Curious argument

[calamity]

I think most people on this forum would find moral outrage when a girl under 16 years old is raped because, by most people's definition of consensual sex, a girl under 16 cannot give consent, even when the sex is mutual.

Now, I think these numbers are somewhat arbitrary. Is a girl really able to provide consent when she is 16, yet cannot do that when she is 15 or 14?

I do find it curious, that the same people that argue a girl cannot consent to sex under the age of 16 can somehow consent to have an abortion?

Does that make any sense? Legally a girl cannot have consensual sex with an adult yet can abort her fetus without any parental consent or guidance?

Why do you care?

 

[OlNate]

Uh-huh. Does PP also sacrifice babies to Satan in your mind, too?

Bing! And I've got my new sig. Thanks, Gov'ness! :rock

 

[year2late]

There are certainly women who have rape fantasies. But there's a giant ****ing difference between a rape fantasy, and actually being raped.

No kidding. And a rape fantasy is probably a misnomer. In this fantasy is she just having a strong man dominant in the bedroom...or a man REALLY taking her violently against her will or without her ability to consent.

 

[Removable Mind]

Our society praises Kobe Bryant, Rob Lowe, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, etc.... How many liberals attacked the victims of these rapists?

Name individual liberal names who condone such.

At this point I'm almost certain you don't know what rape is.

 

[year2late]

Name individual liberal names who condone such.

At this point I'm almost certain you don't know what rape is.

Funny enough, he is the one that called a rape victim a loser and the rapist a stellar young man.

Interesting he can see a rapist deserving of his Christian forgiveness...yet the woman is relegated to loser territory.

 

[Removable Mind]

Funny enough, he is the one that called a rape victim a loser and the rapist a stellar young man.

Interesting he can see a rapist deserving of his Christian forgiveness...yet the woman is relegated to loser territory.

It's the oddest perspective on rape that I've ever seen. Vilify the victim and praise the offender.

 

[year2late]

It's the oddest perspective on rape that I've ever seen. Vilify the victim and praise the offender.

The oddest thing is that he sees the victim as someone to blame but his "Christan" forgiveness is extended specifically to the perp. Apparently loser rape victims are not deserving.

Again, reminds me of Trump and his McCain POW comments.

 

[Bucky]

THE WORD "ACTUALLY" IS IMPORTANT. I see you listed some folks about which I didn't see you present any evidence to support your claims of actual rape. How would you like to be equally-accused? I will certainly agree that all actual rapists should be punished.

Are you looking for "proof" these women were raped and simply won't take there word for it?

I'm not sure if you remember a poster here by the name of CanadaJohn. He was a big-time Steelers fan and huge Ben Roethlisberger fan. Ben has been accused of rape and eventually settled the case with his accusers. He never stopped rooting for Ben and cited his offense as a lack of maturity.

Do you not remember Kobe Bryant? He admitted to consensual sex however the hotel worker claimed it was non-consensual. They also agreed to a settlement after Kobe Bryant's attack legal team attacked the character of the victim. He served no jail time and is one of the most respected ex-athletes in the world.

If you want to defend these rapists, as well as Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton etc... go ahead. Remember, Brock Turner served jail time, at least.

 

[Removable Mind]

Are you looking for "proof" these women were raped and simply won't take there word for it?

I'm not sure if you remember a poster here by the name of CanadaJohn. He was a big-time Steelers fan and huge Ben Roethlisberger fan. Ben has been accused of rape and eventually settled the case with his accusers. He never stopped rooting for Ben and cited his offense as a lack of maturity.

Do you not remember Kobe Bryant? He admitted to consensual sex however the hotel worker claimed it was non-consensual. They also agreed to a settlement after Kobe Bryant's attack legal team attacked the character of the victim. He served no jail time and is one of the most respected ex-athletes in the world.

If you want to defend these rapists, as well as Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton etc... go ahead. Remember, Brock Turner served jail time, at least.

Yes, people want to assume that folks like Cosby wouldn't commit rape. But that doesn't mean he or other high profile/celebrity accused rapists are being glorified or praised.

Our system of justice says that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Public opinion doesn't rule.

When rape is proven, nobody in their right mind is defending rapists.

Do some women lie about being raped? Yes. But they're the exception not the rule. Law enforcement forensics have legal procedures to follow in rape cases. Like all crimes, evidence is critical.

In the absence of hard evidence, some rapists go free. But also by the lack of evidence - women who do lie - the accused is vindicated.

Rape is often times a difficult crime to prosecute when there's no DNA evidence and the prevailing circumstances aren't clear and concise.

DNA alone doesn't prove a rape occurred. Most rapes are committed by those known to the victim.

Because rape is so often committed by a person known by the victims, a lot of rapes aren't reported because of the fear that they won't be prosecuted. Or that mutual associations will be forced to take sides because - some portion will find it difficult to believe the perpetrator was actually capable of committing rape.

There's an important factor that has to sink in - rape is about brutal control and violence more than it is about sex.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Are you looking for "proof" these women were raped and simply won't take there word for it?

WHY IS THEIR SAY-SO BETTER THAN YOURS? When it can be supported with evidence. Rapists often leave semen samples behind, for example. A woman who claims she was drugged should get a blood sample taken ASAP. Other evidence, like bruises, are not rare. Most of the time, an Actual rape can be Objectively Verified. No one needs to live in a society where anyone can claim, without evidence, that someone caused harm to someone else. (Like abortion opponents claiming doctors target persons with harm, when they do abortions, or claim that pregnant women seek to cause harm to persons, when they seek abortions.) I'm especially reminded of the Stupid Hypocrites who spout Biblical stuff, while simultaneously violating the Commandment against False Witness. Tsk, tsk!

 

[soylentgreen]

At 12 they are making that decision.

No they are not. At 12 most children have not even hit puberty. So they would not be makng those types of decidsions.

 

[D_NATURED]

I think most people on this forum would find moral outrage when a girl under 16 years old is raped because, by most people's definition of consensual sex, a girl under 16 cannot give consent, even when the sex is mutual.

Now, I think these numbers are somewhat arbitrary. Is a girl really able to provide consent when she is 16, yet cannot do that when she is 15 or 14?

I do find it curious, that the same people that argue a girl cannot consent to sex under the age of 16 can somehow consent to have an abortion?

Does that make any sense? Legally a girl cannot have consensual sex with an adult yet can abort her fetus without any parental consent or guidance?

Jeeze, Bucky, you're slow to the punch. Yes, she can consent alone to an abortion because it's still HER body despite how her consent to the use of it, for specifically sexual purposes, is limited by law. If I'm not mistaken, when statutory rape is charged against someone for having sex with a person under 16, it is usually a young teenage girl who is considered a victim of the male. If she is a victim, as you seem to agree, when she is impregnated, if there is no legal way for that to happen, then she should have some victim's rights, including privacy. After all, her parents may be people who would gladly see her body and her life ruined rather than allow her to be rid of the fetus. I'm aware that there are some parents who are that vile and that's who you would empower.


It's one thing to protect a child's sexual development it's another to make them the physical property of their parents. You go too far.

 

[TheGoverness]

If you want to defend these rapists, as well as Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton etc... go ahead. Remember, Brock Turner served jail time, at least.

What the **** does it matter if Brock Turner got jail time? You still sat there (and continue to) and defended him, and called the rape victim a disgusting slut.

 

[calamity]

Listen, Governess, I am more of a feminist than you are. How many employees have you hired? How many female employees have your hired? The women I have hired are plenty happy as I treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve.

That is very hard to believe...perhaps impossible to believe would be better stated. Although, I would bet the house on what you think they deserve is nowhere near what they believe they do. That I am sure of.

I don't see things as black and white as you do. Do you deny women do not have rape fantasies?

Uh, no. Rape is pretty clearly black and white. And, no. Sex play is not the same as rape. Not even close.

As for Brock Turner, where is the proof his "victim" didn't consent? Where is the physical proof of assault? Consensual sex is a hard thing prove and even if the sex was not consensual, there are different levels of sexual assault. Do you lump all people that commit "rape" as monsters? I look at things on a case by case basis.

He was found on top of an unconscious woman. WTF more evidence do you need that she did not consent? :roll:

 

[year2late]

He was found on top of an unconscious woman. WTF more evidence do you need that she did not consent? :roll:

Oh come on...she was probably just working out one of those rape fantasies.

 

[Bucky]

Oh come on...she was probably just working out one of those rape fantasies.

As my friend FutureIncoming said, where is the proof of rape?

 

[year2late]

As my friend FutureIncoming said, where is the proof of rape?

She was unconscious and lacked the ability to consent.

That is why he was convicted.

Do you think that having sex with an unconscious person is rape?

 

[Bucky]

She was unconscious and lacked the ability to consent.

That is why he was convicted.

Do you think that having sex with an unconscious person is rape?

I want to see some facts first.

As such, the case continued on the basis of ‘lesser’ charges: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person; penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object; and penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. In essence, Californian state law defines rape as penetration by the penis. Since that did not occur Turner is a criminal, a sex offender – but he isn’t, according to the law, a rapist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html

 

[year2late]

I want to see some facts first.



Why Brock Turner is not actually a rapist | The Independent

Seriously.....you think penetration of the penis where you draw some sort of line?

If it were your unconscious family member would it matter to you whether they were attacked sexually by a penis or a finger? Seriously?

I get that they differentiate penis vs non penis penetration....

Technicalities aside (fingers vs penis) do you think a person who sexually penetrates an unconscious person is probably deserving of prison time and sex offender status?

 

[Bucky]

Seriously.....you think penetration of the penis where you draw some sort of line?

If it were your unconscious family member would it matter to you whether they were attacked sexually by a penis or a finger? Seriously?

I get that they differentiate penis vs non penis penetration....

Technicalities aside (fingers vs penis) do you think a person who sexually penetrates an unconscious person is probably deserving of prison time and sex offender status?

A finger and a penis are two very different things year2late. Let's just get that clarified immediately.

 

[year2late]

A finger and a penis are two very different things year2late. Let's just get that clarified immediately.

So, if a family member of yours was sexually assaulted with a finger and not a penis......you would breath a sigh of relief and say "thank goodness it was only a finger!"

Sexual assault of an unconscious person is abhorrent and should result in a criminal conviction with sex offender status...calling rape vs attempted rape vs penetration of a foreign object? Technicalities warranting different convictions. But if the person is actually guilty....there should be long term repercussions for all of it.

Clearly California law sets California legal standards.

But just for nonlegal clarification, dictionary.com lists rape as

noun


1.

unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

But yes, it was sexual assault (etc) as far as the law goes in CA

But as far as common usage of the term...it would be rape.

Just not just sure why you seem to think it was really that different because she was assaulted by a finger versus a penis.

 

[Removable Mind]

A finger and a penis are two very different things year2late. Let's just get that clarified immediately.

Not when it comes to the laws regarding rape.

 

[year2late]

Not when it comes to the laws regarding rape.

Actually, the law in CA define rape as with a penis and it would be sexual assault if it were penetration with anything else. (if I read the law correctly)

But morally speaking...what the hell is the difference? I cannot see that a victim would feel less violated if it were a finger penetrating vs a penis.

 

[Removable Mind]

Actually, the law in CA define rape as with a penis and it would be sexual assault if it were penetration with anything else. (if I read the law correctly)

But morally speaking...what the hell is the difference? I cannot see that a victim would feel less violated if it were a finger penetrating vs a penis.

You're absolutely right.

Morally speaking it's not. And now..."sexual assault" has become a broader term for "rape" in a growing number of states.

Rape" has traditionally been defined as "the forced penetration of a woman by a male assailant." Most State laws, however, have abandoned this narrow definition of a sex offense in favor of the more gender-neutral and broader term "sexual assault." This refers to "any genital, oral, or anal penetration by a part of the perpetrator's body or by an object, using force or without the victim's consent" (AMA, 1995).

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=207258

 

[Bucky]

Actually, the law in CA define rape as with a penis and it would be sexual assault if it were penetration with anything else. (if I read the law correctly)

But morally speaking...what the hell is the difference? I cannot see that a victim would feel less violated if it were a finger penetrating vs a penis.

By that definition women cannot be charged with rape because a woman cannot penetrate a man unless it is done with a foreign object or finger through the anus.