Faugheen wrote: » Just like a lot of people here seems to have an unhealthy opposition against the idea of telling men not to rape. Oh, and having no legitimate answer when challenged. I bid you all good day.
Faugheen wrote: » Because there's a number of men who just don't get it.The majority of rape cases involve women who were raped by men known to them. Most rape cases don't involve some deranged fool just targeting a random woman for the sake of it. I'm not labouring a moot point. If you think there's something wrong with the idea of telling men not to rape then that's your problem. Just because the likes of you or me get it doesn't mean everyone does.
BBDBB wrote: » Where will it all end? Can someone help me create the following App Swipe left for "yes", right for "no" and "down" if you wish to download a legal indemnity form for you to complete if you think you might get lucky on a first date. Copies will be sent to you, your potential partner and her legal representation. Please note copies will also be sent to your local Gards and your local TD for their views and may be retained on file as evidence in any future prosecution.
ProfessorPlum wrote: » This thread - and the case in question - has turned into a car crash of pitting the sexes against each other. All that can come of it is pushing the people on either extreme of the argument further into their corners - and that does nobody any good. Interesting statistics in this article. I think there’s a lot more gray in the ‘rape by someone you know’ cases than we might think.http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were “made to penetrate” another person—usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as “other sexual violence.”And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011). In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of the CDC’s male respondents who were “made to penetrate” someone would not call themselves rape victims—and with good reason.
We must either start treating sexual assault as a gender-neutral issue or stop using the CDC’s inflated statistics. Few would deny that sex crimes in America are a real, serious, and tragic problem. But studies of sexual violence should use accurate and clear definitions of rape and sexual assault, rather than lump these criminal acts together with a wide range of unsavory but non-criminal scenarios of men—and women—behaving badly.
DavidLyons_ wrote: » Why shouldn't we tell men not to rape?? You claim you are a man, did you need to be told not to do it? If so I think you should seek professional help.It is amongst the most reviled and disgusting crimes a person can commit. That is universally accepted. What the bloody hell are you on about? You are labouring an absolute moot point.
Grayson wrote: » DavidLyons_ wrote: » Why shouldn't we tell men not to rape?? You claim you are a man, did you need to be told not to do it? If so I think you should seek professional help.It is amongst the most reviled and disgusting crimes a person can commit. That is universally accepted. What the bloody hell are you on about? You are labouring an absolute moot point. Universally accepted? Where do you get that from? Marital rape wasn't a crime until recently and there's still many that feel a man has a right to sex in a marriage. There's politicians that talk about "legitimate rape". It's been used as a weapon of war in every country on the planet and is still being used in some. In the bible it's condoned under many circumstances. Really, where do you get universally from?
DavidLyons_ wrote: » Hahaha. Yeah, okay. It is universally accepted that "it is amongst the most reviled and disgusting crimes a person can commit". Is it not?? By Jaysus, I have been misinformed my entire life. I'd have thought that would also be a reason why it might also have been used as a "weapon of war". As for the bible comment. Oh dear. But yeah. I bow to your obvious superior knowledge. It is not universally accepted that rape is "amongst the most reviled and disgusting crimes a person can commit".:rolleyes:
tretorn wrote: » The wrong end was picked. A man who was in a committed relationship said he sometime tries his luck early in the morning. His partner either says yes or no, if its no she turns away and growls, he doesnt force the issue and both parties are happy. Maybe the wife hates sex so much she would prefer to be comatose and as long as Husband is happy he doesnt care whether she is awake or asleep either. Faugheen thinks he should have a say in this and in fact the Gardai should be notified because this is a CRIME. The poor man who mentioned he tries his luck was harassed on this thread, faugheen got so worked up about someone elses love life he practically said this man was a rapist. For all we know faugheen may have reported the "CRIME" to the authorities and someone in the vice unit is monitoring this thread. I may have to take on the Florence in nightingale role in order to prevent arrests.
Grayson wrote: » DavidLyons_ wrote: » Hahaha. Yeah, okay. It is universally accepted that "it is amongst the most reviled and disgusting crimes a person can commit". Is it not?? By Jaysus, I have been misinformed my entire life. I'd have thought that would also be a reason why it might also have been used as a "weapon of war". As for the bible comment. Oh dear. But yeah. I bow to your obvious superior knowledge. It is not universally accepted that rape is "amongst the most reviled and disgusting crimes a person can commit".:rolleyes: try and answer my question. How is it universally accepted? Universally accepted implies that in all cultures, in all times, that rape has been reviled. The fact is that it has been considered perfectly acceptable by many cultures at various times. Remember, you're the one that said it's a universally accepted fact. That's about as broad and sweeping statement as is possible to make. I'm asking you to back it up.
jm08 wrote: » If you read the article fully they explain that ''physical coercian of women is more prevalent' whereas ''due to intoxication' was more prevalent for men. The article goes on to say:
tritium wrote: » I see two extremes of choices. Either we accept that all such acts are rape and therefore change our mindset as to what a rapist looks like to something that’s not exclusively male. In that case the incidence of rape effectively doubles and the single most failed group of rape victims become males where the perpetrator is female, who have effectively been ignored to now Or We make a distinction between cases where it’s physical violent rape and at least a number of other things that are included at present right now. In that case situations like the Ched Evans trial (and probably the Belfast trial) likely never happen and we place more stock on individuals own personal responsibility around drinking and communication. The conviction rate inevitably goes up since the grey area cases disappear from consideration.
meeeeh wrote: » Very much the first. And when men go through the same process as women and are asked how much they drank and what wore and how long they looked at someone, then maybe they will understand how hard the whole process is for women. I guarantee you there will be suddenly huge pressure to change the attitude to alleged victims in court.
Grayson wrote: » try and answer my question. How is it universally accepted? Universally accepted implies that in all cultures, in all times, that rape has been reviled. The fact is that it has been considered perfectly acceptable by many cultures at various times. Remember, you're the one that said it's a universally accepted fact. That's about as broad and sweeping statement as is possible to make. I'm asking you to back it up.
tritium wrote: » Do you really think so? Consider for a moment that this would also involve parading women in court (and in the media in the UK) as rapists and arguing that coming on to a guy sexually while the guy was too drunk to consent makes them a rapist. In some cases the state would have to do this even if the male victim had no recollection of the events. Don’t assume that there’s only an upside for female victims
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » Best strawman I have seen in a while! Universally does not mean "in all times"! Why do people go to these lengths to make idiotic statements? You want to try and make an argument about cultures of the past? Maybe you want to talk about cavemen while you are at it and and pretend that it is relevant? Name one culture in society today where rape is acceptable?
meeeeh wrote: » Are you arguing that rape shouldn't be prosecuted? If someone feels they have been raped (woman or man) they should be listened to and then the decision should be made if there is chance of conviction and case brought to the courts. I don't know what is so hard to understand, sex without consent is wrong. And btw most cases don't go to court for various reasons, there is nothing that state would have to do.
sex without consent is wrong.
BoatMad wrote: » Rape is a criminal definition , generally what is defined as Rape is not acceptable anywhere however the definition of Rape has changed considerably over the last 100 years
BoatMad wrote: » the charge of Rape is very serious, any such charge must be subject to the full judicial process and the defence must be capable of effective cross examination , including the accuser its far more then " hey should be listened to and then the decision should be made if there is chance of conviction and case brought to the courts", that suggest that a "person " claiming rape has a virtual automatic right to force the prosecution service to proceed too a trail surely at this stage , such simplistic statements add nothing to the debate the issue isnt " consent ", its determining whether consent has been given or withdrawn and what actually then happened its simply not black and white , people dont engage in legal contracts before intercourse etc
No I said the victim has a right to report, prosecution has to decide if they want to proceed. What is so hard to understand there
Majority of cases don't end up in courts
And if the whole thing is so complicated then people should attend classes where they are told how not to rape.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » I agree.... Sexual assault is changing also. It appears people are beginning to conflate being offended as being assaulted.
meeeeh wrote: » No I said the victim has a right to report, prosecution has to decide if they want to proceed. What is so hard to understand there. Majority of cases don't end up in courts so stop with hysterical interpretation of what I didn't say. And if the whole thing is so complicated then people should attend classes where they are told how not to rape.
carolmon wrote: » universally juːnɪˈvəːsəli/ adverb adverb: universally by everyone; in every case. synonyms: invariably, always, without exception, in all instances, in all cases, in every case, in every instance;http://www.revelist.com/world/countries-marital-rape-legal/7073/allowing-for-spousal-rape-the-report-points-out-makes-sexual-violence-as-a-whole-seem-less-serious/2 countries where marital rape is legal "The women’s rights organization surveyed the laws of each of the 82 countries between 2014 and 2015. They found laws expressly allowing for spousal rape in Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lesotho, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania. In four of these countries, it is permitted even when the victim is a child." Rapes ordered by village courts as punishmentshttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-rape/indian-woman-says-gang-raped-on-orders-of-village-court-idUSBREA0M0VH20140123https://newsin.asia/pakistani-village-court-orders-gang-rape-revenge/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jun/03/mukhtar-mai-pakistani-woman-gang-rape-punishment-hope-belated-justice I truly wish rape was universally viewed as the abhorrent crime it is, unfortunately that's not true
BoatMad wrote: » These are more correctly defined as non-consenuasl sexual activity , depending on the laws, this may be rape or it may not be. Marital intercourse in ireland could have been in the past non-consensual but that did not make it rape, after a change in laws it was then determined to be rape .
