|
Post by mouse on May 30, 2011 8:46:20 GMT -5
. I've yet to hear of anybody skewered to death on a penis. . go work on the childrens ward..and you will find many instances of the penis doing dreadful damage...where massive amounts of surgery have been needed to try to mend the skewering when talking of child rape the nastyier by products are usually not mentioned or glossed over which is why child rape its self is considered awful..and of course grown women and men can also suffer freadfull injuries from rape...aside from other trauma
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 30, 2011 11:34:19 GMT -5
We were not talking about child rape were we? I can only imagine that if a man can do so much damage to a child without damage to himself, then it doesn't take much speculation to imagine what a broom handle or a broken bottle would do, does it?
However, you endorse Clarke's point that obviously raping a child is a considerably worse crime than having sex with a drunken woman who has passed out. (Although I have been in arguments that such a case is not rape at all, the law in most jurisdictions now concludes otherwise)
|
|
|
Post by biglin on May 30, 2011 16:34:28 GMT -5
I think the key issue in any case of rape is consent.
Of course there are grey areas. I know several times when the degree of consent has been iffy at best.
If there's no consent it obviously is rape.
If it's underage sex again it depends. A 15-year old boy and a 14-year old girl is against the law but if it's consensual IMO it isn't really rape.
And yes, you can rape someone with objects as well as with your penis.
I read an article about a lesbian who'd been raped by another lesbian with a dildo.
I also know prisoners sometimes get raped with baseball bats.
Whatever it is, if it's non-consensual it's wrong.
No means no!
|
|
beez0811
Craftsman
Nerdypants!!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by beez0811 on May 30, 2011 17:05:06 GMT -5
If he or she says no and the other person continues, it is rape. It doesn't matter the gender of either party, nor do their ages matter. If no consent was given, it is rape. If someone jacks with another person's drink to make them sleepy and/or willing, it is rape. If a drunk person is out cold and someone has sex with that unconscious person, that is rape. The other party did not say yes.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 30, 2011 18:47:31 GMT -5
I agree with both here. I think what Clarke was trying to put across is that rape is a little like theft as far as covering a whole range of violations, some far worse than others. What he seems to have overlooked is that the law may use the same term but it recognises severity in severity of sentence. The chancer prepared to have sex with a comatose woman (which I spent most of a year being told I was out of my mind for arguing is rape) may no more be prepared to smash a woman over the head or draw a knife to get into her pants than the one who'll lift her purse but balk at the same violence, In that respect, there are degrees of severity even though I see the same mentality at work in all cases. What kind of pervert enjoys sex with somebody they know does not or even detests the experience?
I like the wording in some American states of Sexual Battery because to my mind that takes the emphasis off did he screw you or not? and emphasises more whatever happened, did you agree? That's why I raised the broomhandle case (which was not under English law) because I find it disgusting that the law can say It wasn't rape so the sentence must be lesser
The gist I get from Clarke's approach though is something quite different and very frightening and injust. He appears to be saying that the law should penalise rape accusees for defending themselves. If it's a clear case then I see no reason why admission should lower the sentence more than it does already (contesting a case always raises the sentence). If it is not a clear case, he is invoking the principle of deny guilt at your peril.
Rape is one of the few crimes where it is not only what happened that matters but how. There are two defences to rape: one that no sex ever happened, the other that the sex that happened was willing. The law actually states consensual but in most jurisdictions that is now accepted as willing (except when it isn't because the law denies the 'victim' the right to consent). As Beez says, the old assumption that consent means lack of rejection has mostly yielded to a more rational one that it means presence of acceptance After all, the fact that I have never posted a notice to say that I do not want my flat burgled in my absence is no evidence that I have implicitly consented to burglary!
It is the awkward cases that worry me. Two people at a party end up in bed. Later she regrets it and claims she was too drunk to know what was going on. She was not too drunk to pull him into bed, get undressed together and enjoy it at the time. She calls it rape. He calls it mutual fun. His solicitor tells him that he risks five years for defending the case, one for confession. Why does this remind me of witch and political trials?
They are playing games where he has immobilized her to prevent releasing orgasm as far as possible. She is screaming that she can't bear it, her bladder will explode, let her legs down. He does and she is disappointed "Why did you stop?" He forces her to sensation far beyond her normal orgasm - at the risk of her charging him with rape. Was it? Or do both men and women sometimes scream No to mean they want sensation beyond their limits? I've been in that situation. The first time, she actually screamed "This is rape" but that was back in the days before women expected to be delicate flowers in need of protection from sex and happily repeated the experience. More recent ones I backed off for self-protection regardless of how disappointed they showed themselves.
They are messing around, he sitting down, she keeps riding him to the point of orgasm and getting off to keep him frustrated. In the end, he pulls her down and climaxes. They spend the night together, next morning she kisses him goodbye and toddles off to the cop-shop to accuse him of rape. His solicitor warns him that he could be penalised additionally for contesting the case. Should he risk it?
That is a real case of a couple of years ago. The judge threw it out and threatened to charge the woman with wasting police time should he ever find her prosecuting a similar case again. Some women like to imagine a man their sex object to turn on and off at will, in a kind of way granting men a superior level of control, since they know that there comes a time when they can't just switch off. In fact it is one of women's complaints that men often climax before they do and they can't force them further. Since the woman knows what is true for her, she should not expect it to be any different for the man. She expects to be free to lose control but not him.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 31, 2011 3:24:16 GMT -5
We were not talking about child rape were we? I can only imagine that if a man can do so much damage to a child without damage to himself, then it doesn't take much speculation to imagine what a broom handle or a broken bottle would do, does it? However, you endorse Clarke's point that obviously raping a child is a considerably worse crime than having sex with a drunken woman who has passed out. (Although I have been in arguments that such a case is not rape at all, the law in most jurisdictions now concludes otherwise) yes i endorse clarkes point that SOME RAPES of adults are worse than others..and i stand by that.....[leaving child rape to one side there are degrees of rape as we all are aware it goes without saying that NO should mean no...and that all sex should be consensual...but as lin says there are grey and iffy areas
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on May 31, 2011 17:19:47 GMT -5
That's all that needed to be acknowledged, and as far as I can see , all that Clarke meant at that point. His other point of penalising defence more than it is already is a much more serious perversion of justice.
Trotting out that tired old warhorse turned nag of No means No is as irrelevant as it usually is to discussions of this sort since nobody has suggested otherwise. It only serves to give the impression that any discussion about legal attitudes is trying to pretend otherwise. In any case, where there is debate is not about the No cases at all, but about the ones where nothing was said at all.
All the same, I shall bear in mind next time a woman digs her claws in to prevent me pulling out she has an orgasm that according to women No means No under all circumstances whatsoever, and to demand she be charged for rape. In fact I've long ago discussed this issue with girlfriends and as far as their response was repeatable at all it amounted to Don't start what you don't intend to finish including one who did have to stop at awkward times even though she'd hoped she wouldn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 17:38:06 GMT -5
Erasmus, I imagine that most of recognise that there are different kinds and degrees of rape.
I have stayed away from this thread for obvious reasons but I will say a few words to put my own point of view.
Since the whole issue of rape revolves around the question of consent, it can hardly be irrelevant if a victim says no.
Most of us know the difference between consensual underage sex between two teenagers of roughly similar ages and paedophile abuse.
Most of us also recognise the difference between drunken and often incoherent behaviour where sex may or not be truly desired or truly resisted.
What offends me about Clarke's comments is not the issue of his recognition of degrees of rape but that he is willing to release offenders early simply for entering a guilty plea.
Irrespective (as I understand it) of the relative gravity of their offences.
That is what I find offensive about his remarks.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 1, 2011 2:19:04 GMT -5
that according to women No means No under all circumstances whatsoever, and to demand she be charged for rape. In fact I've long ago discussed this issue with girlfriends and as far as their response was repeatable at all it amounted to Don't start what you don't intend to finish including one who did have to stop at awkward times even though she'd hoped she wouldn't. and that is where the problem starts when """dont start what you dont want to finnish comes into play"""comes into play. the woman who has been egging on the guys all night and then gets upset when one or more of the chaps takes her up on the messages she has been sending out ...women who play that game used to be called prick teasers in my day...but no still means no at any stage but i would think most rapes are more easily defined
|
|