Page 7 of 12 [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

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.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

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


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

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


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

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.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

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


Terlingua
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

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.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

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


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

23 Apr 2012, 12:04 am

here is a definition of female-on-male rape from wikipedia:

Quote:
Women also can commit an act of rape with force or deception to make a man engage in a non-consensual penetrative sexual act.


penetration without consent is rape, and female-on-male rape is included in the new definition.

here is another article about the changes in definition:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News ... e_Victims/

more funding is expected to be allocated towards male victims because they will be acknowledged in statistics for the first time. i am failing to see that as a negative.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Apr 2012, 12:28 am

One way feminism has helped me is that, in the inevitable, soon to begin and sensibly fashionable rise of the Vaginarchy, I have been selected as part of the 10% permitted male population


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

23 Apr 2012, 12:29 am

Vigilans wrote:
One way feminism has helped me is that, in the inevitable, soon to begin and sensibly fashionable rise of the Vaginarchy, I have been selected as part of the 10% permitted male population

we are thinking of lowering that number to 1%, but don't worry - you're still included.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

23 Apr 2012, 12:35 am

hyperlexian wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
One way feminism has helped me is that, in the inevitable, soon to begin and sensibly fashionable rise of the Vaginarchy, I have been selected as part of the 10% permitted male population

we are thinking of lowering that number to 1%, but don't worry - you're still included.


1% does in fact seem to be a more generous and rational number- highest praises to our overlords in their wisdom


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 Apr 2012, 4:15 pm

Terlingua wrote:
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.


In the other thread, you complained about hostility towards yourself in other internet forums when you asked the same kinds of questions. Now, I seem to find it becoming more and more difficult to believe you actually sincere in wanting answer because you don't seem to be listening to the ones given. Either that or you just not understanding them.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

23 Apr 2012, 9:40 pm

sage_gerard wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The kinds of families that break up like that are usually one's that shouldn't have been together in the first place.

When you have real choices, you usually make better one's.


Wow. Thanks. That made my parents' divorce much easier to process. :lol: My parents were nothing more but fake choices because they were doomed to fail! Never mind victims of circumstance, the only "real" choices are soulmates!


I guess I should not have tried to answer that in so few sentences.

It is, obviously, a lot more complicated than either of our posts indicated, and honestly I wasn't sure why you were making that point.

In my mind, I saw all those women who married because there was no other choice for women, who may never have cared much for their husbands, and those in awful marriages who stay because they can't afford to do anything else. The marriages where the kids know something is wrong ... and that affects the children negatively, too. For generations it was often accepted practice for men to cheat, and get their pleasures elsewhere, and often children only knew their fathers as distant authoritarian figures. It's not like the old nuclear family was always a beautiful thing.

I do know there are a whole bunch of factors running in the other direction, but digging into all that would take more time than I am willing to invest in this post.

I am sorry you have it difficult with your parents, but I'm not sure it would be any better if they were living in the same house.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

24 Apr 2012, 8:19 am

hyperlexian wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
One way feminism has helped me is that, in the inevitable, soon to begin and sensibly fashionable rise of the Vaginarchy, I have been selected as part of the 10% permitted male population

we are thinking of lowering that number to 1%, but don't worry - you're still included.


So the survivors will get a harem of 100? Not a bad deal.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Apr 2012, 1:38 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
One way feminism has helped me is that, in the inevitable, soon to begin and sensibly fashionable rise of the Vaginarchy, I have been selected as part of the 10% permitted male population

we are thinking of lowering that number to 1%, but don't worry - you're still included.


So the survivors will get a harem of 100? Not a bad deal.

dammit how did i not see that coming? ;)


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Apr 2012, 2:54 pm

that's odd. after Terlingua's extensive internet debates in search of a way that feminism benefits men.... we found him an example... and then he doesn't stick around to let us know which one of the feminist organisations he decided to join. :D

Terlingua wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
are you planning to join a feminist cause if it can be shown that it promotes men's rights or offers a benefit to men as well?


If I find one that strives toward equality for everyone, yes, absolutely.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105