole.

That aside, I agree with Galloism. :D

/thread
*hyperventilates*
1- Pay a hooker.

2- Find a tree with a hole.

That aside, I agree with Galloism. :D
1. People without hands generally have problems with business transactions.
2. You sick bastarrrrd. Trees have rights. And it's not like they can close their legs if they really don't want to have sex..

1) Everything you have said so far is actually claiming that men have a right to rape women. Do you actually believe that?
No, and I didn't say that.
All I said is that the degrees of "insufficient consensus" should be distinguished.

Like that violent rape by a stranger being a greater degree offense with a greater punishment than non-violent marital rape.
That's it.


2) If not, would you like to take this opportunity to edit and clarify your statements? Maybe, but I always tried to clarify I don't defend one as acceptable, just deserving lesser punishment.
could possibly lead you to think that there is a "closeness" between sex and force? BDSM.
Bottom line on issue #4: It is impossible for me mistake consensual sex for rape. I know when I'm willing, and I know when I'm not.
What about when you're drunk? Is it willing, or not?



They do not draw lines that make one kind of forced sex rape and another kind of forced sex not-rape. Instead, they make all forced/non-consensual sex = rape. Period. Actually, English Law doesn't. It has rape only for the cock in an orifice, not for another object, not considering special cases, et cetera.
You have failed to explain how one partner to a marriage (the woman) loses any right to say no to sex on any given occasion. She doesn't. But I would like to see marital sex offenders not thrown into the same cell and for the same term as sexual maniacs.
You fail to justify your characterization of marriage as sex-slavery for the woman Man too. I've seen marriages break up because the man didn't want the wife anymore. Initiated by the wife. Refusal of sex in a marriage, IMHO, is a valid reason for its termination, otherwise it's not a marriage, but merely a financial contract.

7) If, in your weird view, lack of sex renders marriage meaningless, kindly explain: (A) marriages of convenience, as between a gay man and a woman, who marry for financial or social reasons, but not for sex;
Civil union. I'm for abolishment of marriage (other than a ritual) not as a concept, but rather in favor of civil union. The civil union can overtake the marriage's legal roles, but is possible between any sentient beings, and doesn't imply any gender roles or having genders at all.

Just allowing "gay marriage" doesn't solve the problems of threesomes, for instance.




8, 9, etc. -> same point, marriage is close to meaningless already.

10) Finally (for now), if, according to your scary-ass world view, a woman loses all right to say no to sex when she gets married, then why do marriage ceremonies and legal documents regulating marriage require BOTH parties -- the man AND the woman -- to both be [b]willing partners to the marriage agreement?
I don't say that. And I've never drawn a man-woman line either.
But here you're contradicting yourself - of course a contract requires both parties to sign it. I don't think the marriage implies a permanent permission to sex, but it does imply at least "yes unless explicitly said otherwise", rather than vice versa.

P.S. This is getting hotter than I intended. Hope you understand this is an argument for the sake of argument and to see the reaction to unpopular statements, as opposed to an actual serious debate?

You sick bastarrrrd. Trees have rights. And it's not like they can close their legs if they really don't want to have sex..

Silence gives consent. If a tree ever says she doesn't want it, I'll stop. :D

Silence gives consent. If a tree ever says she doesn't want it, I'll stop. :D

That answers an interesting question.

If you have sex with a tree in the forest and no one hears anything, is it rape?

Apparently not.

No, and I didn't say that.
All I said is that the degrees of "insufficient consensus" should be distinguished.

Like that violent rape by a stranger being a greater degree offense with a greater punishment than non-violent marital rape.
That's it.
There is no "insufficient consensus" on this point. Marital rape is rape. Violent rape is rape. Both are rape. Both are crimes. Both are unacceptable. The only people who quibble about this are apologists looking (vainly) for ways to give permission for rape.

By the way, maritial rape can also be violent. I'm going to assume that you didn't know that.

Maybe, but I always tried to clarify I don't defend one as acceptable, just deserving lesser punishment.
So, you're just saying it's less unacceptable, i.e. more okay?

BDSM.
OK, I'm starting to think that you don't know what the words "consent" and "force" mean.

In BDSM, the M-partners give consent to what is done to/with them. The fact of their consent eliminates all presence of force. No matter what the action is, if the person gave consent, then by definition, it is not force.

By that same token, no matter how non-violent/non-injurious a sex action is, if the person did not consent to it, then it is, by definition, forced upon them.

Are you starting to be able to wrap your brain around this concept yet?

What about when you're drunk? Is it willing, or not?
If a person is too drunk to legally give consent, then it is force because it is done without consent. If a person is too drunk to know what they are doing, then willingness cannot be ascertained and, therefore, the question is moot.

The only way to know if a person is willing is if they give consent.

Actually, English Law doesn't. It has rape only for the cock in an orifice, not for another object, not considering special cases, et cetera.
You are dodging the question. Does English law recognize marital rape, or doesn't it? Establish that and then tell me that English law agrees with you.

She doesn't. But I would like to see marital sex offenders not thrown into the same cell and for the same term as sexual maniacs.
Why? Isn't a man who commits marital rape still a rapist? Exactly what difference do you see between them and why?

Man too. I've seen marriages break up because the man didn't want the wife anymore. Initiated by the wife. Refusal of sex in a marriage, IMHO, is a valid reason for its termination, otherwise it's not a marriage, but merely a financial contract.
You are dodging the question again. Why do you think marital rape is not "really rape"? What is it about marriage that gives either partner the right to force sex on the other partner against their will?

Civil union. I'm for abolishment of marriage (other than a ritual) not as a concept, but rather in favor of civil union. The civil union can overtake the marriage's legal roles, but is possible between any sentient beings, and doesn't imply any gender roles or having genders at all.

Just allowing "gay marriage" doesn't solve the problems of threesomes, for instance.
This is completely irrelevant to the questions posed.

8, 9, etc. -> same point, marriage is close to meaningless already.
Another dodge.

Or are you saying that, since married people apparently don't spend all their time raping each other, then marriage is meaningless in general?

I don't say that. And I've never drawn a man-woman line either.
Until now, you have only talked about men getting sex from women. I followed your lead.

But here you're contradicting yourself - of course a contract requires both parties to sign it. I don't think the marriage implies a permanent permission to sex, but it does imply at least "yes unless explicitly said otherwise", rather than vice versa.
And you don't consider "not tonight, dear" to be explicitly saying something other than yes? So if a wife says she's not in the mood, but her husband fucks her anyway, you don't think that deserves to be treated as a rape case? Because I remind you, that is what you said earlier.

That answers an interesting question.

If you have sex with a tree in the forest and no one hears anything, is it rape?

Apparently not.
what if you have sex with a male tree? does that mean you are gay?

what if you have sex with a male tree? does that mean you are gay?

Which trees are male?

Hrm.. I wonder if same gendered beings of another species.. counts as homosexual? Interspecies homosexuality? Actually, with trees, they are farther away than a different species right. Different Kingdoms actually.

There is no "insufficient consensus" on this point. Marital rape is rape. Violent rape is rape. Both are rape. Both are crimes. Both are unacceptable. The only people who quibble about this are apologists looking (vainly) for ways to give permission for rape.

[QUOTE]By the way, maritial rape can also be violent. I'm going to assume that you didn't know that. Wrong. I've said it explicitly, if it's violent, it should be punished for violence.

So, you're just saying it's less unacceptable, i.e. more okay? Calling for a lesser penalty.
Know that concept, or are you among those people advocating capital punishment for any crime?


If a person is too drunk to legally give consent, then it is force because it is done without consent. If a person is too drunk to know what they are doing, then willingness cannot be ascertained and, therefore, the question is moot.
Now, now, here we're getting to the heart of the matter.
When is it not too drunk, and when is it too drunk?

If you have sex after a bottle of sparkling wine, is it rape?
Two bottles, three, four?



Establish that and then tell me that English law agrees with you. It disagrees with you, just that.

Why? Isn't a man who commits marital rape still a rapist? Exactly what difference do you see between them and why?
I don't think I even need to explain the difference between a husband who once felt too patriarchal in the bed, and a maniacal rapist.

If you seriously doubt there's a whole lot of difference, you're trolling like me.


What is it about marriage that gives either partner the right to force sex on the other partner against their will?
"Force" implies violence, and we have laws against violence already - no need for separate rape law in that case.

But let's scroll a bit up and get to the "too drunk to give consent" scenario. Is it rape if the couple got drunk tonight, too drunk for the wife be able to give consent, but the husband still went through with it?


Or are you saying that, since married people apparently don't spend all their time raping each other, then marriage is meaningless in general? I am saying that if the husband has the right to never, not once lie in the bed with his wife and the wife can't use it as grounds for marriage termination, then the idea of marriage is meaningless, and it should be abolished and replaced with civil union.


And you don't consider "not tonight, dear" to be explicitly saying something other than yes? Above, what's if she's sleeping/drunk and doesn't say anything?

So if a wife says she's not in the mood, but her husband fucks her anyway, you don't think that deserves to be treated as a rape case? Sexual offense of a lesser degree than proper rape, preferably also termed different to avoid the stigma attached to the term "rape". Still an offense, but of a lesser degree.

Because, page up a few times, this thread practically started with the idea that all and any rapists deserve the harshest punishment, including being raped and all the stuff.
If YOUR husband did advance at you despite you saying "I'm not in the mood", would your revenge be locking him for 10 years in a cage? (Assuming it was legal and you had to do it yourself.)

Which trees are male?

Hrm.. I wonder if same gendered beings of another species.. counts as homosexual? Interspecies homosexuality? Actually, with trees, they are farther away than a different species right. Different Kingdoms actually.

Not according to the law in some middle-eastern countries, where it is apparently legal to have sex with a female goat but sex with a male goat (like homosexuality itself) is illegal.

Of course this could just be one of the those wonderful internet rumours

BDSM.


Okay, let me just jump in here. I am a submissive and a masochist. I have also been sexually assaulted by someone I loved and trusted. To suggest that kinky sex is in any way, shape, or form analogous to rape is complete crap.

And by the way, until you've had someone you loved and trusted sexually assault you, kindly shut up about how it's not that bad. I have no idea whether or not being assaulted by a stranger would have been worse, and I hope never to find out, but I assure you what I went through was plenty bad.

EDIT: One last point, in reference to the question I did quote, above: BOTH are rape, and BOTH are equally unacceptable. A woman does not have to choose which kind of rape she would rather endure, because she does not have to endure any rape at all.

Indeed. It's a bit like asking whether you'd rather have your eyes gouged out by a friend or an enemy.

but I assure you what I went through was plenty bad.
Tell us more!


Indeed. It's a bit like asking whether you'd rather have your eyes gouged out by a friend or an enemy.
Except you don't have your eyes actually damaged. It's more like whether you'd rather be imprisoned in a prison cell or in your own home.

Wrong. I've said it explicitly, if it's violent, it should be punished for violence.
But not for rape, which is what I have been asking you about.

You keep squirming, but you are still on the hook you put yourself on.

Calling for a lesser penalty.
So the answer to my question is "yes, you do see marital rape as more okay"?

Know that concept, or are you among those people advocating capital punishment for any crime?
Raising strawmen is not going to get you off this hook, either.


Now, now, here we're getting to the heart of the matter.
When is it not too drunk, and when is it too drunk?

If you have sex after a bottle of sparkling wine, is it rape?
Two bottles, three, four?
Although sex and alcohol often go together -- even if only as before and after accompaniments to other activities -- Fucking Under the Influence is always a danger zone because it is not easy to tell what your partner's alcohol tolerance is.

If you know the person well and have seen how this person handles their liquor, then you can make reasonable judgments as to whether they are sober enough to consent to sex. So if your date says yes after one bottle of sparkling wine, and you happen to know that he or she can drink that much and still function and make decisions reasonably well, then that is consent you can rely on. The more alcohol, however, the less you can rely on the consent, regardless of how well you know the person.

And if you don't know the person, then you should have your sex stone cold sober.

At least, that's the way I do it because I know that if I wouldn't fuck a guy sober, then getting drunk won't make him hotter.

In any event, sober, buzzed or blotto, if they don't give consent, that means you don't have consent, so keep the hell off.

It disagrees with you, just that.
Prove it. Cite the law about marital rape.

I don't think I even need to explain the difference between a husband who once felt too patriarchal in the bed, and a maniacal rapist.
You're right, you don't need to. There is no difference.

If you seriously doubt there's a whole lot of difference, you're trolling like me.
Thank you for admitting that you are a troll, but I don't think anyone doubted that.

"Force" implies violence, and we have laws against violence already - no need for separate rape law in that case.
Bullshit. Force does not imply violence.

But let's scroll a bit up and get to the "too drunk to give consent" scenario. Is it rape if the couple got drunk tonight, too drunk for the wife be able to give consent, but the husband still went through with it?
Yes.

I am saying that if the husband has the right to never, not once lie in the bed with his wife and the wife can't use it as grounds for marriage termination, then the idea of marriage is meaningless, and it should be abolished and replaced with civil union.
More bullshit because it renders all your comments about sex as a requirement for marriage completely irrelevant to this discussion about rape.

Above, what's if she's sleeping/drunk and doesn't say anything?
That's rape.

Sexual offense of a lesser degree than proper rape, preferably also termed different to avoid the stigma attached to the term "rape". Still an offense, but of a lesser degree.
And you have yet to even try to give any justification for that arbitrary excusing of non-consensual sex. After all these words, it is at last completely clear that you have no argument.

Because, page up a few times, this thread practically started with the idea that all and any rapists deserve the harshest punishment, including being raped and all the stuff.
Wrong. That nonsense was brought up late in the thread by someone else. It is not the starting idea of the thread at all.

If YOUR husband did advance at you despite you saying "I'm not in the mood", would your revenge be locking him for 10 years in a cage? (Assuming it was legal and you had to do it yourself.)
Yes. A rapist is a rapist and is subject to the law.

Tell us more!
Considering what you were responding to, this kind of trolling is getting very close to something I would consider subject to moderation.

Not charming, not funny, not cool.

Except you don't have your eyes actually damaged. It's more like whether you'd rather be imprisoned in a prison cell or in your own home.
And finally, pure, undiluted trolling -- the old "rape doesn't really hurt the victim" line.

Look, you've done your job of showing people what a rape apologist looks like. Now you've clearly run out of things to say. You can stop now.

Prove it. Cite the law about marital rape.

R v R [1991]. House of Lords ruled that a husband can be guilty of raping his spouse, overturning the position from the 1800s that said otherwise. This is the same across the UK.

But not for rape, which is what I have been asking you about.
Yes. He's allowed to conduct sexual intercourse, he's not allowed to use force. It may still be an offense, but a lesser one. Crime here is reduced to use of force, not to the intercourse.


Although sex and alcohol often go together -- even if only as before and after accompaniments to other activities -- Fucking Under the Influence is always a danger zone because it is not easy to tell what your partner's alcohol tolerance is.

If you know the person well and have seen how this person handles their liquor, then you can make reasonable judgments as to whether they are sober enough to consent to sex. So if your date says yes after one bottle of sparkling wine, and you happen to know that he or she can drink that much and still function and make decisions reasonably well, then that is consent you can rely on. The more alcohol, however, the less you can rely on the consent, regardless of how well you know the person.

And if you don't know the person, then you should have your sex stone cold sober.

At least, that's the way I do it because I know that if I wouldn't fuck a guy sober, then getting drunk won't make him hotter.

In any event, sober, buzzed or blotto, if they don't give consent, that means you don't have consent, so keep the hell off.

Well, they're drunk and drugged as hell. Both are drunk and drugged as hell. They're spouses. Ones from the 60's, you know, when the life was still sex-drugs-rock'n'roll, not suxx-drugs-plug'n'play. LSD instead of LCD.

Both apparently consent, blabbering "i want you pink elephant" and "yeah my shiny rainbow i'll enter you..."

So did they give valid consent or not?

Should they be convicted for rape, and who - the one who started it, or always the male, or both?


Prove it. Cite the law about marital rape. It disagrees with you on another point, on that any sexual intercourse without consent is rape. It rather limits it to cock penetration of a female in one of the big three. Dildo penetration, or rape of a male (dildo, cock tourniquet, whatever) are not considered rape.


You're right, you don't need to. There is no difference.
So you say there's no difference between a husband who once felt too patriarchal in the bed, and a maniacal rapist.

Well, that's your position.

Now, suppose my position is that whoever trespasses within my territory (and it's not just a lawn - I don't live in a rich neighborhood) without my consent, should be severely punished. Whoever it is. Including my husband or wife, should I feel like they're not welcome here today - hey, it's my house, not ours.

Is that right? Should my husband/wife be punished the same as a previously convicted burglar?



That's rape. [QUOTE] Your wife. Is sleeping. You have sex with her. It is rape?
Ah, yes, you can't be possibly punished by that law, that might be a reason why you want to make it as harsh as possible.

Now, your husband. Suppose his cock is always good for sex and works on instinct. He's sleeping, and you want some pleasure, so you ride it. You're a rapist now?


[QUOTE] And you have yet to even try to give any justification for that arbitrary excusing of non-consensual sex.
I've said it.
See the house example above.
Marriage includes (or used to include, in less "modern" places) an implication that both parties at least are OK for sexual contact with each other.
Thus, sex in a marriage is not a "violation of body", like entering your husband's house without his express permission isn't trespassing.

The only crime here may be force that is used. But if it's not used (sleeping or drunk case), it at the very least shouldn't be treated as harsh as a stereotypical stranger rape, because sex itself is not a crime.


Yes. Someone here, not sure if you, has threatened to become a lesbian if it goes on. I hope you do. It might save someone.

It disagrees with you on another point, on that any sexual intercourse without consent is rape. It rather limits it to cock penetration of a female in one of the big three. Dildo penetration, or rape of a male (dildo, cock tourniquet, whatever) are not considered rape.

Yes, a man's penis must penetrate the female without consent. Key point. Doesn't matter who the you've decided to fuck, if they don't consent, then it is rape.

Secondly, if it's penetration by an object, or happens to a man, then it's not classed as rape, it's a sexual assault. And, interestingly, carries the same average sentence as the crime of rape.

But please, keep going.

R v R [1991]. House of Lords ruled that a husband can be guilty of raping his spouse, overturning the position from the 1800s that said otherwise. This is the same across the UK.
Thank you. :)

Thank you. :)

No worries. Had it drilled into my head for months last semester.

R v R [1991]. House of Lords ruled that a husband can be guilty of raping his spouse, overturning the position from the 1800s that said otherwise. This is the same across the UK.
Good point.
So it was only overturned in 1991, thus establishing that traditionally, spousal intercourse was seen as permitted sex - actually the one and only proper form of sex - minutiae nonwithstanding.

2- Find a tree with a hole.

check for bees and nut hunting squirrels first! :eek:

Good point.
So it was only overturned in 1991, thus establishing that traditionally, spousal intercourse was seen as permitted sex - actually the one and only proper form of sex - minutiae nonwithstanding.

Of course - because the traditional meaning of marriages is that the woman is the property of her husband. It is her marital duty to service him, refusing is a sin.

It is a shame that it has taken so long for this sickening way of thought to be recognised as sickening.

Good point.
So it was only overturned in 1991, thus establishing that traditionally, spousal intercourse was seen as permitted sex - actually the one and only proper form of sex - minutiae nonwithstanding.

Hardly.

The theory originates to an institutional writer in the 1800s. Not a statute. Not a precedent.

The subsequent cases that involved a husband and wife were resolved on other issues, not to do with the theoretical defence. The courts didn't want to act as the legislature.

It was finally done away with in 1991, by the Law Lords.

Basically, you're relying on a principle from 200 years ago. Good for you.

Yes. He's allowed to conduct sexual intercourse, he's not allowed to use force. It may still be an offense, but a lesser one. Crime here is reduced to use of force, not to the intercourse.
Apparently, you are wrong about that. Also, I should tell you that, unless you decide to come up with an argument, I am not in the habit of dancing around pointlessly with trolls. You have merely repeated this claim of yours several times now without advancing or adding to it. I am not going to entertain it beyond this point unless you do go somewhere with it.

Well, they're drunk and drugged as hell. Both are drunk and drugged as hell. They're spouses. Ones from the 60's, you know, when the life was still sex-drugs-rock'n'roll, not suxx-drugs-plug'n'play. LSD instead of LCD.

Both apparently consent, blabbering "i want you pink elephant" and "yeah my shiny rainbow i'll enter you..."

So did they give valid consent or not?

Should they be convicted for rape, and who - the one who started it, or always the male, or both?
You are now inventing fantasy scenarios that are completely different from the assertions you made at the beginning. Sorry, but this monkey isn't trained to dance for you. I gave you a detailed answer about sex and alcohol. Live with it.


It disagrees with you on another point, on that any sexual intercourse without consent is rape. It rather limits it to cock penetration of a female in one of the big three. Dildo penetration, or rape of a male (dildo, cock tourniquet, whatever) are not considered rape.
But apparently, they are a sex crime and they do carry the same penalties as rape. So... your entire position relies on a distinction without a difference?

So you say there's no difference between a husband who once felt too patriarchal in the bed, and a maniacal rapist.
There's no difference between a rapist and a rapist.

Well, that's your position.

Now, suppose my position is that whoever trespasses within my territory (and it's not just a lawn - I don't live in a rich neighborhood) without my consent, should be severely punished. Whoever it is. Including my husband or wife, should I feel like they're not welcome here today - hey, it's my house, not ours.

Is that right? Should my husband/wife be punished the same as a previously convicted burglar?
Another dodge. Another attempt to equate sex crimes with other kinds of crime. Another attempt to portray marriage as sex slavery, giving each spouse some kind of right to rape/assault the other at will, which is total bullshit. Please stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

Your wife. Is sleeping. You have sex with her. It is rape?
Ah, yes, you can't be possibly punished by that law, that might be a reason why you want to make it as harsh as possible.

Now, your husband. Suppose his cock is always good for sex and works on instinct. He's sleeping, and you want some pleasure, so you ride it. You're a rapist now?
Are you getting off on posting these fantasy scenarios of yours? I gave you my answer. No matter how many titillating variations on the same theme you invent, the answer remains the same.

I've said it.
See the house example above.
Marriage includes (or used to include, in less "modern" places) an implication that both parties at least are OK for sexual contact with each other.
I have already addressed why this is not relevant to issues of marital rape.

Thus, sex in a marriage is not a "violation of body", like entering your husband's house without his express permission isn't trespassing.
You keep pretending that there is no issue of consent in sex within a marriage, but apparently British law disagrees with you.

The only crime here may be force that is used. But if it's not used (sleeping or drunk case), it at the very least shouldn't be treated as harsh as a stereotypical stranger rape, because sex itself is not a crime.
No, but rape is, even within a marriage.

Someone here, not sure if you, has threatened to become a lesbian if it goes on. I hope you do. It might save someone.
Another unfunny remark.

OK, we have established that you are a troll, by your own admission. We have also established over several posts that you have no argument to present. And we have established that you are wrong on what few facts you do assert. Finally, we see that you are now just repeating yourself. I'm done with you. Further posts directed to me along these same lines will be answered only with a link back to this post.

Good point.
So it was only overturned in 1991, thus establishing that traditionally, spousal intercourse was seen as permitted sex - actually the one and only proper form of sex - minutiae nonwithstanding.

Traditionally peasants weren't allowed to vote, slavery was legal and girls could be married when barely out of childhood.

Tradition does not make it right!

I gave you a detailed answer about sex and alcohol. Live with it.
Your answer concluded with this:
"In any event, sober, buzzed or blotto, if they don't give consent, that means you don't have consent, so keep the hell off."
- From your answer it's not completely clear whether they still can give consent if they're buzzed. This phrase appears to say they can, right or not?


Another dodge. Another attempt to equate sex crimes with other kinds of crime. Another attempt to portray marriage as sex slavery, giving each spouse some kind of right to rape/assault the other at will, which is total bullshit. Please stop wasting our time with this nonsense.
So, your position relies on the axiom that sex crimes are somehow fundamentally different from any other kind of crime.

Could you give the reason you hold such a belief, or formulate the difference?

Your answer concluded with this:
"In any event, sober, buzzed or blotto, if they don't give consent, that means you don't have consent, so keep the hell off."
- From your answer it's not completely clear whether they still can give consent if they're buzzed. This phrase appears to say they can, right or not?



So, your position relies on the axiom that sex crimes are somehow fundamentally different from any other kind of crime.

Could you give the reason you hold such a belief, or formulate the difference?
As promised: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13923968&postcount=224

So, your position relies on the axiom that sex crimes are somehow fundamentally different from any other kind of crime.

No, the position is thus:

All crimes are not the same. We don't want a flat punishment for every crime, despite what you seem to think.

Fundamentally, however, all criminals should be punished for their crimes. Rape is rape is rape. Murder is murder is murder. But rape is not murder is not theft.

Make sense?

As promised I've changed the direction, and asked a direct question: If "attempt to equate sex crimes with other kinds of crime" is wrong, what is the fundamental distinction?



No, the position is thus:
All crimes are not the same. We don't want a flat punishment for every crime, despite what you seem to think.
Only for rape? Why, then?

Fundamentally, however, all criminals should be punished for their crimes. Rape is rape is rape. Murder is murder is murder. But rape is not murder is not theft.
Not exactly. There are three degrees of murder, plus voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and maybe even more distinctions.
There are too many kinds of theft and robbery to even list.

Why, then, should there be only one degree for any kinds of nonconsensual sex, like if all cases are the same?

So, your position relies on the axiom that sex crimes are somehow fundamentally different from any other kind of crime.

Could you give the reason you hold such a belief, or formulate the difference?

They are.

They are significantly related to different predictors, have different motivations and different underlying cognitions. Barring a small group of highly chronic and highly versatile offenders, there is minimal over-lap between sex offenders and non-sex offenders, certainly when you discount violent offences conducted during a sexual or attempted sexual assault.

I've changed the direction, and asked a direct question: If "attempt to equate sex crimes with other kinds of crime" is wrong, what is the fundamental distinction?
Your change of direction was merely a superficial attempt to keep up the same argument loop. The reason I ignored the question is that it is a strawman. I never said that rape was unique. I was saying that the comparisons you were making -- the specific comparisons -- were inappropriate because they are not truly comparable. I was also saying that you were only making those comparisons as a dodge because you could not make the same arguments successfully about rape, so you tried to make them about burglary and then ask if it isn't comparable to rape (it isn't, btw). And since you already tried to make those comparisons before, and I already responded to them, I referred you back to the older post. As I said I would if you did not come up with something new.

This is how this game works -- you have to actually come up with something new, not just reword the old crap.

Only for rape? Why, then?


Not exactly. There are three degrees of murder, plus voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and maybe even more distinctions.
There are too many kinds of theft and robbery to even list.

Why, then, should there be only one degree for any kinds of nonconsensual sex, like if all cases are the same?

There are, or are you under the impression that all rapists are serving exactly the same sentence, or that terms like "sexual assault" and "statutory rape" don't exist?

The thing is, though, that's not what you're asking for. You're asking for a legal difference between acts based not upon any difference in the act itself, but rather based solely on the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Please, show us the relevant statutes explaining the legal difference between murdering your wife and murdering a stranger, since you seem to believe they exist.

Only for rape? Why, then?

...

I expect a rapist to be tried and punished for the crime of rape. I don't expect there to be a grand journal that declares "Rape = 15 years imprisonment". I expect the judge to take far more factors into account than I'd care to go into, the same as any crime.

But I expect the criminal to be punished for his crime. You seem to have a problem with this.


Not exactly. There are three degrees of murder, plus voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and maybe even more distinctions.

Okay, let's go through this.

Murder and manslaughter are different crimes.

Now, onto murder. The three degrees of murder assess the blameworthiness of the accused. For perspective, Scots law doesn't draw a distinction between "kinds" or murder; the judge takes into account the facts of the case when coming to a decision for a sentence. A spontaneous act of violence doesn't deserve quite the same condemnation as a coldly calculated act.

But they are both murder, and both will result in the accused being punished

See my earlier point about not wanting flat sentencing for every crime? Let's get to that now.

Why, then, should there be only one degree for any kinds of nonconsensual sex, like if all cases are the same?

Rape should be classed as rape. Your punishment should possibly be reduced if there are major, major factors surrounding the act, but you should still always be punished for the act.

So maybe the date-raper gets two years more on his sentence than the spousal-rapist. Maybe not. That's called judicial discretion. The point is, they should both be punished for their crimes.

Basically, your point is null. You still seem to think that we think there's a big book of punishments. "Murder = life, rape = 15 years, theft = 3 years".

Only in your head, sweetie.

So maybe the date-raper gets two years more on his sentence than the spousal-rapist. Maybe not. That's called judicial discretion. The point is, they should both be punished for their crimes.
Basically, your point is null. You still seem to think that we think there's a big book of punishments. "Murder = life, rape = 15 years, theft = 3 years".
No, I don't. I know how it works. But crime classification still makes a difference, in social stigma if nothing else.

Rather, I consider non-violent rape a lesser crime altogether than violent rape (like larceny is a lesser crime than robbery), particularly when it's committed under circumstances where the perpetrator was merely mistaken in assuming consent (example: married) rather than expressly violating it.

Rather, I consider non-violent rape a lesser crime altogether than violent rape (like larceny is a lesser crime than burglary), particularly when it's committed under circumstances where the perpetrator was merely mistaken in assuming consent (example: married) rather than expressly violating it.

Except the marriage case is probably the worst possible example, since it betrays the assumption that if a husband wants sex, then I guess his wife just has to grin and bear it. :rolleyes:

Non-violent rape is still rape. It's been held in the courts that if the man is in the genuine but mistaken belief that the woman is consenting, then the mens rea of rape isn't satisfied, so it's reduced to a sexual assault conviction. But if he's still thinking "Oh well, she don't want it, but I do!" then the bastard is a fucking rapist, non-violent or not.

I don't get what the problem is here. If someone fucks someone who doesn't want it to happen, then they should damn well be punished for it. That you're trying to put up defenses of "Oh, but they were asking for it" and "Oh, but she married him" is just plain disgusting.

No, I don't. I know how it works. But crime classification still makes a difference, in social stigma if nothing else.

Rather, I consider non-violent rape a lesser crime altogether than violent rape (like larceny is a lesser crime than robbery), particularly when it's committed under circumstances where the perpetrator was merely mistaken in assuming consent (example: married) rather than expressly violating it.

There's no such thing as a non-violent rape. If a man penetrates me after I said no, it's violence.

There's no such thing as a non-violent rape. If a man penetrates me after I said no, it's violence.

Bu... but... we can't control ourselves! Its the wimminz fault for having, like, boobs and stuff! :rolleyes:

It's been held in the courts that if the man is in the genuine but mistaken belief that the woman is consenting, then the mens rea of rape isn't satisfied, so it's reduced to a sexual assault conviction.
Which the case with marital rape tends to be, since there's a traditional belief in the society that marriage entitles one to sex.

I don't hold it - I consider marriage itself to be a big load of bollocks which should long have been replaced with a flexible, gay-open, multiple-partner-open, sex-independent civil union.

But many do, especially in the more central parts of a certain country and some other countries.
Which is a reason to consider all except aggravated cases of marital rape a lesser conviction, i.e. sexual assault.


[/QUOTE]That you're trying to put up defenses [...] "Oh, but she married him" [/QUOTE] Not defenses, mitigating factors.
"IDIFTL" is a defense, "We're married" is a mitigating factor.


There's no such thing as a non-violent rape. If a man penetrates me after I said no, it's violence.
The question arises when you haven't exactly said no, though haven't said yes either.

Which the case with marital rape tends to be, since there's a traditional belief in the society that marriage entitles one to sex.

Which is charming, but citing tradition means jack-shit when both the law and public opinion says otherwise. We've been over this already.

Not defenses, mitigating factors.
"IDIFTL" is a defense, "We're married" is a mitigating factor.

The woman withholds consent. The man has sex with her anyway. Whether they're married, related, co-workers or just complete strangers doesn't have anything to do with the crime of rape which is committed.

Or, wait... are you admitting the irrelevence of this argument you've just started?

The question arises when you haven't exactly said no, though haven't said yes either.

If in doubt, keep it out. Seriously. It's not like it's hard not fucking anything that has a vagina.

Given that the Angles were quite effective at conquering most of the British Isles, I'm sure there aren't that many places they don't want to go :D

Or did you mean angels :P

Where angles fear to tread? So... like, circles and stuff?

That answers an interesting question.

If you have sex with a tree in the forest and no one hears anything, is it rape?

Apparently not.

Maybe if they weren't dressed so whorishly, this wouldn't be such an issue...

The trees, I mean.

Indeed. It's a bit like asking whether you'd rather have your eyes gouged out by a friend or an enemy.

Tough. I'd say enemy though, because you'd see it coming. Or, y'know, not, as the case may be.

Which is charming, but citing tradition means jack-shit when both the law and public opinion says otherwise. We've been over this already.
No, it does give a point in cases where there's doubt concerning whether the perpetrator was assuming consent or acting explicitly against the will.

Oh, and so it doesn't look so one-sided, let's view it in the context of f->m rape. It's rare, but it exists too.


The woman withholds consent. The man has sex with her anyway. Whether they're married, related, co-workers or just complete strangers doesn't have anything to do with the crime of rape which is committed. It has, like in many others crime the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim is taken into account. Relationship determines the circumstances.
If nothing else, it serves to establish malice/intention or lack thereof.


[/QUOTE]If in doubt, keep it out. Seriously. It's not like it's hard not fucking anything that has a vagina.[/QUOTE]
It's not about me here. It's about those who haven't kept it out, and now we have decide what punishment they should get.

[I'm personally for limiting punishment for most cases of non-violent rape to a compensatory fine and mandatory sex education - if you know what I mean by the latter.]

The point is that of course women should be appropiately dressed, out of self-repect, but that doesn't mitigate the blame of the rapist at all. Its like wearing your wallet in you back pocket; stupid, but hey, the guy still had a choice. We are not slaves to our instincts, unless of course you think otherwise.

The question arises when you haven't exactly said no, though haven't said yes either.
Let's just assume all women are a default "no". If a woman is walking down the street and she looks hawt, she doesn't want to fuck you, so don't rape her. If your wife is asleep or sick or tired or has a migraine or is sitting in the living room minding her own business, she doesn't want to fuck you. Until you are 100% sure they want to fuck you (be sure to ASK to make sure) just assume they don't and refrain from raping them.

It's really easy. My husband and I have been married for 8 years and he hasn't raped me yet. Even though he finds me attractive, even though I walk naked from the shower to the bedroom, even though he's horny. He just doesn't fuck me when I don't want to.

It's really easy. My husband and I have been married for 8 years and he hasn't raped me yet. Even though he finds me attractive, even though I walk naked from the shower to the bedroom, even though he's horny. He just doesn't fuck me when I don't want to.

That raises something that's always bugged me, actually.

Whenever I hear the whole, "Oh, us guys can't help ourselves sometimes, instincts carry us away!" or "Once you start, you can't stop!" bullshit lines. I physically can't enjoy having sex with my fiancee if I don't think she's enjoying it.

There's been a couple of times when we've been in the middle of things and I've noticed something isn't right, and she'll say that it feels weird, or hurts, or whatever. I stop, then and there, no questions asked, no "Oh, but I'm just getting STARTED!" macho bullshit. I don't think I could keep going if I tried, because I'd know she wasn't happy about it.

That's why I really can't figure it. Sex isn't supposed to be just me getting off with a lot more sweating, it's for both of us.

I just can't figure it, s'all.

Which the case with marital rape tends to be, since there's a traditional belief in the society that marriage entitles one to sex.

I don't hold it - I consider marriage itself to be a big load of bollocks which should long have been replaced with a flexible, gay-open, multiple-partner-open, sex-independent civil union.

But many do, especially in the more central parts of a certain country and some other countries.
Which is a reason to consider all except aggravated cases of marital rape a lesser conviction, i.e. sexual assault.
More non-examples? I have to tell you, using ever more vague examples does not make your argument look less nonsensical.

You have been told this several times. I will tell it to you again, even though I expect you will ignore it as you did the other times:

There is NO expectation that marriage entitles anyone to sex AGAINST THEIR SPOUSE'S WILL, except in countries that do not give legal rights to women.

And even in such countries, rape is still a crime.


Not defenses, mitigating factors.
"IDIFTL" is a defense, "We're married" is a mitigating factor.
No. It is not.

It is not under the law. It is not under society's mores. It is not within the dynamics of the personal relationship.

It. Just. Is. Not.

The question arises when you haven't exactly said no, though haven't said yes either.
"No" is the default condition. If there is no clear "yes," then the "no" must be assumed. If you don't get the "yes," you keep your genitals off the other person. Period. Exactly what about this is so hard for you to comprehend?

Why shouldn't I dress in ways that make me feel attractive? I get harassed when I'm looking dumpy and rumpled.

QFT. I've been sexually harassed when I looked like shit, when I was sick and bundled up in hoodies, etc. I've also NOT been sexually harassed or assaulted when I've gone out in shirt and tank tops. Because some people are assholes who think they have a right to assault women, and some aren't.

Probably. Unless there was some other guy on TV with happy little trees. Maybe that's just how your parents explained the pr0n tapes.

I'm going to go with the former, because I just can't afford that much more therapy.

So you personally would prefer to be raped by an unknown guy in a dark alley, rather than have your boyfriend get on with it one date earlier than you've planned?

I'd rather not get raped. Lucky for me, I live in a world where that's a viable option, but then the men I know are exceptional beings who have somehow managed not to rape me for the past 25 years.

Well, we take sex out of the marriage, now it's completely meaningless.

I think that sums up your whole view of women and sex pretty well.

Like that violent rape by a stranger being a greater degree offense with a greater punishment than non-violent marital rape.

So if a random guy in the street punches me in the face because he's drunk and pissed off, he should receive a harsher sentence than if my boyfriend punched me in the face because he was drunk and pissed off?

No, it does give a point in cases where there's doubt concerning whether the perpetrator was assuming consent or acting explicitly against the will.

Oh, and so it doesn't look so one-sided, let's view it in the context of f->m rape. It's rare, but it exists too.
If you assume consent that means you do not have consent, and if you fuck someone without consent, you are committing rape.

This is starting to remind me of the old Abbott and Costello "Who's On First?" comedy routine. I feel like I should be shouting "Third base!" in response to everything you say, the way you keep chasing around in circles.

www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtm

It has, like in many others crime the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim is taken into account. Relationship determines the circumstances.
If nothing else, it serves to establish malice/intention or lack thereof.
Bullshit. There is no such thing as rape or assault or murder without malice, regardless of how well the perpetrator and victim knew each other. Period. This ridiculous circumstance you fantasize for yourself simply does not exist.



It's not about me here. It's about those who haven't kept it out, and now we have decide what punishment they should get.

[I'm personally for limiting punishment for most cases of non-violent rape to a compensatory fine and mandatory sex education - if you know what I mean by the latter.]
It is about you, since you are clearly promoting your own views.

As for the person who just can't not rape the person they live with, they should be punished for the crime they committed. If they force sex on an unwilling person, then they commit rape, and they should be punished for rape. Done and done.

There is NO expectation that marriage entitles anyone to sex AGAINST THEIR SPOUSE'S WILL, If the spouses don't want to have sex with each other, they should reconsider marrying.

No. It is not.
It is not under the law. It is not under society's mores. It is not within the dynamics of the personal relationship.
It. Just. Is. Not.
You mean the marriage mitigating factor or the IDIFTL legal defense?

"No" is the default condition. If there is no clear "yes," then the "no" must be assumed. If you don't get the "yes," you keep your genitals off the other person. Period. Exactly what about this is so hard for you to comprehend?
The reason you assume that "no" is somehow the default condition, rather than "yes". If I'm driving into a parking zone, there's a space, it's not busy, and there are no notices telling I can't use it, shouldn't I assume a "yes" to whether I can take it?
If it's a "yes by default" with car parking, why not with cock parking?




And even in such countries, rape is still a crime. Only if there's a male witness.

Again, for some strange reason, you operate under an assumption that rape is necessarily and unquestionably a bad thing, while many argue there's a lot of arguments to the contrary.
For instance, here's an article from a big mainstream newspaper detailing some:


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/90/John_Petroski.jpeg

[I'm personally for limiting punishment for most cases of non-violent rape to a compensatory fine and mandatory sex education - if you know what I mean by the latter.]

So now my vagina has a price tag? If my boyfriend has sex with me against my will, instead of making him a rapist it makes me a prostitute? Fine solution.

"No" is the default condition. If there is no clear "yes," then the "no" must be assumed. If you don't get the "yes," you keep your genitals off the other person. Period. Exactly what about this is so hard for you to comprehend?

But things get so complicated when you're in a relationship. People in close relationships share a lot, so if my boyfriend decides to help himself to $40 from my wallet and I get upset, it isn't theft, it's a misunderstanding. We love each other, so he assumed I'd be more than happy to give him the money. And after all, I never said he couldn't take money from me.

That raises something that's always bugged me, actually.

Whenever I hear the whole, "Oh, us guys can't help ourselves sometimes, instincts carry us away!" or "Once you start, you can't stop!" bullshit lines. I physically can't enjoy having sex with my fiancee if I don't think she's enjoying it.

There's been a couple of times when we've been in the middle of things and I've noticed something isn't right, and she'll say that it feels weird, or hurts, or whatever. I stop, then and there, no questions asked, no "Oh, but I'm just getting STARTED!" macho bullshit. I don't think I could keep going if I tried, because I'd know she wasn't happy about it.

That's why I really can't figure it. Sex isn't supposed to be just me getting off with a lot more sweating, it's for both of us.

I just can't figure it, s'all.
Perhaps the problem is that you are not a rapist.