Did CO. "Girl" Placekicker Ask For It???

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>>>And that is alreday allowed for in our judicail system, I believe that your claim was that all women who accuse date rape should be charged with a crime. Have you changed your mind?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>The attribution is false.


>>Funny thing Rouser, your words were very different on page four and five of the thread we find these comments by Rouser2

You always seem to miss out on qualifiying words and substitute your own strawman generalizations. I never said "all women".

-- Rouser

Okay, I stand corrected, not the first time, and I doubt the last. I really should get some glasses.

I will ask the question in the vauge manner I should have, but you did sort of answer the question. Which is rather amazing.

Under which circumstances do you still feel that a woman who charges rape should stand trial for a crime and under what charges would you arrest or charges the accuser?

Is that more clear?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>So are you suggesting that Abner L, who has a the handle of toilet plunger shoved up his rectum, he should have just relaxed and enoyed it?

>>And that young woman who had her vagina torn when someone raped her with a baseball bat they should have enjoyed it?


More off point nitwittery. I believe the subject herein is "date rape", not "rape" per se. Not too many people date toilet plungers.


-- Rouser

I suppose a halwit is better than a toatl lack wit.

You seem to feet that rape is some perverted form of sexual events between consenting adults.
The fact that you think a person in a date rape situation should have to endure forcible penetration by another is rather amazing. tell me Rouser , does a date rapist have the right to rape as long as they use some object other than thier penis to forcibly penetrate the victim.

I would be cautious about the nitwittery, lest you continue to label yourself.

So are you perhaps saying that a date rapist has the legal right to use a toilet plunger to penetrate another unwilling human?

One of the arguements in the texas case used the 'she consented to the original act of sex' and there 'anything else that might happen' was a natural consequence of that. So Rouser, what do you think it started as a rather innocent game of 'show me yours' and ended with the young woman being assaulted with a baseball bat.

You might seem to suggest that the act of force upon another is permissible as long as there was sex involved.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2


We can guess that there is no age discrimination on this board. Why don't you retire back to your playpen and let the grownups try to have a grownup discussion?


-- Rouser

Maybe when you stop pinching the ladies in the cafeteria at the retirement castle. Maybe you are Hammegk?

Is that it , are you having a bad day at the bridge tables? Hamme is that you?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Rouser2
We can guess that there is no age discrimination on this board. Why don't you retire back to your playpen and let the grownups try to have a grownup discussion?
-- Rouser Hehe.

I never commented on the grownups' posts. Just yours. :p

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>Do you claim that Scots Law is not based on Roman Law?

No. I claimed that UK law, like US law has its roots in the Common Law. Scotland is a part of the UK and has its roots in Roman law and the Common Law.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>Under which circumstances do you still feel that a woman who charges rape should stand trial for a crime and under what charges would you arrest or charges the accuser?

Already answered that.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>So are you perhaps saying that a date rapist has the legal right to use a toilet plunger to penetrate another unwilling human?


You seem to have a strange fetish for toilet plungers. All of the sick aberrational stuff you are conjuring up has nothing to do with "date rape". "Date Rape" is a subtle, ambiguous description of two friends simply letting things get out of hand. The stuff you are describing is not "date rape" at all but "rape," pure and simple.


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>Do you claim that Scots Law is not based on Roman Law?

No. I claimed that UK law, like US law has its roots in the Common Law. Scotland is a part of the UK and has its roots in Roman law and the Common Law.


-- Rouser

So you admit that Scots Law is based on Roman Law and that you made up a lie about anyone claiming it was "entirely based" on Roman Law - good.

Try and understand that UK law is a meaningless term, like referring to North American Law or Asian Law - you need to specify which legal system you are talking about. Things that are criminal in England are not necessarily in Scotland and vice versa. If you fail to understand (or choose to ignore that) then do not expect to be taken seriously.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>"Date Rape" is a subtle, ambiguous description of two friends simply letting things get out of hand.

-- Rouser

No, date rape is rape - simple as that. At what point in the date do you become entitled to sex and able to take it by force if the girl chooses not to have sex? Everybody else on the thread says never - you appear to have a different answer.

It does not matter if you took a girl out and spent a lot of money buying her dinner and drinks before you force her to have sex against her will - its still rape.

[Edited for typo]

[The Don]

Would goung out with Rouser2 be considered contributory negligence ?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by The Don
Would goung out with Rouser2 be considered contributory negligence ?

Possibly evidence of impaired mental capacity.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>Under which circumstances do you still feel that a woman who charges rape should stand trial for a crime and under what charges would you arrest or charges the accuser?

Already answered that.

-- Rouser

Really, where? You haven't said anything specific about what basis there would be for arrest and a charge.

Not that you aren't a liar already, but here is your chance to prove me wrong. Just point out where in the thread you stated clearly what crime had been committed and what the charge would be.

I await my education.

PS I think this is the same question you didn't answer earlier.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>So are you perhaps saying that a date rapist has the legal right to use a toilet plunger to penetrate another unwilling human?


You seem to have a strange fetish for toilet plungers. All of the sick aberrational stuff you are conjuring up has nothing to do with "date rape". "Date Rape" is a subtle, ambiguous description of two friends simply letting things get out of hand. The stuff you are describing is not "date rape" at all but "rape," pure and simple.


-- Rouser

Funny thing Rouser, you are the one with a sick fetish, since you are the one that thinks rape is just a-ok.

You are now avoiding questions that you can't anwer becauser you aren't smart enough or honest enough to back up your own claims.

An accusation of date rape is not that consensual sex occured and then was regreted by one of the parties involved.

Date rape is forcing sex on another in the context of a casual friendship or in the process of a normal romantic relationship.

You still haven't answered the question about the texas case where the victim was penetrated by a baseball bats, she agreed to participate in taking off her clothes and masturbating the perpetrators. They then raped her with a base ball bat. So is that date rape? It seems to meet most of the vauge criteria that you assign to the notion of rape.

If a victim agrees to watch a movie with someone does that give that other someone the right to force sex upon her?

We have all agreed that sex which is consensual is not date rape, but you seem to think that date rape involves consensual sex. Is beating someone a normal part of sex, it occurs very often in date rape. Is drugging someone until they are unconsious a naormal part of sex, it is another common method of date rape.

Funny thing Rouser, you are very poor at name calling but really poor at answering questions and defending your opinions. Perhaps you are a Turing machine?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>So you admit that Scots Law is based on Roman Law and that you made up a lie about anyone claiming it was "entirely based" on Roman Law - good.

Not at all. It is you who made up the lie that Scots law has no basis in the Common Law.


>>Try and understand that UK law is a meaningless term, like referring to North American Law or Asian Law - you need to specify which legal system you are talking about.

I'm talking about the legal system in the UK which has separate jurisdictions with separate rules, as well as rules and laws in common, all of which are rooted in the Common Law, specifically in regards to the nature of Juries. Get it? Nah!


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>We have all agreed that sex which is consensual is not date rape, but you seem to think that date rape involves consensual sex.


Date rape happens when there are conflicting signals given -- when there is both a yes and a no. If there are not conflicting signals, then it is not date rape, but "rape, rape". And you continue to mix and confuse legal as verus moral issues, deliberately I spose. Or, perhaps you just can't think very clearly.


-- Rouser

[The Don]

I think it's quite clear what Rouser2's opinions are and it's also abundantly clear that there is no argument that will sway him.

I think that we also have to accept that there are a lot of people (all men ?) who feel the same way. For them there is a point (not universally agreed) at which they feel that an offer of sex cannot be withdrawn. At one end of the spectrum there are those who feel that dressing or acting "a bit slutty" is "simply asking for it" and at the other end perhaps those who feel that once permission for penetration has been received it cannot subsequently be withdrawn. Some of these people over time may change their opinions, others may not.

In view of this, the questions I would like to ask (and let us please ignore Rouser2 when he squeals that it's an infringement on natural or common law):

- What is the best way to reach as many of those people who feel that way
- How should the legal process take into account opinions like this (if at all)

In my opinion:

Education should take the form of well publicised cases where date rape has occurred and a conviction has been achieved. The publicity should focus on cases which are particularly bad and/or involve a victim to which the public at large have particluar sympathy or empathy (i.e. a "nice" girl/boy). The perpetrator should also be described (though possibly not named) and if they had previous incidents of sexual assualt or violence then these should be highlighted. Date rape should be portrayed as yet another facet of an abusive person.

The legal system should probably not be changed (lower burden of proof, different rules of evidence) on the grounds that there is highly likely to be (more) miscarriges of justice as a result which wuold serve to discredit any positive work being done towards date rape. Perhaps jurues could be better screened to identify, and eliminate, those people for whom date rape is just something that happens to "that kind of person"

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>So you admit that Scots Law is based on Roman Law and that you made up a lie about anyone claiming it was "entirely based" on Roman Law - good.

Not at all. It is you who made up the lie that Scots law has no basis in the Common Law.


>>Try and understand that UK law is a meaningless term, like referring to North American Law or Asian Law - you need to specify which legal system you are talking about.

I'm talking about the legal system in the UK which has separate jurisdictions with separate rules, as well as rules and laws in common, all of which are rooted in the Common Law, specifically in regards to the nature of Juries. Get it? Nah!


-- Rouser

More lies, Rouser, more lies. I have NEVER said that Scots Law has no basis in Common Law (failure to point out the precise quote where I do so will be taken to be confirmation that you accept you are lying), I said it is based on Roman Law, which is true. For further evidence:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960624/debtext/60624-30.htm

"It is worth briefly setting out the background. There are several important respects in which Scots law is very different from English law. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South knows that Scots law is based on Roman law, whereas the law in England and Wales has a common law base, with each tradition having evolved separately over many centuries. The two legal systems have many striking differences. "

Or

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/index.asp?page=60

"He placed particular emphasis on these cases because of the similarities between South African law based on Roman-Dutch law and Scots law based on Roman law"

"I accept that the South African decisions were of interest as demonstrating the approach taken in analogous situations to the present case in a jurisdiction where the doctrine of conversion is unknown and whose legal system also derives from Roman law."

If you think that all of the rules and laws within the different legal systems in the UK are rooted in Common Law then you are simply wrong - go do some research instead of spouting off about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>In view of this, the questions I would like to ask (and let us please ignore Rouser2 when he squeals that it's an infringement on natural or common law):


An "infringement on natural of common law"???? Your nitwittery has no bounds. I've never made any such nonsensical statement.


-- Rouser

[Jaggy Bunnet]

- What is the best way to reach as many of those people who feel that way
- How should the legal process take into account opinions like this (if at all)

In my opinion:

Education should take the form of well publicised cases where date rape has occurred and a conviction has been achieved. The publicity should focus on cases which are particularly bad and/or involve a victim to which the public at large have particluar sympathy or empathy (i.e. a "nice" girl/boy). The perpetrator should also be described (though possibly not named) and if they had previous incidents of sexual assualt or violence then these should be highlighted. Date rape should be portrayed as yet another facet of an abusive person.

I think there is a risk that this reinforces there belief that it can't be rape if it happens to someone who isn't "nice". I think the cases to emphasise are those where there is a conviction where the defence play the "asking for it" card and the rapist is given a nice long spell to try and get it through their thick skull that no means no.

The legal system should probably not be changed (lower burden of proof, different rules of evidence) on the grounds that there is highly likely to be (more) miscarriges of justice as a result which wuold serve to discredit any positive work being done towards date rape. Perhaps jurues could be better screened to identify, and eliminate, those people for whom date rape is just something that happens to "that kind of person" [/B]

I would agree with the points about burden of proof and rules of evidence. One change I would consider is changing sentencing guidelines to ensure date rape is punished AT LEAST as severely as stranger rape.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>Perhaps jurues could be better screened to identify, and eliminate, those people for whom date rape is just something that happens to "that kind of person"


"Screening" juries defeats the whole notion of Trial by Jury of one's peers. If the common sense judgement of a community of peers carries the notion that in the case of alleged "date rape" the woman may well share some responsibility, then such a sense of a community's values should prevail. "Screening" juries is the same as the court's rigging of juries -- a common practice in the Federal Courts of the United States, unfortunately.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>If you think that all of the rules and laws within the different legal systems in the UK are rooted in Common Law then you are simply wrong


Never made any such statement.

>> - go do some research instead of spouting off about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about.


"Another important source of Scots law is English law, also known as "the Common Law", which of all Western legal systems is the least influenced by Roman law."

-- Univ of Glasgow

http://www.law.gla.ac.uk/scot_guide...de/SOURCES.HTML



This is old ground and your continued harange about Scot's Legal System and Roman Law does not address the original point made which is specifically about the role of juries -- a tradition rooted in English Common Law. Get it??? Nah!


-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I think there is a risk that this reinforces there belief that it can't be rape if it happens to someone who isn't "nice". I think the cases to emphasise are those where there is a conviction where the defence play the "asking for it" card and the rapist is given a nice long spell to try and get it through their thick skull that no means no.
Point taken, perhaps it's just as well I'm not in the Media.Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I would agree with the points about burden of proof and rules of evidence. One change I would consider is changing sentencing guidelines to ensure date rape is punished AT LEAST as severely as stranger rape.
Absolutely

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet [/i]

>>If you think that all of the rules and laws within the different legal systems in the UK are rooted in Common Law then you are simply wrong


Never made any such statement.

Your not even a good liar!

"I'm talking about the legal system in the UK which has separate jurisdictions with separate rules, as well as rules and laws in common, all of which are rooted in the Common Law, specifically in regards to the nature of Juries."

>> - go do some research instead of spouting off about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about.


"Another important source of Scots law is English law, also known as "the Common Law", which of all Western legal systems is the least influenced by Roman law."

-- Univ of Glasgow

http://www.law.gla.ac.uk/scot_guide...de/SOURCES.HTML



This is old ground and your continued harange about Scot's Legal System and Roman Law does not address the original point made which is specifically about the role of juries -- a tradition rooted in English Common Law. Get it??? Nah!


-- Rouser

You do understand the difference between the basis of a legal system and the sources of law, don't you? (Probably not given your earlier demonstrations of ignorance.)

You claimed there was a UK common law legal system and refused to admit you were wrong when presented with the evidence - as you still do.

Glad to see you have accepted you were lying when you said I claimed Scots Law was "entirely based" in Roman Law - at least I assume that's why you are ignoring the question now.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>We have all agreed that sex which is consensual is not date rape, but you seem to think that date rape involves consensual sex.


Date rape happens when there are conflicting signals given -- when there is both a yes and a no. If there are not conflicting signals, then it is not date rape, but "rape, rape". And you continue to mix and confuse legal as verus moral issues, deliberately I spose. Or, perhaps you just can't think very clearly.


-- Rouser

This is so weird, when did forcing someone to have sex become conflicting signals?
It is not a confusion of moral and legal issues, that is some sort of nitwittery as you put it.
Date rape is one person forcing another to participate in a non-consensual act of sex.

If you:
-lock the door and prevent someone from leaving.
-deny them freedom by holding them down.
-coerce sex through the appilcation of physical violence or the threat of physical violence.
-the use of drugs to immobilise or cause the victim to be unconsious, especialy GBH and Ruffies.
then:
it is still 'date rape' but a non consensual act of sex.

You are laboring under the delusion that rape is charged by women who regret the sexual act later. This is not the general case, when most women report a date rape they mention on of the three methods above, which one of those is the result of a mixed signal on the part of the victim?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Really, where? You haven't said anything specific about what basis there would be for arrest and a charge.

Not that you aren't a liar already, but here is your chance to prove me wrong. Just point out where in the thread you stated clearly what crime had been committed and what the charge would be.

I await my education.

PS I think this is the same question you didn't answer earlier.

Still waiting.

[Dancing David]

The legal system should probably not be changed (lower burden of proof, different rules of evidence) on the grounds that there is highly likely to be (more) miscarriges of justice as a result which wuold serve to discredit any positive work being done towards date rape. Perhaps jurues could be better screened to identify, and eliminate, those people for whom date rape is just something that happens to "that kind of person"


The issue for education is one that offends most people, talk about something that they mistake for sex.

In the US plenty of people are offended by a woman breast feeding as though there is something purile or disgusting about a woman feeding her baby. Why?
Because americans mistake breast feeding for sex.

The greatest need for education, is to just talk about things like rape in public and in schools and like suicide it is a huge american taboo. Most people won't talk about it because it makes them uncomfortable.
Perps like Rouser and his Rape Gangsters use this discomfort to hide rape behind jokes and blaming the victim.

The second greatest need is to dispell the myth that rape is something like sex, it is not.

It is forcing another to be penetrated or fondled against thier will. It is not sex, it is an act of violence. It usually involves bruising of the vagina or rectum and frequently the tearing of tissue.
Rouser and his Rapsit Friends seem to think that hurting people is sex.

The third greatest need to to continue the discussion of particulars, and to keep the Screwed Up Butthead that Support Rape from hiding behing smoke screens and innuendo.

Take the Kobe Bryant case, the case will be made on the evidence tha Kobe forced sex upon the accuser. If the allegation that she was bruised in the face and had marks on her wrists that would indicate being forcibly detained are founded and proved, then the case will go forward. It will have nothing to do with the accusers sexual history.

Soo, we must remind the Idiots Who Think Rape is Sex that it is not. Rape is the forcible penetration of another's body and some other disgusting acts. It is not sex, it is violence. It is not passion, it is violence. It is not something enjoyed by the victim it is violence.

And you will notice that Rouser2 is a coward when it comes to talking about the particulars of sex, his(I assume that he is male) Victorian Squemishness is just part of trying to draw attention away from the fact that rape is not sex, it is violence.

As for the jury thing, the main problem in rape cases is the nature of the evidence, most victims never even come forward for help, a crime is very rarely charges and it almost never goes to court.
Then all the Buttheads in the Universe go and tear down the victim and blame her for the acts of another.

So while there are those who say this thread has lost rationality, it also had contained almost every harmful myth about rape, and this has been an avenue for discussing them. And it gives us a chance to say things like:

Rouser are you proud to help rapists? That is what you are doing,
you are helping every teenage footbalplayerrapist who drive a girl out into the middle of nowhere and then rapes her.
You are helping every collegestudentrapist who gets a woman a little drunk and then forces her to have sex by beating the crap out of her.
You are helping every sadistichusband who rapes his wife after yelling at her for six hours.
You are helping every bunchofmorons who gang rape a woman after giving her GBH.

I hope it makes you proud to support and help such people Rouser2, that is what you are doing. It should give you a real feeling of pride. You are a real peice of work Rouser@ and can take comfort that there is no devine retribution waiting for you.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>Rouser are you proud to help rapists? That is what you are doing,


On the contrary, it is you and your head in the sand ilk, who refuse to allow for any responsibility on the part of the female accuser. Thus, it is you and your ilk who aid, abet and encourage the irresponsible actions on the part of women which lead to so-called "date rape". It is your attitude that aids, abets and promotes the very thing you claim you oppose.

>>you are helping every teenage footbalplayerrapist who drive a girl out into the middle of nowhere and then rapes her.
You are helping every collegestudentrapist who gets a woman a little drunk and then forces her to have sex by beating the crap out of her.

And that stuff is not "date rape", but rape pure and simple.


-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Now we see you for the poor deluded poseur that you are Rouser2, you think that all the women who accuse date rape have engaged in consensual sex and just regret it later. And that is a myth generated by you and all your friend who think that rape is fun.

date rape is rape pure and simple, youseem to think that it does not involve the use of force but somehow is a mistaken situation where both parties agree to sex and then one regrets it.

That is where you are wrong Rouser2, date rape is rape, is usualy involves excessive violence and the restraint of the victim. It frequently involves lot of battery and indimidation.

It's not my fault that there are men who are out of control, it is the fault of buttheads like yourself who just gloss over the fact that a rape has occured, a rape pure and simple.
The offenders are just playing on the sympathy of idiots like yourself to get out of commiting a heinous crime.

So women and men should not be able to study togther ? They have to have a chaperone, the problem is th e men who commit date rape Rouser2, rape is not a sexual act it is an act of violnece.

And you are the one who is helping the rapists, I hope it makes you proud. Be sure to tell every woman you know that you support rape.


On the contrary, it is you and your head in the sand ilk, who refuse to allow for any responsibility on the part of the female accuser. Thus, it is you and your ilk who aid, abet and encourage the irresponsible actions on the part of women which lead to so-called "date rape". It is your attitude that aids, abets and promotes the very thing you claim you oppose.

Ah yes, the jokes that minmise and the words that shift blame, but you are sucj a coward that you never answer a question and never say what you mean. Because you are a coward , a coward that hid behind a joke and said that it was okay for a man to rape a woman because he didn't want to wear a condom..

So tell us Rouser2(which you won't because you are a coward afraid of ever saying what you mean):

List five specific behaviors that a woman engages in that make her culpable of aiding a rapist.

You are the one who said it here:

irresponsible actions on the part of women



Lets us see a list of five specific and concrete behaviors that a woman can engage is.

Tell you what I will even offer to discuss them with my coworker who does educaton in the schools about rape.


But you are just a pimp and a ppanderer who supports rape, you just think it is okay for a man to rape a woman in a date situation.


Lets us see list of five behaviors. Specific and concrete.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Lets us see a list of five specific and concrete behaviors that a woman can engage is.

Already done that.

1. Attending an orgy which includes 25 men, one of whom you'd rather not do it with.

2. Working as a prostitute and getting unwanted action past the allotted time.

3. Visiting a stranger who happens to be an NBA star in his hotel room at 2 am in the morning wearing a flimsy black negligee for the alleged purpose of discussing basketball strategy.

4. Ditto the above with your college classmate for the alleged purpose of doing "homework".

5. Seducing your partner and experiencing penetration, then suddenly changing your mind for lack of a condom or for any other reason.


The possible scenarios are endless, and although moral arguments can be made, an honest jury would see the woman as at least partially to blame and simply refuse to convict.


-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Dancing David
(snipped)

So women and men should not be able to study togther ? They have to have a chaperone, the problem is th e men who commit date rape Rouser2, rape is not a sexual act it is an act of violnece.

(snipped) . [/B]

Look DD, I for one am not helping Rouser2's case, and in this case I am not. But rape is not always an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence). There's that difference... a rapist could instead batter a person bloody with their fists, or scare them witless, but instead they choose to pull down their pants enough to engage in sexual contact. They choose to rape.

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Suezoled
But rape is not always an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence). There's that difference... a rapist could instead batter a person bloody with their fists, or scare them witless, but instead they choose to pull down their pants enough to engage in sexual contact.


my god. i can't believe you said that. rape is ALWAYS an act of violence. it just happens to involve sex, too.

if you want to make the case that only women who are beaten are "really" raped, then
well
you need to spend some time with me at the shelter.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Rouser,
what actions make it okay for any person to rape any other person?


If your reading comprehesion were up to 3rd grade level, you would note that nowhere in this thread have I ever said it would be okay under any circumstances for one person to rape another. On the other hand, women can, and do invite rape when they are loose in their actions, dress, words, deeds and compromising situations. You cannot expect to visit Kobe Bryant, or Mike Tyson or Bill Clinton at 2 am in the morning wearing a negligee, expecting to maybe just fool around for a while, and then take no responsibility when something more extreme takes place. It's called taking some responsibility for your own actions. Women are not always just a victim. Sometimes, in fact, they are the perps.

-- Rouser

It's time to play:

SPOT THE HYPOCRITE!

Who said?:

And that is why it is not a right. You cannot place obligations on me without my permission. That is a trespass.

Funniest answer wins a week in Pyhrro's broom closet.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Look DD, I for one am not helping Rouser2's case, and in this case I am not. But rape is not always an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence). There's that difference... a rapist could instead batter a person bloody with their fists, or scare them witless, but instead they choose to pull down their pants enough to engage in sexual contact. They choose to rape.

Uhm, lets see, someone forces thier penis into another person's vagina, it is the sexual act but is done violently. There is no difference, are you saying that a woman is going to be aroused in a rape situation and that penetration is going to be easy or friendly?

You are helping Rouser by the way. have you ever talked to rape victim, I have never met one who felt that it was a sexual act other than in name. It is generaly forceful, painful and involves at least bruising if not tearing of tissue.

But if you want to see rape as something other than an act of violence, i just ask you to think about it, How would you feel if someone fortced a sexual act upon you?

Rape by definition is always an act of violence and a violation of a person.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Rouser2
1. Attending an orgy which includes 25 men, one of whom you'd rather not do it with.

2. Working as a prostitute and getting unwanted action past the allotted time.

3. Visiting a stranger who happens to be an NBA star in his hotel room at 2 am in the morning wearing a flimsy black negligee for the alleged purpose of discussing basketball strategy.

4. Ditto the above with your college classmate for the alleged purpose of doing "homework".

5. Seducing your partner and experiencing penetration, then suddenly changing your mind for lack of a condom or for any other reason.


The possible scenarios are endless, and although moral arguments can be made, an honest jury would see the woman as at least partially to blame and simply refuse to convict.


-- Rouser [/B]

I disagree wholeheartedly.

While these are choices that a woman would obviously be foolish to make, it does not take away any of the criminal responsibility if at any point things are being done to her that she did not consent to.

I may find, as a juror, that due to some of these details I am not convinced that it was without her consent...

But if I was convinced it was without consent I would not "blame" her for the outcome and remove some of the culpability from her attacker.

Let's take these one at a time... and let me explain what it sounds like you're saying...

1. Are you saying an "honest juror" would conclude that attending a group sex party constitutes consent to have intercourse with anyone encountered there? Or that because someone is promiscuous, that consent can legally be assumed?

2. That because somoene is a prostitute, they lose the right to control when consent begins and ends?

3 and 4, That because someone wants to engage in some kind of sexual activity, they consent to intercourse? There are many levels of intimacy in this situation...

5. That once intercourse has begun, consent to continue is automatic?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>Lets us see a list of five specific and concrete behaviors that a woman can engage is.

Already done that.

1. Attending an orgy which includes 25 men, one of whom you'd rather not do it with.

that one makes sense, if you particpate in an orgy then you will have little control of the situation.

What if someone male or female says "Stop, I want to get out!" and then is not permitted to do so. But I agree participating in an orgy is a risky behavior.


2. Working as a prostitute and getting unwanted action past the allotted time.

Yes that is a risky profession, but the crime is still non-consensual, just like writing a check that you don't have money to cover.


3. Visiting a stranger who happens to be an NBA star in his hotel room at 2 am in the morning wearing a flimsy black negligee for the alleged purpose of discussing basketball strategy.

So a negligee is an invitation to rape, I suppose, except I did used to deliver pizzas and ofetn people anwered the door in thier night clothes , I never raped them. But I guess that is a risky behavior.

Question: Does a man have the right to rape his wife because she wears a negligee?


4. Ditto the above with your college classmate for the alleged purpose of doing "homework".

So you are saying that a negligee is an invitation to rape, what if you wear one?


5. Seducing your partner and experiencing penetration, then suddenly changing your mind for lack of a condom or for any other reason.

No that is still rape by legal deifinition in Illinois, the withdrawl of consent may occur at any time.



The possible scenarios are endless, and although moral arguments can be made, an honest jury would see the woman as at least partially to blame and simply refuse to convict.


-- Rouser

So far we have that woman who wants to avoid date rape should:
1. Not participate in an orgy.
2.Not be a prostitue.
3.Wearing a negligee at 2:00am, with a memebr of the NBA.
4.Wearing a negligee a 2:00 am in a college dorm room.
5. Not having the right to withdrawl consent to intercourse, even if the issue is use of a condom.


Well Rouser2, this takes the cake, most date rape does not involve an orgy, at least not that i have ever heard of. And I have never heard of a protitute accusing date rape in any situation.

I think it would be really interesting if you could tell me why these two have anything to do with date rape, other than an alleged sexual act?

3&4 I disagree, a woman wearing a negligee does not entitle another to force sex upon them , but I cans ee where you might think that gives a man the right to rape a woamn. I don't.

Does a man have the right to rape his wife because she wears a negligee? Or because she takes a shower?


5 is just boneheaded and shows your to be immoral as well as amoral, the withdrawl of constent is the withdrawl of consent. I suppose this means that if you start sex with a transvestite, you then don't have the rioght to withdrawl consent when you find out they are really a man. that is what you just agreed to, that the transvestite has the right to finish the sexual act.


How often do you feel that nay of these five behaviors are involved in date rape?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Uhm, lets see, someone forces thier penis into another person's vagina, it is the sexual act but is done violently. There is no difference, are you saying that a woman is going to be aroused in a rape situation and that penetration is going to be easy or friendly?

You are helping Rouser by the way. have you ever talked to rape victim, I have never met one who felt that it was a sexual act other than in name. It is generaly forceful, painful and involves at least bruising if not tearing of tissue.

But if you want to see rape as something other than an act of violence, i just ask you to think about it, How would you feel if someone fortced a sexual act upon you?

Rape by definition is always an act of violence and a violation of a person.

Did I say a victim was going to be aroused? Let me answer: arousal CAN occur. It does not often, but sexual contact is and can be stimulated by manipulation of the clitoris. In fact, some rapists use the "but she had an orgasm" statement to say they didn't rape a person, and that she was willing. They will deliberately try to bring a person to orgasm they can destroy an accuser's credibility if they get caught.

And I AM A RAPE VICTIM. Have you ever talked to psychiatrists, pyschologists, researchers, and social workers trained and experienced in sexual assault? I have. I worked with them, I questioned them. The public is told rape is a crime of violence and NEVER sex, but there are times when rape is a crime of forceful dominance through sex that does not always utilize phycical violence.

bug_girl said:
my god. i can't believe you said that. rape is ALWAYS an act of violence. it just happens to involve sex, too.

if you want to make the case that only women who are beaten are "really" raped, then
well
you need to spend some time with me at the shelter.

Please don't strawman me. I didn't say women who are beaten are the only rape victims.

We as the public are told rape: it's always an act of violence. But you don't have to beat someone to declare them a rape victim. (Yes, I agree totally.) But then saying it's ONLY a crime of violence, or ALWAYS a crime of violence without sex... that is misleading. That is what I was disputing.

[Suezoled]

and in case anyone is wondering, no I was not raped to orgasm, though one guy tried, but he couldn't seem to figure out where the clitoris was... which I am thankful for.

[Dancing David]

Suezoled,
I guess I tripped your trigger, I think you may need some education of the continum of violence but i will avoid returning your ******* tone.
Rape is the sexual act in the contest of violence and coersion, only a fool would think that any of us except for Rouser2 had said otherwise.
Violence is a continum, it starts with hard stares and other physical posturing, goes through verbal taunts and yelling,intimidation, battery, throwing objects, onto things best labels as 'torture' like choking and drowning, burning, scalding and up to murder.
Many times victims of violence will say "well, they did not hit me", but there is still some level of violence on the continum, especialy indtimidation and restraint.
And while a rape may involve the act of sexual penetration and even an arousal response on the part of the victim(male/female) there is going to be the context of violence and it will be the dominant factor in rape.

Thanks Suezoled, you have really just muddied the water and made every point that Rouser2 could have asked for, and to what point?
Just so you can shout that you are a rape victim? Me too, so what? What does that have to do with Rouser2?

Is rape an act of violence?

Why do you think rape is not violence? I will try to be patient but I am at my wit's end, are you saying that rape that has the sexual arousal of the victim is not violence? This is a very slippery slope and the one that most child abusers tend to use in thier defense.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Suezoled,
I guess I tripped your trigger, I think you may need some education of the continum of violence but i will avoid returning your ******* tone. my {bleep} tone? What tone? You're reading something that is not there.

Rape is the sexual act in the contest of violence and coersion, only a fool would think that any of us except for Rouser2 had said otherwise.
Violence is a continum, it starts with hard stares and other physical posturing, goes through verbal taunts and yelling,intimidation, battery, throwing objects, onto things best labels as 'torture' like choking and drowning, burning, scalding and up to murder.
Many times victims of violence will say "well, they did not hit me", but there is still some level of violence on the continum, especialy indtimidation and restraint.
I said: But rape is not always an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence). There's that difference... a rapist could instead batter a person bloody with their fists, or scare them witless, but instead they choose to pull down their pants enough to engage in sexual contact. They choose to rape.
in response to your statement: So women and men should not be able to study togther ? They have to have a chaperone, the problem is th e men who commit date rape Rouser2, rape is not a sexual act it is an act of violnece.

although I mistyped the statement and it should have read: but rape is not always just an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence).

*...geez... the trouble I get into when I'm in a hurry....*

Dancing David goes on to say:

And while a rape may involve the act of sexual penetration and even an arousal response on the part of the victim(male/female) there is going to be the context of violence and it will be the dominant factor in rape.

Thanks Suezoled, you have really just muddied the water and made every point that Rouser2 could have asked for, and to what point?
Just so you can shout that you are a rape victim? Me too, so what? What does that have to do with Rouser2?

Dancing David, I seriously doubt I muddied any waters. Rouser2 isn't going to score an victories from this. And I stated the fact I was raped because you had said How would you feel if someone fortced a sexual act upon you? which I replied to before I saw my typo. (smacks forehead) I was replying I did have experience, and not simply personal, but personal as well.

Dancing David goes on to say:

Is rape an act of violence?

Why do you think rape is not violence? I will try to be patient but I am at my wit's end, are you saying that rape that has the sexual arousal of the victim is not violence? This is a very slippery slope and the one that most child abusers tend to use in thier defense.
A few years ago, there was a politician who was campaigning in New York, local guy. He stated publically that a woman or man who was stimulated to orgasm and then claimed rape could not really be raped. There was a small public outcry, and that statement pretty much ruined his career. But it was a misconception like that many people buy into. As I said before, many rapists use the statemement "but she orgasmed" as an defense for rape, pretty much implyin orgasm= consent.

I have already said rape is not just an act of violence alone, but also an act of sex. Regardless, it is still rape. Rape without beating is rape. Rape even with orgasm is rape. Rape for the sake of rape is rape.

In other words David, I am agreeing with you. I worded my initial statement poorly and was in a hurry. Sorry.

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I am overareacting, the shelter is very full this week and Rouser just sets my teeth on edge.(Anybody with DV experience want to move to the flatest part of Illinois? We just lost two staff memebers this week!)

I am less suffering from diminished intellectual capacity and I am very sorry to be so freaky.

I am sorry for getting bent out of shape and weird, I apologise and will try to be more civil.

I am also still sorry that ian is a bully. ;)

[Suezoled]

ya know... I would think... I could do something right after two tries: let me try again:

although I mistyped the statement and it should have read: but rape is not always just an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence).

although I mistyped the statement and it should have read: but rape is not always just an act of violence, but can be an act of sex (and can be accompanied by violence).


goin' back under my rock now...

ps: Dancing David: it was a misunderstanding that I started. No worries.

[BillyTK]

Wouldn't it be better to say that rape is a form of violence by its very nature, regardless of whether other forms of violence are used in its commission?

Anyway -
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It's time to play:

SPOT THE HYPOCRITE!

Who said?:

And that is why it is not a right. You cannot place obligations on me without my permission. That is a trespass.


Well, I don't know, but I look forward to them explaining how this only applies to males.

[Dancing David]

SL,
I was way of fbase, you owe me no apologies.

[Skeptic]

Oh, and that joke (in various guises) has been around forever. Somehow, it never improves with age.

It isn't a joke, but a shrewed strategy (if you can handle it).

The idea is that 90% of rapists are people who cannot handle any sort of consensual sex, so that offering agressively to "do it" would stop them in their tracks and cause them to lose interest.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Oh, and that joke (in various guises) has been around forever. Somehow, it never improves with age.

It isn't a joke, but a shrewed strategy (if you can handle it).

The idea is that 90% of rapists are people who cannot handle any sort of consensual sex, so that offering agressively to "do it" would stop them in their tracks and cause them to lose interest.

Consider that many rape victims don't come forward. Many rapists are not prosecuted, much less convicted. Fewer still are the men who report being raped, and in some states male sexual assault is not even considered a crime.

So what I am wondering is, where did this "90% of rapists" idea come from?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>5. Seducing your partner and experiencing penetration, then suddenly changing your mind for lack of a condom or for any other reason.
>>No that is still rape by legal deifinition in Illinois, the withdrawl of consent may occur at any time.


A nice little bit of alleged wording that offers little legal protection such as in the afore suggested scenarios. But the Law is not what the Legislature writes, nor what the Governor signs, nor what the Courts uphold. The "Law" is what 12 citizen Jurors say it is, or what one citizen Juror says it is not.

-- Rouser

[gnome]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]


>>5. Seducing your partner and experiencing penetration, then suddenly changing your mind for lack of a condom or for any other reason.
>>No that is still rape by legal deifinition in Illinois, the withdrawl of consent may occur at any time.


A nice little bit of alleged wording that offers little legal protection such as in the afore suggested scenarios. But the Law is not what the Legislature writes, nor what the Governor signs, nor what the Courts uphold. The "Law" is what 12 citizen Jurors say it is, or what one citizen Juror says it is not.

-- Rouser

Fine... you're on the jury. How would YOU see that situation?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Consider that many rape victims don't come forward. Many rapists are not prosecuted, much less convicted. Fewer still are the men who report being raped, and in some states male sexual assault is not even considered a crime.

So what I am wondering is, where did this "90% of rapists" idea come from?

I should have clarified my point.

I meant to say that it's a COMMON BELIEF that most rapists are like that, and a woman pretending to agree to the rapist's demands under this theory (that then he will lose interest) might avoid the rape.

Perhaps it's a wrong belief.

[Skeptic]

But the Law is not what the Legislature writes, nor what the Governor signs, nor what the Courts uphold.

Candidate for "most absurd statement of the year", from our resident loon.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DD
>>No that is still rape by legal deifinition in Illinois, the withdrawl of consent may occur at any time.

[i[Originaly posted by Rouser2[/i]
A nice little bit of alleged wording that offers little legal protection such as in the afore suggested scenarios. But the Law is not what the Legislature writes, nor what the Governor signs, nor what the Courts uphold. The "Law" is what 12 citizen Jurors say it is, or what one citizen Juror says it is not.

-- Rouser [/B]

On your first sentence;
You are correct in saying that person who participates in an orgy or in protitution is unlikely to find any protection in the law.

But the withdrawl of consent was specificaly put in place to make clear that the situation Person A forces the contnuation of interosurse after intercourse had begun is rape if the forcing of the sexual act occurs against the stated wishes of the PersonB. So yes a person who forces unprotected sex upon another is guilty opf rape, and in fact if they are HIV positive there is a whole other category of crime they can be charged on.

And your point about juries is well taken, I doubt that either you or I would make it into the jury box in a rape case, the screening process would weed us out and the defense or prosecution would most likely strike us from the jury pool.

I still don't see what orgies or protitution has to do with date rape, although the wearing of a negligee at least makes a mite of sense.

So does a husband have the right to rape his wife when she wears a negligee.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>So does a husband have the right to rape his wife when she wears a negligee.


There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage, the feminist's view to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>So does a husband have the right to rape his wife when she wears a negligee.


There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage, the feminist's view to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

That is the most retarded statement I have ever read on this forum.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Skeptic


I should have clarified my point.

I meant to say that it's a COMMON BELIEF that most rapists are like that, and a woman pretending to agree to the rapist's demands under this theory (that then he will lose interest) might avoid the rape.

Perhaps it's a wrong belief.

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

Unfortunately, while rape is not always just a crime of violence and can also be a crime of sex, it is not a crime of just sex. (did I say that okay? no misunderstandings?)
Many rapists are found to engage in concensual sex, some have significant others or are married.
Also, if a victim follows up on charges, the defense could say "well she/he said it was okay" thus making it harder to convict.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>So does a husband have the right to rape his wife when she wears a negligee.


There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage, the feminist's view to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

...BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

sorry. Just had to get that out of me.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


I should have clarified my point.

I meant to say that it's a COMMON BELIEF that most rapists are like that, and a woman pretending to agree to the rapist's demands under this theory (that then he will lose interest) might avoid the rape.

Perhaps it's a wrong belief.

It is a wrong belief.

People who train women in self-defence say, whatever you do, don't cooperate. A rapist knows he is breaking the law, and would prefer an easily-cowed victim. Making a fuss makes the potential victim a difficult target. It's similar to a home with bars, alarms, etc: Sure, it won't be 100% proof against burglary, but the burglar isn't going to pick a difficult house over an easy one.

One example that was cited by one of these self-defence trainers was the case of the horrendous gang rape/torture/murder of Anita Cobby. The people (if I may call them that, though 'animals' is probably more appropriate) who committed the crime attempted to abduct another woman earlier the evening of the crime. This woman kicked, screamed, made a fuss, and the group of people who were committing the crime fled, to find Anita later on.

As he put it, "Now, we don't know if Anita caused a fuss as well. The only people who know that aren't telling. What we do know is that one woman saved her own life by making sure she didn't cooperate and go along quietly."

[gnome]

Originally posted by Rouser2
There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage, the feminist's view to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

Great! And if a wife resists, how much force is the husband allowed to use?

A proponent of legalized battery, folks! Anyone have space for this quote in their sig line?

You get the JK of the year award!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Dancing David [/i]

>>So does a husband have the right to rape his wife when she wears a negligee.


There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage, the feminist's view to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- Rouser

Very interesting Rouser2, and how do you reach that conclusion. Is his forcing his penis in her vagina or mouth not rape. Even if she yells no and runs away and tries to stop him?

How does that get to not be rape? Or are you saying that forcing sex on someone is not rape if they are married?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Very interesting Rouser2, and how do you reach that conclusion. Is his forcing his penis in her vagina or mouth not rape. Even if she yells no and runs away and tries to stop him?

How does that get to not be rape? Or are you saying that forcing sex on someone is not rape if they are married?

Inquiring minds want to know!


There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage. There IS such a thing as battery. A "normal" sexual relation is not battery, but if refused, amounts to, in effect, a Breach of Contract.


-- Rouser

[DavidJames]

?There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage. There IS such a thing as battery Please provide legal references for your asseration.

A "normal" sexual relation is not battery, but if refused, amounts to, in effect, a Breach of Contract. Please explain, what contract

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2



There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage. There IS such a thing as battery. A "normal" sexual relation is not battery, but if refused, amounts to, in effect, a Breach of Contract.


-- Rouser

I am not the one who mentioned battery per se, I did mention forcing sex upon your marital partner.

But your true colors show Ruser the Rapist, you do think that it is Okay for a man to Rape his wife.

Which makes you an ass, self evident.

There is no sexual contact in marriage vows. But I am sure that we all see you as the slave owning chauvinist that you are.

Rouser supports Rape in Marriage. Rouser excuses Rape in Marriage.

Rouser is an idiot.

The contract reads 'love honor and cherish' I don't recall the part that says, submit to sex against your will.

OH, well so if the husband forces a toilet plunger into his wife's anus, you think that is legal.

Please stand in the street in front of my house so we can discuss the liablility of you getting run over.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Rouser2

There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage. There IS such a thing as battery. A "normal" sexual relation is not battery, but if refused, amounts to, in effect, a Breach of Contract.


-- Rouser

You're dodging the issue. Of course a normal, consensual sexual relation is not rape or battery. If a wife does not wish to have sex with her husband, and the husband forces her to, what act has the husband committed, and should it be a crime?

Don't let me put words in your mouth, speak to this point, directly, yourself. If you continue to dodge it, you make it sound like you are obliquely condoning the use of force in this situation. If you do, say so and take your lumps, don't be a coward. And if you don't, make yourself more clear.

[Bjorn]

Rouser, it has been (incredibly) 8 pages of this now, and not a single poster agrees with you.

I know very well that Ibsen stated 'the majority is never right', but don't you somehow start to think that maybe you're wrong? Intelligent people of both genders disagree with you 100%, while you keep on defending rape, blaming the victim.

Who hurt you so much? Was your father, or brother, or you, a rapist? Or a rape victim? I usually don't care too much about what people think, but rape is a crime.

I certainly hope you never have a girl in your home/house/trailer after dark, unless she knows how to kick .... well, the opposite of a@@. :(

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2



There is no such a thing as "rape" in marriage. There IS such a thing as battery. A "normal" sexual relation is not battery, but if refused, amounts to, in effect, a Breach of Contract.


-- Rouser

I'm stunned. This may be the dumbest Rouser2 legal claim yet.

Marital rape has a shameful history in our law, but is now illegal in all 50 states:



Much of the scholarly attention that has been given to marital rape has emerged from the legal community. This has occurred because throughout the history of most societies, it has been acceptable for men to force their wives to have sex against their will. The traditional definition of rape in the United States most commonly was, "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent" ( Barshis, 1983 , p. 383). As Finkelhor and Yllo ( 1985 ) have argued, this provided husbands with an exemption from prosecution for raping their wives-a "license to rape" (See Drucker, 1979 ; Eskow, 1996 ; and Sitton, 1993 , for a discussion of the marital exemption). The foundation of this exemption can be traced back to statements made by Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice in 17th century England. Hale wrote, "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract" (quoted in Russell, 1990 , p.17). This established the notion that once married, a woman does not have the right to refuse sex with her husband. This rationale remained largely unchallenged until the 1970's when some members of the women's movement argued for the elimination of the spousal exemption because it failed to provide equal protection from rape to all women ( Bidwell & White, 1986 ; Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985 ).

On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes


http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This may be the dumbest Rouser2 legal claim yet.

Marital rape has a shameful history in our law, but is now illegal in all 50 states:

Just call him "a traditionalist".
:rolleyes:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tricky

Just call him "a traditionalist".
:rolleyes: The sad thing is, he might be a dangerous traditionalist. Not giving an inch on 'date-rape' he makes me think he could do it/has done it. :(

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tricky

Just call him "a traditionalist".
:rolleyes:

The scary thing is that he's right if we go back just 30 years.

As of 7 years ago in West Virginia a violent rape of a spouse was punished much less severely than a violent rape of a non-spouse. One of my classmates in law school authored the bill that changed that. I did some research and found that the history of sexual criminal law is quite disturbing.

I wrote a white paper about repealing the "seduction" statute still on the books here. It allows a father to sue anyone that has consensual legal sex with his daughter out of wedlock. It was a pretty clear leftover from the days where women were pretty much legally considered property, and considering the history of the law in question I thought maybe someone would find it embarassing and sponsor a bill to repeal the thing. No such luck.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>>Marital rape has a shameful history in our law, but is now illegal in all 50 states:



The author defines marital rape as sexual intercourse via the use of force. Force means battery. It's a fine point, but merely having sex with one's wife without force (battery) is not rape, the alleged laws of the 50 states to the contrary notwithstanding. The Common Law and Common Sense prevails at any jury trial and just try to tell a jury to convict a husband for having non-forcefuil intercourse with his wife. Good luck.

-- Rouser

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]


>>Marital rape has a shameful history in our law, but is now illegal in all 50 states:



The author defines marital rape as sexual intercourse via the use of force. Force means battery. It's a fine point, but merely having sex with one's wife without force (battery) is not rape, the alleged laws of the 50 states to the contrary notwithstanding. The Common Law and Common Sense prevails at any jury trial and just try to tell a jury to convict a husband for having non-forcefuil intercourse with his wife. Good luck.

-- Rouser

We have a phrase in Australia for those who think they know legal issues based on conversations they've had at the local pub. We call 'em "Bush Lawyers" (not after George W, though maybe it should be...). Here (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p045.htm) is one definition of 'force', legally speaking:

PHYSICAL FORCE - Physical action against another, and includes confinement. 18 USC

I assume '18 USC' is a reference. Those more learned in the legal field may correct me- I don't pretend to be an expert on the US legal system unlike some people I could name.

[Mr Manifesto]

Another definition (http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/870135.htm)

The trial court was apparently unaware, and neither attorney brought it to the court's attention, that for purposes of Title 12.1, N.D.C.C., the term "force" is defined under Section 12.1-01-04(11), N.D.C.C., to mean "physical action."

I don't know where R2 got 'battery' from, though I suspect it's an orifice specialised in waste elimination.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


We have a phrase in Australia for those who think they know legal issues based on conversations they've had at the local pub. We call 'em "Bush Lawyers" (not after George W, though maybe it should be...). Here (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p045.htm) is one definition of 'force', legally speaking:



I assume '18 USC' is a reference. Those more learned in the legal field may correct me- I don't pretend to be an expert on the US legal system unlike some people I could name.

Each state is going to define it differently. West Virginia uses "forcible compulsion", which means:

§61-8B-1. Definition of terms.
In this article, unless a different meaning plainly is required:
(1) "Forcible compulsion" means:
(a) Physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; or
(b) Threat or intimidation, expressed or implied, placing a person in fear of immediate death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another person or in fear that he or she or another person will be kidnapped; or
(c) Fear by a person under sixteen years of age caused by intimidation, expressed or implied, by another person who is at least four years older than the victim.
For the purposes of this definition "resistance" includes physical resistance or any clear communication of the victim's lack of consent.


All cites from http://129.71.164.29/wvcode/61/masterfrm2frm.htm

Just for fun lets look at battery (W.Va Code 61-2-9) and see if they are the same:

(c) Battery -- If any person unlawfully and intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another or unlawfully and intentionally causes physical harm to another person, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in jail for not more than twelve months, or fined not more than five hundred dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment.

The battery definition is pretty standard, and really isn't equal to any reasonable definition of force. You can force someone to do something without committing a battery, namely by threatening a battery if the person doesn't do as you direct.

His claim about common law and common sense is pretty much jibberish. A legislative stautue trumps the common law, and the juries are instructed to follow said law. It is a fact that due to our double jeopardy and right to a jury trial constitutional provisions that as a practical matter a jury can if it wishes accquit a defendant even in the face of overwhelming proof of guilt. However, the defendant has no right to have the jury instructed as to this fact, nor can the defendant directly argue that a jury should do this.

Then there is the fact that I have seen case files where husbands have been found guilty of raping their wives in situations where no battery took place (in fact, in one case the jury accquitted the defendant on a battery charge while convicting on 3 counts of rape), so I'm skeptical of R2's claims of it being impossible.

[Troll]

It has probably been said already ( if not then something is wrong), but who freaking asks for rape? A little discomfort because of male jokes maybe, hell I don't go to a hip-hop club and then whine about the music they play, so she had to expect some stuff she may not particularly like or agree with, but then that is an assumption on my part because I've known plenty of women that can make some pretty distasteful jokes on their own. She didn't ask for rape

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly [/i]

>>His claim about common law and common sense is pretty much jibberish. A legislative stautue trumps the common law,

Ah, just like the Fugitive Slave laws, eh?

>> and the juries are instructed to follow said law.

If they so choose to listen.

>> It is a fact that due to our double jeopardy and right to a jury trial constitutional provisions that as a practical matter a jury can if it wishes accquit a defendant even in the face of overwhelming proof of guilt. However, the defendant has no right to have the jury instructed as to this fact, nor can the defendant directly argue that a jury should do this.


It is indeed a fact that the Supreme Court has ruled such. But nonetheless, juries do indeed have the "right" to be instructed of their right to ignore the law if they so choose, and base their verdict on their own conscience and sense of justice, the Supreme Court's rulings to the contrary, notwithstanding. And if a wife is fornicated by her husband, against her wishes, but without violence or battery, I don't think too many common sense juries would convict.


-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Rouser2



The author defines marital rape as sexual intercourse via the use of force. Force means battery. It's a fine point, but merely having sex with one's wife without force (battery) is not rape, the alleged laws of the 50 states to the contrary notwithstanding. [/B]

That is very funny Rouser2, there are ways to force someone that don't meet the defintition of battery, the first would be 'restraint' which has a very broad legal defintiton, then there would be the threat of battery or harm to another.

By your defintition a man could rape his wife by threatening to shoot her and in fact he can fire the gun to intimidate her as long as the bullets don't strike her.

So is it rape if a man forces his wife to have sex with him through battery?

[Dancing David]

And if a wife is fornicated by her husband, against her wishes, but without violence or battery, I don't think too many common sense juries would convict.

I am glad to see you back off your stupid stance a little.

When I use the phrase 'force another to have sex against thier will', force in this context implies violence. Your former stance was very stupid.

Juries do all sorts of things but unfortunately heraing rape cases is generaly not one of them.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The battery definition is pretty standard, and really isn't equal to any reasonable definition of force. You can force someone to do something without committing a battery, namely by threatening a battery if the person doesn't do as you direct.

But that is a crime in and of itself isn't it? Does that count as assault?

Additionally (and I will certainly defer to your professional knowledge) my understanding of "battery" does not rely on harm or intent to harm, only on non-consensual contact... so I do not see how someone could force themselves on someone without committing battery.

(perhaps it varies by state? Most of my meager education on criminal law focused on Florida law)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by gnome


But that is a crime in and of itself isn't it? Does that count as assault? Just about but not exactly but then again perhaps so. I've spent many hours back in petty criminal court arguing the exact parameters of what is or is not an "assault." An assault requires a person to be reasonably in fear of an imminent threat of bodily injury (or it can simply be an attempted battery). So most likely yes in most situations but not always. It as a practical matter depends on exact facts and what the judge had for breakfast.

Assault and battery, while having pretty clear common law meanings get used interchangeably in statutes for extra confusion action. Rape is now called "Sexual assault" in many jurisdictions, when strictly by traditional meanings "sexual battery" would be more accurate.

Additionally (and I will certainly defer to your professional knowledge) my understanding of "battery" does not rely on harm or intent to harm, only on non-consensual contact... so I do not see how someone could force themselves on someone without committing battery. You are correct. I was pointing out the difference between "force" and "battery." In a sex crime context "force" is used to make someone permit an unwanted touching, which is, as you suggest, what a battery is. There is a battery inherent in the ultimate goal of the rapist, but perhaps not necessarily in the acts used to bring about that goal.

(perhaps it varies by state? Most of my meager education on criminal law focused on Florida law)

No, what you suggest is as close to universal as it gets. I think I may have been drawing a fine and obscure distinction, however. Both the rapist that beats his victim into submission and the rapist that simply implies force to quell resistance use force. They also, in the act of rape, will by definition commit a battery. However, only the first commits a battery by the means used to "force" the victim into sex.