Case prompts minister to ask why women can't be charged with rape
GBRape in contrast
Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011
And you ask what is wrong with that?(a) Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) but not more than five (5) years older than the victim.
Last edited by Davillage; 2013-08-08 at 06:38 PM.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
a female orders, at gunpoint, a man to give her head, since no penetration occurs this is not rape according to the definition.
a man orders, at gunpoint, a female to give him head, since penetration occurs it is rape.
but the definition is not sexist?
Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011
in comparsion toMitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim
that leads to thisRape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.
Last edited by Davillage; 2013-08-08 at 07:07 PM.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...25-1/43-51.htm, it doesn't support your argument at all. It makes no statement whatsoever about alcohol consumption negating a woman's ability to consent, nor is it a document detailing the law; it's primarily dealing with the psychology of sexual assault and how alcohol is involved in that, primarily on the part of the aggressor.
It has nothing to do with the issue of consent that we're discussing.
I think the point of contention is that 'penetration by the offender(s)' doesn't specifically mean that only men can rape. It means that the offender has to initiate the penetration, whether it is a man forcing his penis into a woman or a woman forcing herself on a man's penis. And yes, being forced to go down on a woman is rape under this definition (her genitalia is penetrating your mouth).Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.
I think there's a lesser sexual assault charge for things that don't involve penetration.
The problem with the term 'rape' in our culture is that it's automatically associated with violence and intent to violate someone. The actual definition of the word is much less abrasive than that. Rape happens even when there is no violence or intent to violate someone. Your very statement here brings to mind an extremely ridiculous scenario in which two individuals are engaged in a violent act with the intent to violate each other.The difference is, the law's on my side, and your argument leads to ridiculous conclusions, like how every drunken one-night-stand involves two people raping each other against their wills, simultaneously.
It's inconceivable that would ever be a situation two people find themselves in.
The word 'rape' in a situation involving alcohol is actually centered around one's ability to make a rational and well reasoned decision to engage in a particular behavior (consent) and not whether that behavior involved violence or intent to violate. In any normal sober situation, an individual has the ability to change their mind about decisions they've made up to the point where they've followed through with the decided upon behavior.
IE, if I wake up in the morning next to my significant other and we decide to have sex, at any point before and right up until that act is completed, either of us can rationally and reasonably decide they no longer want to have sex. When you involve alcohol, that decision process becomes impaired, more so the more alcohol you drink. It basically boils down the ability to change your mind (or make different decisions) once you've become intoxicated, thus hindering your ability to objectively consent to sex.
That's why it's considered rape. While it's inconceivable that two individuals might violently and intentionally violate each other, it's not inconceivable that two individuals might be unable to reasonably or rationally make a decision about whether or not to engage in sexual activity while under the influence.
Situations where one party is drunk but the other one isn't exacerbate this idea because one person clearly had the ability to make a rational/reasonable decision on behalf of the person who couldn't, and thus could be held accountable for having sex with an individual who was unable to consent (rape).
Whether or not an individual can take advantage of another individual is not necessarily attributed to physical or mental traits.Unless you're making the argument that only men can rape, in which case you're just resorting to outright misandry. Or that women are such fragile flowers that they can't possibly help but be victimized at every turn, which is outright misogyny. But one of those two is really the only way your argument stands up.
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.
penetration by the offender, means that it cant be called rape even at gunpoint, and the lesser assault charge, is demeaning since (duh) its still rape and carries a Much Much lesser sentence.
what parts of that is not sexist?
Sexual Penetration (sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, any other intrusion of a body part or an object into genital or anal openings
Last edited by Davillage; 2013-08-08 at 08:25 PM.
So, the argument that a woman cannot consent and therefore sex with a woman who's been drinking is rape, that must be based on one of two pillars; that men are rapists by default (misandry), or that women are so fragile that they are inherently damaged by sex and would never consent (misogyny).
If you discard that original argument, that any level of intoxication invalidates the ability to consent for women, then you don't need to go into either of those statements. I wasn't professing either, I was bringing them up as obviously biased and ridiculous premises, and showing how they were necessary for my opponent's argument.
None of that means you can't take advantage of another person. It means if they're drunk, and they decide they want to have sex with you, you aren't taking advantage of them.
I really don't like all the double standards in society. A couple of weeks ago, when I was in a restaurant, I saw a couple arguing. The woman was smacking, hitting the guy, insulting him, making quite a scene. The worst part was, some other women in the restaurant even cheered.
If it was a guy doing that, he'd be in cuffs before the second blow hit.
Really, society is messed up. Mens rights and Feminists are both foolish, IMO. All they do is label themselves and start perpetuating the problem than trying to fix it. Neither of them seem to understand that they've both got it rough in different ways, and until that happens, I very much doubt that either group will get the change that they want.
The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) stated that 91% of United States people whose rape accusations resulted in convictions against the accused were female and 9% were male. It also stated that 99% of the people convicted of and imprisoned in response to rape accusations were male, with only 1% of those convicted being female.
This is actual data of accusations and convictions.
You can link me the legal definition of "rape" all you want. Those are the actual conviction statistics. Perhaps it was you that either read wrong or were misinformed, m8?
Last edited by The Batman; 2013-08-08 at 09:52 PM.
The cancer of this world is not SJWs. It is not feminists. It is not white men. It is not Christians. The cancer of this world is hate. The cancer of this world is feminists who hate men. It is SJWs who hate people with opinions. It is white men who hate women and blacks. It is Christians who hate gays. Stop being a hateful person. Just be a person. A person who is kind and does not obsess over hating others. There are feminists, SJWs, white men and Christians who do not hate.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
I think where i was originally going with what i failed to express was that it is possible to pour alcohol on a person until said person does what you say or passes out so you can have your way. That would be rape. If the person does not willingly drink it would also be horrible on other levels even without the rape.
It is possible to take advantage of others doing such a thing to a girl/boy/woman/guy/alien sentient species and then that too would be rape
It is also possible to be shit faced drunk and want sex. Actually want it. Heck it is possible for some people to feel they have to drink courage to even try to ask that specific guy/girl/woman/man/alien sentient plant form for that matter. Having sex with a person that wants sex (and is of an age/maturity to consent to it) tends to not be rape, if that is the case it is .. not rape. Except in some bizarro world.
Now, I'm aware of current motto 'if you feel you're taking advantage you probably are', but in the same line we need to promote something along the lines of 'if you think you're doing the right thing, you probably are'. Positive reinforcement tends to render better behaviors.