Examples of How Feminism Helps Men.
22 Apr 2012, 10:50 pm
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/
Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.
It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.
What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?
Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.
Last edited by Terlingua on 22 Apr 2012, 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Apr 2012, 10:52 pm
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/
Interesting link, thanks. Do any feminist groups address that issue? It would be a noble cause if they worked to prevent it, and could undeniably be said to help men as well as women.
that link is from a feminist website.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
22 Apr 2012, 11:07 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/
Interesting link, thanks. Do any feminist groups address that issue? It would be a noble cause if they worked to prevent it, and could undeniably be said to help men as well as women.
that link is from a feminist website.
Please see my post above. I edited the original because I had opened another page while clicking on his link. I see that definition as very harmful to men and one sided in favor of women. An example of feminism hurting men rather than helping them. The page I mistook for his link was http://www.mens-rights.net/law/falseacc ... s/rape.htm
Ironic that the two links pertain to the same subject matter.
22 Apr 2012, 11:13 pm
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee voted unanimously to change the definition of rape, which had not been changed for 80 years (!) and rape will now be defined as, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
how is that only oral sex? it is also vaginal and anal sex on a man that would be included.
feminists caused this change. and i do not see the negative you are stating. i think you misread it.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
22 Apr 2012, 11:18 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee voted unanimously to change the definition of rape, which had not been changed for 80 years (!) and rape will now be defined as, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
how is that only oral sex? it is also vaginal and anal sex on a man that would be included.
feminists caused this change. and i do not see the negative you are stating. i think you misread it.
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?
22 Apr 2012, 11:19 pm
Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee voted unanimously to change the definition of rape, which had not been changed for 80 years (!) and rape will now be defined as, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
how is that only oral sex? it is also vaginal and anal sex on a man that would be included.
feminists caused this change. and i do not see the negative you are stating. i think you misread it.
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?
"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
22 Apr 2012, 11:24 pm
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/
Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.
It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.
What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?
Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.
Your reading comprehension sucks. The previous definition did not even admit that men could be raped *at all.*
22 Apr 2012, 11:32 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?
"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.[/quote]
Actually, by taking it at the way it is defined, she could force him to penetrate her and then accuse him of rape. She could only rape him anally with a finger or object by the FBI definition. She could even force him to perform oral sex on her and still have him convicted of rape. Likewise, she could engage in forced oral sex on him and not be guilty of rape as it is clearly defined as "oral penetration by a sex object of another..." She is not penetrating the man with forced fellatio.
Harmful and poorly thought out, like I said. A step back, not forward.
22 Apr 2012, 11:35 pm
LKL wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/
Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.
It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.
What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?
Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.
Your reading comprehension sucks. The previous definition did not even admit that men could be raped *at all.*
Oh, golly! Now a woman can rape a man in the eyes of the FBI in two different ways, whereas the exchange is dozens of new ways to accuse a man of raping a woman. Ahhh yes, my reading skills are so poor that it took me seconds to spot what you apparently have failed to identify even now.
22 Apr 2012, 11:40 pm
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
LKL wrote:
http://feministing.com/2011/10/20/update-fbi-changes-official-definition-of-rape/
Wow, I was opening one page while clicking on your link, and got the two confused.
It is interesting in that it only addresses female on male rape in the form of oral sex. Women can and have raped men by forcing them to have sex. It also adds to the lack of personal responsibility with the drugs & alcohol clause. What if both parties are intoxicated? Obviously only the man was the rapist because forcing the man to penetrate her is not covered. So if a slightly intoxicated woman forces a more intoxicated man to engage in sex with her, an later decides that she didn't want to have sex, she can claim rape, but he cannot.
What if one party took an antihistamine prior to having sex? Who is the rapist then? What if the non antihistamine party had no knowledge of the other party taking the drug?
Looks like a very harmful definition of rape that was poorly thought out to me. This is a tool of higher conviction rates rather than a step forward in equality. I would have to say that since the link is to a feminist website and they are applauding this, it is a good example of feminism hurting men.
Your reading comprehension sucks. The previous definition did not even admit that men could be raped *at all.*
Oh, golly! Now a woman can rape a man in the eyes of the FBI in two different ways, whereas the exchange is dozens of new ways to accuse a man of raping a woman. Ahhh yes, my reading skills are so poor that it took me seconds to spot what you apparently have failed to identify even now.
3 ways, just like a man can rape a woman in 3 ways. your reading comprehension still failed.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
22 Apr 2012, 11:41 pm
Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?
"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.
Actually, by taking it at the way it is defined, she could force him to penetrate her and then accuse him of rape. She could only rape him anally with a finger or object by the FBI definition. She could even force him to perform oral sex on her and still have him convicted of rape. Likewise, she could engage in forced oral sex on him and not be guilty of rape as it is clearly defined as "oral penetration by a sex object of another..." She is not penetrating the man with forced fellatio.
Harmful and poorly thought out, like I said. A step back, not forward.
what? that makes no sense. instead of men being excluded from the definition of rape, they are now included... and any type of forced penetration can be called rape, not just vaginal. she is forcing HIM to penetrate HER. i think you are failing to understand that concept.
men can just as easily falsely accuse women of raping them as the reverse... false accusations could happen before - they only difference now is that it can go both ways.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
22 Apr 2012, 11:43 pm
Does the idea of sexual consent contracts make sense to anyone? Maybe a pre-written contract with a checklist and a signature spot for all parties at the bottom which states that they are not under the influence or otherwise opt to ignore the use of alcohol/drugs for the duration of sexual liaison? I saw a funny video once involving a couple and their lawyers, but humor aside, would not something like that be helpful for the protection of everyone? It is not going to prevent all sexual crime, but it could go a long way in establishing consent.
22 Apr 2012, 11:48 pm
^^^i don't know.
well, i guess you have a few organisations to choose from, which are working for men's rights along with women's rights. these are the ones that got the definition of rape expanded:
Women’s Law Project
Feminist Majority Foundation
Ms.
Change.org
i am sure they would love to have you join.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
22 Apr 2012, 11:50 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?
"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.
Actually, by taking it at the way it is defined, she could force him to penetrate her and then accuse him of rape. She could only rape him anally with a finger or object by the FBI definition. She could even force him to perform oral sex on her and still have him convicted of rape. Likewise, she could engage in forced oral sex on him and not be guilty of rape as it is clearly defined as "oral penetration by a sex object of another..." She is not penetrating the man with forced fellatio.
Harmful and poorly thought out, like I said. A step back, not forward.
what? that makes no sense. instead of men being excluded from the definition of rape, they are now included... and any type of forced penetration can be called rape, not just vaginal. she is forcing HIM to penetrate HER. i think you are failing to understand that concept.
men can just as easily falsely accuse women of raping them as the reverse... false accusations could happen before - they only difference now is that it can go both ways.
It specifies the act of penetration, not the act of forcing someone else to penetrate you. It specifies the act of oral penetration, not the act of forcing someone to orally penetrate. A penis is notoriously hard to penetrate without the use of a catheter or drinking straw. Her tongue is not likely to penetrate the penis if she performs non consensual fellatio on him.
22 Apr 2012, 11:53 pm
Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Terlingua wrote:
It specifies penetration, so if a woman forces a man at gunpoint to engage in sex, she is not penetrating him. It broadens the term to include next day regret after a drunken party, even if both people were equally drunk, he penetrated her, so she can cry rape after the fact even if she initiated sex with him. You don't see either example as harmful and unbalanced?
"forcible penetration" can happen both ways. if a woman forces a man to penetrate her, she has raped him.
Actually, by taking it at the way it is defined, she could force him to penetrate her and then accuse him of rape. She could only rape him anally with a finger or object by the FBI definition. She could even force him to perform oral sex on her and still have him convicted of rape. Likewise, she could engage in forced oral sex on him and not be guilty of rape as it is clearly defined as "oral penetration by a sex object of another..." She is not penetrating the man with forced fellatio.
Harmful and poorly thought out, like I said. A step back, not forward.
what? that makes no sense. instead of men being excluded from the definition of rape, they are now included... and any type of forced penetration can be called rape, not just vaginal. she is forcing HIM to penetrate HER. i think you are failing to understand that concept.
men can just as easily falsely accuse women of raping them as the reverse... false accusations could happen before - they only difference now is that it can go both ways.
It specifies the act of penetration, not the act of forcing someone else to penetrate you. It specifies the act of oral penetration, not the act of forcing someone to orally penetrate. A penis is notoriously hard to penetrate without the use of a catheter or drinking straw. Her tongue is not likely to penetrate the penis if she performs non consensual fellatio on him.
you are not understanding what they meant. the act of penetration is 2 sided. when a woman rapes a man she forces him to penetrate her.
by your mistaken definition a woman cannot rape a man AND YET the articles clearly state that the definition includes woman-on-man rape.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| GenZ More Likely Than Boomers To Believe Feminism Harmful |
01 Feb 2024, 5:48 pm |
| Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm |
| Neem and how it helps the stomach |
10 Feb 2024, 11:46 pm |
