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

[Rusha]

Years ago I heard a speech by the Pope on women's lib.
To paraphrase:
"Perhaps the reason we have so many women trying to stand up in the roles of men is because we don't have enough men trying to stand up in the roles of men."

IF men are to be seen as the *protectors* and caregivers, then yes. The reality is that being taught to rely on men puts women at a disadvantage when those men fail and go on to commit abusive behavior.

I would have absolutely no problem with convicting either sex of libelous, fraudulent allegations that are made without merit. However, I can do that without stomping all over the victims of these types of assaults.

One of the reasons why there is such a divide is the attitude and expectations of men VS. women. Seriously, when is the last time you heard a man referred to as derogatory, sexually explicit term because they have been sexually promiscuous?

 

[serpentdove]

"He definitely should teach the standard of God, no matter what laws secular culture comes up with. This all kinda reminds me of when Meshak and Resodko try to say they are married, even though they do not live with and are not a husband or wife to their spouses."

Marriage is a permanent bond (Matt. 19:6) dissolved by death (Rom. 7:2, 3).

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

"By secular standard, they are married."

They may be separated but if both husband and wife are alive, they are still married.

They may be separated but if both husband and wife are alive, they are still married.

By God's standards they are married (Rom. 7:2, 3). That's why those pesky vows say "...til death do us part". :sozo2: Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10

"Whichever is the most convenient for them at the time is the standard they use to justify."

Yes, regrettably serial adultery is common in our culture (Matt. 5:32).

"But the God standard truth is that neither of them are married."

God does not leave covenant relationships. One or two of these people may be dead. :dead: Dead can be :thumb: a good thing. :idunno:

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Years ago I heard a speech by the Pope on women's lib.
To paraphrase:
"Perhaps the reason we have so many women trying to stand up in the roles of men is because we don't have enough men trying to stand up in the roles of men."

Yes, the feministic bias of recent popes is well known.

It's funny how much the 'holy seat of Peter' seems so much like, well, any other seat.

"We don't have enough men trying to stand up in the roles of men"- this is supposed to be God's chosen words?

No proper church would say this, they would say what is fact:
Women have tried to usurp men's roles since the 'first wave' of feminism, dubiously started when industry had long set it's roots and men made the world's anatomy permanent.

Women saw the fruit and it pleased them to partake from it.
Apparently the popes don't favor Genesis..

Or Paul for that matter. The Church had something going for it in the days it was Paulist. Now it's just humanitarianism with a death stick on top of it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Seriously, when is the last time you heard a man referred to as derogatory, sexually explicit term because they have been sexually promiscuous?

Every day men are called homos.

:duh:

 

[resodko]

... when is the last time you heard a man referred to as derogatory, sexually explicit term because they have been sexually promiscuous?

i call 'em hell-bound perverts :idunno:


your perverted culture celebrates them as "normal"

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

What you are really trying to do is create a backlash towards feminists by attacking vulnerable victims who are most often women.

It's despicable, and you are fooling no one.

No he isn't, and you are fooling only the foolish I can tell you that right now.

A rational, sober man; a real man and not some coerced 'feminist' would tell the truth of what is going on here.

There is a proposal that even when women consent, the men are still liable to be charged with rape if the woman decides, later on, that she did not want to engage in sexual activity.

That is completely ridiculous. On one end, women pummel men because of so called 'patriarchy', which does not exist, and on the other expecting that men should treat women as endangered specimens who should be kept up like a crucifix in a church.

Men are simply tired of it, this is why factions such as the MRA have started to come up. Proposing inquisitorial systems for men because women can't take accountability?
No- you have two options. Equality or 1800's society, we're done with the riff-raff_

 

[Tambora]

It's funny how much the 'holy seat of Peter' seems so much like, well, any other seat.

I'm no follower of Popes.
But he made a point.

"We don't have enough men trying to stand up in the roles of men"- this is supposed to be God's chosen words?

Let me check and see if that's what I said.

Nope, I did not say it was God's chosen words.

No proper church would say this, they would say what is fact:
Women have tried to usurp men's roles since the 'first wave' of feminism, dubiously started when industry had long set it's roots and men made the world's anatomy permanent.

The Pope didn't deny that.
He gave a reason why it might be happening.

Women saw the fruit and it pleased them to partake from it.
Apparently the popes don't favor Genesis..

Maybe you don't either.
The responsibility of the fall was blamed on Adam, not Eve.

Romans 5:16-19 KJV
(16) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
(17) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.​

 

[GFR7]

i call 'em hell-bound perverts :idunno:


your perverted culture celebrates them as "normal"

It is true that the sexual revolution of the '60s - which dumped us here in the gutter - was fueled by feminism.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Maybe you don't either.
The responsibility of the fall was blamed on Adam, not Eve.

That's because Adam took the feminist route and wasn't the head of Eve :doh:

This is something often argued, but actually works against the arguer- it actually means that women need to be controlled, but somehow it translates to supporters of women as something which defends women. It is a very anti-feminist passage, despite it's blame on Adam. In fact the entire Bible is much the same; God doesn't will such equality as modern society lives by.

And no doubt, there is a lot of social turmoil among people out of it. Never in a time in history was society's big enemy been it's own vain unruliness among these standards- this is why for all thousands of years of man's history, the longest endurance came from societal patriarchy- we've lived 50 years in 'equality' and society has become frankly something of a joke dead heading for it's own repeal already.

 

[GFR7]

No he isn't, and you are fooling only the foolish I can tell you that right now.

A rational, sober man; a real man and not some coerced 'feminist' would tell the truth of what is going on here.

There is a proposal that even when women consent, the men are still liable to be charged with rape if the woman decides, later on, that she did not want to engage in sexual activity.

That is completely ridiculous. On one end, women pummel men because of so called 'patriarchy', which does not exist, and on the other expecting that men should treat women as endangered specimens who should be kept up like a crucifix in a church.

Men are simply tired of it, this is why factions such as the MRA have started to come up. Proposing inquisitorial systems for men because women can't take accountability?
No- you have two options. Equality or 1800's society, we're done with the riff-raff_

All true. And yes, you cannot have it both ways: Either full equality and responsibility in all areas (sexual, financial, cultural, educational) or go back to patriarchal society.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I knew you reminded me of someone...

 

[Angel4Truth]

The men should be considered criminal for taking advantage of drunk women, not the women.
So, no, we don't need more women prisons.

What if the man was 3 sheets to the wind and the woman came onto him?

Lets say Susie knows this guy is extremely well off, and sees him out with his friends and knows hes toasted. She comes onto him like crazy, they get it on and then she says she was too drunk to consent, sues him for compensatory damages from being raped even though she was the aggressor - knowing he was too drunk to claim otherwise...

There are a lot of problems with the claim in the op. It assumes guilt, and thats wrong.

Actually both parties are guilty when they get themselves so drunk they don't know what they are doing. (note get that way themselves) its a whole different thing if the other person is drugging them or forcing them.

 

[GFR7]

What if the man was 3 sheets to the wind and the woman came onto him?

Lets say Susie knows this guy is extremely well off, and sees him out with his friends and knows hes toasted. She comes onto him like crazy, they get it on and then she says she was too drunk to consent, sues him for compensatory damages from being raped even though she was the aggressor - knowing he was too drunk to claim otherwise...

There are a lot of problems with the claim in the op. It assumes guilt, and thats wrong.

Actually both parties are guilty when they get themselves so drunk they don't know what they are doing. (note get that way themselves) its a whole different thing if the other person is drugging them or forcing them.

Well, well spoken. You as usual "get it". :BRAVO: :thumb:

 

[Rusha]

No he isn't, and you are fooling only the foolish I can tell you that right now.

A rational, sober man; a real man and not some coerced 'feminist' would tell the truth of what is going on here.

There is a proposal that even when women consent, the men are still liable to be charged with rape if the woman decides, later on, that she did not want to engage in sexual activity.

That is completely ridiculous. On one end, women pummel men because of so called 'patriarchy', which does not exist, and on the other expecting that men should treat women as endangered specimens who should be kept up like a crucifix in a church.

Men are simply tired of it, this is why factions such as the MRA have started to come up. Proposing inquisitorial systems for men because women can't take accountability?
No- you have two options. Equality or 1800's society, we're done with the riff-raff_

Don't you ever get tired of flaming out and rejoining under new user names, Sum?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

A person has full knowledge that alcohol douses prohibition- one can potentially make poor decisions under the influence of alcohol.

If one gets very intoxicated, then whatever decision that they make is by extension their fault. Does a person pulled over for a DUI get to go to court and say "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing" and expect that they should get off?

Or as a more relevant example, does a man get off on beating his wife by saying he was intoxicated?

The answer to both is no. So why should it be a crime if a woman consents to sex even if it's under the influence of alcohol?
It's not hard at all to see the nonsense which that is.

Let's talk about 'defending the rapist'- it's not defending the 'rapist', it's defending the 'accused'.
Now, if we open a door to women being able to consent to sex under the influence of alcohol and then the next day feeling that she secretly wasn't sure about it and goes to authorities- what is that? That is defending the 'accuser', something that is already a problem because 'justice is blind' and we don't labor under an 'inquisitorial system'.

It's mind boggling how self centered and illogical this corner of society is. Is it just me, or are men not being directly crusaded against for the sole reason that women don't get everything they want?

I mean seriously :AMR:

 

[Granite]

"Don't have sex while completely inebriated" seems prudent to me...

 

[GFR7]

A person has full knowledge that alcohol douses prohibition- one can potentially make poor decisions under the influence of alcohol.

If one gets very intoxicated, then whatever decision that they make is by extension their fault. Does a person pulled over for a DUI get to go to court and say "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing" and expect that they should get off?

Or as a more relevant example, does a man get off on beating his wife by saying he was intoxicated?

The answer to both is no. So why should it be a crime if a woman consents to sex even if it's under the influence of alcohol?
It's not hard at all to see the nonsense which that is.

Let's talk about 'defending the rapist'- it's not defending the 'rapist', it's defending the 'accused'.
Now, if we open a door to women being able to consent to sex under the influence of alcohol and then the next day feeling that she secretly wasn't sure about it and goes to authorities- what is that? That is defending the 'accuser', something that is already a problem because 'justice is blind' and we don't labor under an 'inquisitorial system'.

It's mind boggling how self centered and illogical this corner of society is. Is it just me, or are men not being directly crusaded against for the sole reason that women don't get everything they want?

I mean seriously :AMR:

Legal experts, jurisprudence scholars, judges , attorneys: They are supposed to exist to keep the law from falling into the hands of the insane, the infantile, the petty, the irrational. So how did this happen? This is my question.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

"Don't have sex while completely inebriated" seems prudent to me...

Or making poor decisions before the fact which led to one having sex.

Because alcohol makes one more open to do things they wouldn't normally do, it's simply responsible to not go get inebriated in a circumstance in which one is liable to do such.

For example, a married man getting slam drunk at a bar unknown to his wife and getting seduced- rather, go to the usual spot which your wife knows, and which the others at the bar know you.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Legal experts, jurisprudence scholars, judges , attorneys: They are supposed to exist to keep the law from falling into the hands of the insane, the infantile, the petty, the irrational. So how did this happen? This is my question.

All I know is that if you go to a domestic court, there are plenty of men in there everyday accused of assaulting their wife or some such thing.

You will notice that while the man gets a lawyer, the woman gets the same plus at least two women from a crisis center who actually coerces her into giving a most explicit account and asking for the maximum charge.
The man hardly stands a chance even if he is obviously innocent.

So wherever that comes from, which should make any rational man's blood boil, so does the atrocity of the subject of this thread.

 

[GFR7]

"Don't have sex while completely inebriated" seems prudent to me...

Yes, for both genders. And perhaps be moderate in your drinking all the time. They tell people smoking is not a good choice; perhaps drinking is a poor choice as well for many people.