THE NEW RAPE RULES WHICH WILL INFANTILISE WOMEN AND CRIMINALISE INNOCENT MEN

[GFR7]

Making the assumption that the woman MUST be lying is evil.

Nothing to do with lies. If you agree with this statement, you are not morally good.

Even if she has said Yes and has even undressed herself or initiated the sexual advances. Even if she at no point suggested she had changed her mind or asked the man to stop. Even if she blatantly enjoyed herself at the time.

This is patently absurd. And yet this is precisely what the DPP has announced.

 

[GFR7]

:up: I assumed so, but hard to tell online. When we are both commenting on these politics threads, you and I seem to be in agreement for the most part. You know what they say about great minds. :cheers:

Too bad none of it has anything to do with the Breitbart post: Unjust laws which victimize non-raping men.

 

[Rusha]

Nothing to do with lies. If you agree with this statement, you are not morally good.

You think your consistent scrutiny of rape victims makes *you* morally good?

I would expect the types of excuses you are making for these *men* to be utilized by Johnny Cochran.

 

[Daniel1611]

Too bad none of it has anything to do with the Breitbart post: Unjust laws which victimize non-raping men.

The idea that if the woman consents but she is drunk so it's still rape is not a good one to make a criminal law for all circumstances. Most of the time when people get drunk, they make bad decisions. But I heard of this stuff when I was 18 at college orientation. We had seniors that were in charge of the orientation class telling us how things worked on campus and they told us outright that if you sleep with a drunk girl consensually, it can be considered rape the next day even if she consented. This is why it's just a good idea to avoid fornication as much as possible.

 

[GFR7]

The idea that if the woman consents but she is drunk so it's still rape is not a good one to make a criminal law for all circumstances. Most of the time when people get drunk, they make bad decisions. But I heard of this stuff when I was 18 at college orientation. We had seniors that were in charge of the orientation class telling us how things worked on campus and they told us outright that if you sleep with a drunk girl consensually, it can be considered rape the next day even if she consented. This is why it's just a good idea to avoid fornication as much as possible.

Yes, I agree.

But suppose a guy and girl both get drunk, fornicate, and in the morning , the guy says: I was drunk. I didn't want to go to your room and have sex with you. I feel violated. Does HE get to file rape charges? If not, why not? Suppose he is 17 and she is 40?

Why is being drunk an excuse for a person with a vagina, but not an excuse for a person with a penis?
I say this is unsound and morally bankrupt.

 

[Rusha]

Yes, I agree.

But suppose a guy and girl both get drunk, fornicate, and in the morning , the guy says: I was drunk. I didn't want to go to your room and have sex with you. I feel violated. Does HE get to file rape charges? If not, why not? Suppose he is 17 and she is 40?

Of course. Does that happen often? If it does, why doesn't the guy go forward and file charges?

Why is being drunk an excuse for a person with a vagina, but not an excuse for a person with a penis?
I say this is unsound and morally bankrupt.

What's immoral is that you making your arguments based on the victims private parts. Why on earth would anyone need to make such a distinction?

 

[GFR7]

Of course. Does that happen often? If it does, why doesn't the guy go forward and file charges?

Young, afraid of jeers from police, afraid of not being believed. Trust me. I know from experience,

Why on earth would anyone need to make such a distinction?

BINGO - :wave2: -this is why these new guidelines are immoral.

 

[Daniel1611]

Any rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

 

[GFR7]

Any rape should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

I concur. :thumb:

 

[Daniel1611]

I think if someone is inebriated drunk and is taken advantage of, it's rape. But if 2 people are drunk and sleep together, that's not enough to put someone in jail. I've been hammered drunk and slept with girls my fair share of times in my short life and never once was I so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing.

What I'm saying is there is a difference between a girl being passed out drunk or close to it and someone getting on top of here, and two drunk people having sex and one of them being regretful the next day. The former is rape, the latter is the consequence of alcohol and fornication.

 

[GFR7]

I think if someone is inebriated drunk and is taken advantage of, it's rape. But if 2 people are drunk and sleep together, that's not enough to put someone in jail. I've been hammered drunk and slept with girls my fair share of times in my short life and never once was I so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing.

What I'm saying is there is a difference between a girl being passed out drunk or close to it and someone getting on top of here, and two drunk people having sex and one of them being regretful the next day. The former is rape, the latter is the consequence of alcohol and fornication.

BBM - Absolutely. If the law would stick to this common sense distinction,
neither side would have any cause to complain. :cheers:

 

[Rusha]

Young, afraid of jeers from police, afraid of not being believed. Trust me. I know from experience,

Oh. Like what happens to women. You know ... them being accused of lying and ridiculed. Those that say it "wasn't really rape". Hmmm.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think GFR7 wants to protect rapists. I think GFR7 is saying that not everyoe who is accused of rape is actually a rapist. Innocent until proven guilty should apply to every crime. And yes, if guilt is proven the rapists should be executed.

 

[GFR7]

I don't think GFR7 wants to protect rapists. I think GFR7 is saying that not everyoe who is accused of rape is actually a rapist. Innocent until proven guilty should apply to every crime. And yes, if guilt is proven the rapists should be executed.

Thank you - yes, I have NO interest in protecting rapists. Only non-rapists. Rape is a heinous act and serious crime : I am only pointing out these guidelines increasing the dangers of false accusation for the innocent. That is what the Breitbart piece is about. They too have no interest in excusing true rapists.

 

[Sheila B]

Sounds like sex outside of marriage is getting scarier than ever... just sayin'

try chastity

 

[GFR7]

Sounds like sex outside of marriage is getting scarier than ever... just sayin'

try chastity

Chastity would be good. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

For an adult person of either sex "I couldn't give consent, because of my own free will, I got so drunk that I couldn't think straight" should have the same legal basis as "I couldn't sign that document because of my own free will, I got so drunk that I couldn't think straight" or I'm not to blame for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian because of my own free will, I got so drunk that I couldn't think straight."

Sorry. There certainly would be an issue if it could be established that someone drugged a person, or conspired to get them drunk for the purpose of rape, but personal responsiblity applies. If you don't want to do stupid things, don't drink to the point that you're stupid.

 

[Delmar]

If you don't want to do stupid things, don't drink to the point that you're stupid.

:up: This is my personal definition of drunkenness! If you are doing anything that you wouldn't do sober, you have had too much.

 

[GFR7]

For an adult person of either sex "I couldn't give consent, because of my own free will, I got so drunk that I couldn't think straight" should have the same legal basis as "I couldn't sign that document because of my own free will, I got so drunk that I couldn't think straight" or I'm not to blame for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian because of my own free will, I got so drunk that I couldn't think straight."

Sorry. There certainly would be an issue if it could be established that someone drugged a person, or conspired to get them drunk for the purpose of rape, but personal responsiblity applies. If you don't want to do stupid things, don't drink to the point that you're stupid.

Thank you for your logic and your good sense. Someone like Rusha scoffs at the idea that this infantilizes women, and makes the claim that I support rapists - both untrue and deeply offensive.

If women don't bear personal responsibility for getting falling down drunk, then they are too infantile to go to college or to hold adult jobs. Period.

 

[GFR7]

:up: This is my personal definition of drunkenness! If you are doing anything that you wouldn't do sober, you have had too much.

Exactly. :thumb: