Men's Rights Movement

[Deleted]

The definition also allows any object that isn't a body part to qualify.

New Zealand
Case prompts minister to ask why women can't be charged with rape


GB

She was sentenced to nine months for indecent assault and an additional nine months for intimidation.

Rape in contrast


Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011

(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.

And you ask what is wrong with that?

[Xarkan]

ah. Then you do agree that drunk sex isn't rape regardless of which party is drunk, or if both of them are, so long as the element of consent is there.

More or less, with the disclaimers as stated (and situations similar, knowing a girl is on sleeping pills as described in someones earlier post means you know you should not take advantage of that.) Though almost all issues are resolved if people just keep one rule in mind: "if you feel you are taking advantage then you probably are"

[Velaniz]

More or less, with the disclaimers as stated (and situations similar, knowing a girl is on sleeping pills as described in someones earlier post means you know you should not take advantage of that.) Though almost all issues are resolved if people just keep one rule in mind: "if you feel you are taking advantage then you probably are"

Then we don't disagree.

[Rukentuts]

New Zealand
Case prompts minister to ask why women can't be charged with rape


GB
Rape in contrast


Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011


And you ask what is wrong with that?

If you're going to move the goalposts and then compare statutory rape to sexual assault I'm not going to bother.

- - - Updated - - -

You consider alcohol to be something that undermines one's capacity for rational thought?

Thought? No. Consent? Yes.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference is, the law's on my side

In your source, on mine it's on mine.

[Deleted]

If you're going to move the goalposts and then compare statutory rape to sexual assault I'm not going to bother.

If the penetrator is not the "rapists" its not statutory rape by that definition. I hope that i misunderstand that obviously.

[Rukentuts]

If the penetrator is not the rapists its not statutory rape by that definition. I hope that i misunderstand that obviously.

You're proving my point yet again that you don't know that statutory rape is different. By all means keep reinforcing it.

[Deleted]

You're proving my point yet again that you don't know that statutory rape is different. By all means keep reinforcing it.

im still w8ing on mine for plain normal rape thank you:
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?

[Deleted]

You're proving my point yet again that you don't know that statutory rape is different. By all means keep reinforcing it.

Why do they use different definitions?


Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011

Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim

in comparsion to
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

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.

that leads to this

im still w8ing on mine for plain normal rape thank you:
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?

Law has to cover even such hypothetical improbable cases.

[Endus]

In your source, on mine it's on mine.

If you mean 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.

[Eroginous]

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 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).

I think there's a lesser sexual assault charge for things that don't involve penetration.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Whether or not an individual can take advantage of another individual is not necessarily attributed to physical or mental traits.

[Deleted]

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).

I think there's a lesser sexual assault charge for things that don't involve penetration.

except the law is literal, penetration by the offender means literally that, and if your defense is that her clit goes into the guys mouth thats a stupid contention, and even buying it then fine have the same situation with vaginal sex.
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?

[Deleted]

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).

You are right.
http://sapac.umich.edu/article/189

Sexual Penetration (sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, any other intrusion of a body part or an object into genital or anal openings

[Endus]

Whether or not an individual can take advantage of another individual is not necessarily attributed to physical or mental traits.

Of course it isn't. My point, there, was with regards to the idea that being intoxicated invalidates consent. The argument was that, if a woman's been drinking, she cannot consent. I pointed out that this is necessarily true of both genders, meaning the only possible conclusion is that, for two people who have a drunken one-night stand, each raped the other against their will, simultaneously. Which is, of course, impossible; you can't have sex with someone against their will when they're having sex with you against your will; you're both consenting, by dint of wanting to have sex with each other.

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[Cthulhu 2020]

have i been magically transported into, 2022? or given the "at least" part 2027 ? oh w8 you are just misinformed.
January 06, 2012 the date of the memo´s release.
"the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will", the old definition.
by this very small and obscure thing called the "FBI", never heard of them i think....
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...nition-of-rape

so please link me more 100% of rapists are men thank you, or why don't you link the CDC one, they also uses this definition by the way (and a lot more crazy stuff

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?

[Sorrior]

idk, i kinda think men should suck it up and take what they get for a few million years, like women had to. then we can get to the equal stuff.

Which will lead to bitterness and a backlash and lest face it i don't think anyone wants that...Cause ya know it will just swing totally opposite and possibly result in a worse state of affairs then women have ever had and feelings like welll...Like THIS is real(which it of course is not though some people are feeling like we're heading this way).



- - - Updated - - -

More or less, with the disclaimers as stated (and situations similar, knowing a girl is on sleeping pills as described in someones earlier post means you know you should not take advantage of that.) Though almost all issues are resolved if people just keep one rule in mind: "if you feel you are taking advantage then you probably are"

I once slept with a GF after she'd had something to drink...Only later did i realize how shit faced she was...I literally felt like shit(i have a policy of trying to avoid one night stands in general because i tend to feel like shit afterwards).. She did not blame me and all of that. So question if someone does NOT seem shitfaced at the time and had said things that implied interest earlier is it still rape?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

He should have just hit her right back or something...Of course then abuse would be called and all of that. Really is a fucked up system.

[Endus]

I once slept with a GF after she'd had something to drink...Only later did i realize how shit faced she was...I literally felt like shit(i have a policy of trying to avoid one night stands in general because i tend to feel like shit afterwards).. She did not blame me and all of that. So question if someone does NOT seem shitfaced at the time and had said things that implied interest earlier is it still rape?

It would only be "rape" if she were so far gone she couldn't consent (which is really far gone, like semi-conscious). If she's your GF, it becomes even more of a non-issue, since there's a certain amount of implied consent in a relationship setting (that doesn't make it impossible to rape your GF, but it means one of you trying to wake the other up with sexytime isn't rape).

[Xarkan]

I once slept with a GF after she'd had something to drink...Only later did i realize how shit faced she was...I literally felt like shit(i have a policy of trying to avoid one night stands in general because i tend to feel like shit afterwards).. She did not blame me and all of that. So question if someone does NOT seem shitfaced at the time and had said things that implied interest earlier is it still rape?

Hmm? What part of what you quoted implies that it would be?

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.

[nextormento]

It would only be "rape" if she were so far gone she couldn't consent (which is really far gone, like semi-conscious). If she's your GF, it becomes even more of a non-issue, since there's a certain amount of implied consent in a relationship setting (that doesn't make it impossible to rape your GF, but it means one of you trying to wake the other up with sexytime isn't rape).

As a corollary, I find it pretty sad that anyone in a perfectly normal scenario has to wonder if they committed rape. Or any other felony for that mater. Picturing it is scary: a normal adult finds himself -or herself- pondering how much of a rapist he or she is. Shows how much damage certain people have done to our society and how much information still needs to be divulged. Otherwise we'll keep perpetuating insecurity and shameful feelings in young people that only help to further increase the possibilities of someone growing to be monsters.

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.

[Mihalik]

I ran into this story again today.

I think it is relevant to the topic. This is the clearest and most obvious example of gender bias and male disposability.



Note how the "reporters" say...It was the right thing... The hero thing.

I completely agree. It was the right thing to do! But it is interesting how it is the men sacrificing themselves for the women. This is how our society in general views men. They are expected to put themselves out there and pay the ultimate price.

Please don't tell me you do don't see the correlation between how these people put their lives on the line for their female partners, and how society consistently puts the good of women ahead of that of men, in many areas.