 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
And Che....I think I'm safe in saying that the folks commenting here do not feel the way you claim that they do.
Rather, they see this law as taking those rights to new levels of absurdity, ESPECIALLY given that it makes it nigh on impossible to PROVE (her word against his, nothing more....physicial evidence? Nahhh, don't need it, she SAID so, so it must be true, right? There are NEVER instances or any conditions whatsoever where a woman might lie about something like that, are there? C'mon Che, you're a smarter boy than that). But where are the protective laws for men falsely accused?
Oh, there aren't any....cos men are bigger and stronger, right? They can take it...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When humans are having sex they do not lose their power of reason, their ability to understand language, their ability to determine right from wrong. . . . except maybe during the moment of orgasm, and possibly just before it. Even then, it can be done. It is, after all, a form of birth control (if not a very effective one).
The instant consent is withdrawn, it becomes a crime to continue. That's how it works for all crimes, I see no reason to treat rape any differently. |
This is silly, because then the woman can claim rape for ANY duration passing after she says to stop, even milliseconds. You have to establish a reasonable threshold of when the man has time to register the refusal and pull away. I think up to 15 seconds is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, you will get accusations of rape for guys who did stop "immediately," just not "immediately enough" for the accuser.
The man has a right to be given a reasonable window for compliance, IMO, because no 2 situations are the same, and you can't know what exactly is going on at the moment of the refusal. A few seconds isn't going to make a dramatic difference in the emotional state of the woman. What if her first refusal is a whispered "stop" that the man doesn't hear, because he's grunting away? There are a lot of nuances.
The strawmen about changing one's mind after sex, while they may be amusing to those posting them, are offensive, because the same logic tying that to coitus interruptus can be used to justify denying a woman's right to change her mind before initiating sex.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's sad to see so many men think that women don't have a right to decide what goes on with their bodies or that their rights to their bodies are limited by the "needs" of the male. |
Yup.
If you're in bed with a woman and things are going smooth and then suddenly the woman says "no, I want to go home", that means you're sh!t out of luck and you stop. You don't get to keep going at it and if you do, you're going to get hauled into court.
Is anyone here going to say that they would keep on going after the woman says "No, I want to go home"?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
I agree. This law is open to extreme abuse.
A woman could mouth the word "stop" (technically "voicing it," even if the man doesn't see or hear the faint whisper), and....that's enough.
Hey! She SAID no! His problem if he didn't hear. Even better, after the fact, she could just claim she said no.
Who's a jury gonna believe, the big strong neanderthal, or the weepy 'victim?'
Obviously rape exists, and yes...it's a horrible crime.
This law is not the solution, unless by "solution" you mean, a simple, effective means of tossing men in jail if a woman decides at any point during or after the sex act that she's unhappy about something or just simply wants the man gone.
Don't believe it happens? You dream.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Che: This is a discussion about a law, and not about how I feel about women. I would never get in to a situation were the woman would want to stop in the middle of having sex because she 'changed' her mind. |
That's untrue. You don't know until it happens. I was with two different women who changed their minds during sex. Both of whom continued to have relationships with me. It's just that at that moment, they changed their minds. I, being a decent human being who thinks about others and not just that I want to get off so **** the *****, stopped.
quote:
The point is that this law mutilates what was consent into something completely unrecognizable and will give way to more petty law suits that have nothing to do with rape as a crime, but rape as a method to get back at your ex-boyfriend. |
It's really funny, cuz that's the exact same argument that was used in the seventies when guys tried to argue that it was impossible to rape your wife, since she consented when she married you. It's the same argument used by date rapists who argued she consented when she came back to my room or got in my car cuz she knew what I wanted.
Any free human being can withdraw their consent from any act with another human being at any time (as long as it's not for an illegal reason, such as race). If I don't want to work with you, I can quit, you can't force me to work. If we have a contract, I might have to pay damages, but you cannot force me to work for you, live with you, or even asociate with you just because I consented to do so at one time. If you were to try and continue to do so, I could sue you for harrasment. This is no different and merely clarifies what should be an obvious point, any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Rather, they see this law as taking those rights to new levels of absurdity, ESPECIALLY given that it makes it nigh on impossible to PROVE (her word against his, nothing more....physicial evidence? Nahhh, don't need it, she SAID so, so it must be true, right? |
As has been pointed out previously, many rape cases lack physical evidence. Women who "consent" to bing raped under the threat of violence will only have their word against the rapists. Since it's just a he said, she said case, I guess you don't think that qualifies a rape.
In fact, most cases of rape lack evidence that sex was not consensual. I guess we should only outlaw rape where actual violence is used. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
any free person cannot be forced into an act against their will by another, regardless of the circumstances.
You said it, Che. 
And per the article, she wasn't forced into the act. She entered into it quite willingly.
-=Vel=- |
But that's the whole crux of the matter. Under the old law, once a woman gives consent, at any point, that's it. She has said it is okay, so it is not rape.
The new ruling says that a woman has a right to change her mind.
It seems obvious to me that a woman has a right to change her mind. But the question remains about how long does it take for the man to stop. That should be the deciding factor, along with other actions. In the Califonia case, the judges ruled that the man's physical actions amounted to rape. I think the judges may have erred on that issue because they said he held her forcefully, but it might have been a natural sexual action.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2003 22:50
|