Thread: date rape is a fake crime....

That reply was meant for Kevin.

Originally Posted by diligent

Where on earth have you been living? Or maybe are you too young to understand the female pysche.

I get laid sometimes while drinking sometimes not. I understand females well enough.

Originally Posted by kenvin

This entire debate is based on a false premise. It is not now or has it ever been illegal to have sex with a drunk female. I have done it many times so have most of my friends. I have personally seen hundreds if not thousands of drunks hook up at the club every weekend. This is just a made up problem for someone who has emotional issues to complain about. There is no special law that says you can't have sex with drunk girls.

I haven't read anyone saying it was illegal to have sex with a drunken female. The law certainly doesn't say so.......but it does say it is illegal to rape anyone...male female, drunk or sober. You are the one basing your argument on a false premise if you think this thread is all about having sex......it is about rape...and in what circumstances does having sex with a female who has, under the influence of freely imbibed drink, voluntarily placed herself in a situation in which sex is liable to be an outcome, become rape.......and that would be when she claims rape.

What you think doesn't really matter.....the definition of rape, now extended to cover date rape and marital rape, is no longer predicated on violence, the threat of violence and/or any level of force but on informed consent...which means that the man has the responsibility to ensure that the female consents to the sexual activity at the time in question..and continues to consent to it all through the act. And he has to keep his fingers crossed that he can prove that consent it if she wakes up in the morning, and on reflection, decides she was raped the night before.

It is no longer enough to assume because a female, drunk or sober, happily goes home with you/invites you to her home..even makes for the bedroom, stripping as she goes...or opens her legs for you in a back alley...that she is "up for it"...because what the man felt he could reasonably believe because of the way she has been behaving is no longer a defence against rape. If, through drink (or for any other reason) the female has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on that occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape.

The pendulum has now swung past the stage of justice for all and into the realms of protecting females from the consequences of their freely chosen actions.

Originally Posted by Oddquine

I haven't read anyone saying it was illegal to have sex with a drunken female. The law certainly doesn't say so.......but it does say it is illegal to rape anyone...male female, drunk or sober. You are the one basing your argument on a false premise if you think this thread is all about having sex......it is about rape...and in what circumstances does having sex with a female who has, under the influence of freely imbibed drink, voluntarily placed herself in a situation in which sex is liable to be an outcome, become rape.......and that would be when she claims rape.

What you think doesn't really matter.....the definition of rape, now extended to cover date rape and marital rape, is no longer predicated on violence, the threat of violence and/or any level of force but on informed consent...which means that the man has the responsibility to ensure that the female consents to the sexual activity at the time in question..and continues to consent to it all through the act. And he has to keep his fingers crossed that he can prove that consent it if she wakes up in the morning, and on reflection, decides she was raped the night before.

It is no longer enough to assume because a female, drunk or sober, happily goes home with you/invites you to her home..even makes for the bedroom, stripping as she goes...or opens her legs for you in a back alley...that she is "up for it"...because what the man felt he could reasonably believe because of the way she has been behaving is no longer a defence against rape. If, through drink (or for any other reason) the female has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on that occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape.

The pendulum has now swung past the stage of justice for all and into the realms of protecting females from the consequences of their freely chosen actions.

The female also has the same responsibility. You are cry babying over a problem that doesn't exist. Hey if you dont want to be charged with rape don't rape anyone.

Originally Posted by kenvin

The female also has the same responsibility. You are cry babying over a problem that doesn't exist. Hey if you dont want to be charged with rape don't rape anyone.

Maybe it isn't a problem which exists in your state of the USA, if you live in the USA, because they all don't appear to adhere strictly to Federal Law...but federal law says that rape by giving a drug or intoxicant to a person that renders them unable to give consent is liable to a sentence, if proven, of up to 15 years.

But that is where you are not quite getting what it all means....in the UK for sure.....and I rather think in the USA as well.....the female has NO responsibility for anything if she has had a drink...FACT...and the amount of drink she has had is immaterial..all she needs is to have had enough to remove her inhibitions...and two cans of UK strength cider does that for me. In fact if you have bought her the drink, you are more than likely to be deemed as as making her drunk simply to have your wicked way with her.

You obviously don't live in the UK...or have checked out the links I put in a previous post..one of which specifically refers to the USA. You might be well advised to do so...before you end up yourself being prosecuted as a rapist. Continue to pretend to yourself by all means that shagging a drunk is just fine....but don't be surprised if that drunk wakes in the morning and accuses you of rape......because, if you can't prove consent..it is rape. Nowadays it is that horrifically simple.

So far you have been lucky..but if you are as young as you sound......will that luck last for the rest of your life?

Originally Posted by Oddquine

Lets be honest here..there are men who'd get their rocks off using a knot hole in a block of wood if the knot hole was there and they were feeling that way inclined. Why would a comatose woman be any different to a block of wood if she was available. Men don't much do pleasure, I have found..at least not for their partner, they are more inclined to do relief for themselves.

But what hacks me off immeasurably is the feminist conviction that women don't lie and are whiter than the driven snow. What hacks me off is the feminist assumption that if a woman says it is so it bloody well is so. I have read forums where they actually say that just because a man has been found not guilty does not mean he is not a rapist! Jesus wept...is that man hating or is that man hating?

What puzzles me is the fact that the feminist movement insists that men are convicted on no evidence, by having their names all over the media ahead of any trial, any evidence and any verdict, because we all know mud sticks....while the women in question have complete legal anonymity. Is that not simply being vindictive? Why are women so against the men accused having the same anonymity as the women accusing them until an accusation has been proven? I can't see any problem with that.........can anybody else? Tbh, I'd prefer that the media were kept out of everything in every court case until after a trial and decision.

I'm not saying that no men are rapists..and I'm not saying that all women are liars, but the system should be set up to protect the women who are not liars and the men who are not rapists.....not specifically slanted to protect the women who are liars and penalise the men who are not.

In 2008 in the UK, according to Home Office research, between 3% and 9% of all reports of rape are found to be false. Yet the lives of those men accused are often devastated. Some even commit suicide, so terrible is the stigma of being charged with sexual assault - even if subsequently cleared. But that is just fine with the feminists, it appears, as long as woman can lie with impunity.

I was a feminist once...but think they are now taking the p1ss to a level which is little short of ridiculous..just because the UK Government has made it easy for them to do so.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/te...4229-25828156/

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/m...g-6585803.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...nt-prosecution

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...led-years.html

http://www.insidetime.org/articlevie...historic_cases

That last may be, and undoubtedly will, be perceived by those of a feminist mindset to be self-serving on behalf of rapists...."the guilty would say that wouldn't they" mindset...but have a look at a case from the USA, which, because of the US rape shield law has refused an accused man any defence at all..
http://anatomyofawrongfulconviction.blogspot.co.uk/ http://www.freedonmiller.org/

Ignoring the blatant injustices, self-interested bias and utter incompetence on the part of the police, prosecutor, defence lawyer and judge, if you can prove the female accuser is a fantasist and liar, has made the same accusations against others in the past for the same reasons and has proven psychiatric problems...but are not allowed to do that because that is "blaming the female for what happened to her" and all testimony regarding the accusers past long-term behaviour is forbidden completely...where is the justice? To me, a pattern of behaviour is a different scenario altogether to a one off accusation of rape. I don't think that the fact that, in the past, a female has been promiscuous is anything a defence lawyer should be able to bring up in court to muddy the waters and insinuate she asked for it...because that is something outside the rape charge and not relevant to it...but if she had made a habit of calling rape on a number of occasions, particularly if the cases had subsequently not been proven....I think that does have relevance to a defence.

That case was in 1997, although fourteen years on Don Miller is still in jail because he refuses to show remorse to the parole board for something he didn't do....and, with our propensity for slavishly following today what the USA did yesterday.....we are now there as well..convicting on the uncorroborated word of a woman.....because women are a special case who don't lie. Sheesh!

In the UK today, I am embarrassed to be a woman. I cringe at the idea that I am too pathetic to take responsibility for my actions. I don't think I should have any more rights than any other group in the UK......I have equality under the law, and I'm not too feart to use the law to get the equality I am due. I don't think I am superior to any other individual in the UK, and I don't see why, because I have a vagina, and not a penis, that that automatically makes me the most truthful person in the country and allows me to act like the biggest arsehole male in the universe just to prove I am equal to him. Why would anyone with any self respect want to go out and get blitzed just because men can and we are equal...or fight like animals in the street just because men do and we are equal

I always believed we were better than men....not more equal, but better, with different attitudes, morals and a lot less selfishness and arrogance...not controlled by a brain driven by our sexual organs. I am immensely disappointed to find that all the feminism I used to support has done in the days after I thought we had achieved the equality we sought is turn women into men in skirts.......with a diminution of all that made us better than them.

I don't think the problem is date rape. There are real cases in which a woman has some kind of knockout drug slipped in her drink or a man coerces her into sex after a date. Those are real rapes.

But, the rape laws as they stand need serious reform as they're essentially a "j'accuse" type of crime. (I would also include hate crimes in this) Bacisly, a J'accuse crime is one in which the accusation is enough for a conviction. Date rape and hate crimes both work this way. If I accuse you of being a sexist and not hiring me because I'm female, the burden of proof is not on ME to prove that I'm being discriminated against, but on you to prove in some way that the fact that you didn't hire me is not because I'm female, but for some other reason. Same with date rape -- the burden of proof is absolutely on the male. The man must prove that the woman wanted sex. But since in most cases the concent is not videotaped or documented, there's no hope of finding the man innocent. She said she didn't want sex -- even if she claimed to have wanted it that night, even if she rents the hotel room with mirrors on the ceiling, and even if at the time she tells someone else "I can't wait to have sex". If the next day she says it was date rape, you're a rapist, and your life is ruined.

Rape does indeed happen, even date rapes happen, however, justice and fairness demand that a person have some evidence of a crime before conviction, and in most date rape or abuse cases, you cannot find it. At the very least, if the man can prove his innocence , the woman ought to get some punishment for having brought a serious claim such as abuse or rape when it isn't true.

^^^^^

best post ever

If a drunk person or some1 who is high on drugs can't understand what they're doing, then it would be rape/sex abuse. Yes, if a woman has sex with a drunk man or a man who is high on drugs-if the man can't understand what he was doing & this was known or should've reasonably been known to the woman, then it would be rape. Juries have to decide in these cases whether the drunk person could understand what they were doing. It's also not just sex. If a drunk person were to sign a deal where he or she agrees to sell a $200,000 house for $60,000, then the fact that he or she was drunk, high & the fact the buyer knew or reasonably knew this can be raised to void the sale. Finally, it's biologically possible for a woman to rape a man as a man can get erect in such situations as gunshot wounds, stab wounds, losing an arm in war & other frightening situations. Not all erections are sexual.

you can be date raped, no still means no

but, if two drunk people have willing sex (at the time) but regret it when they sober up, that is not date rape

Originally Posted by FreshAir

you can be date raped, no still means no

It's possible for a person to first agree but then change mind by saying no. It's also possible for a person to first say no but then voluntarily change mind to yes. It's possible for a person to say no to 1 act but agree to another. For eg. if a woman were to ask a man if he could do oral on her, many to most men would say 'no, just ordinary.' In other words, he wants to do penis/vaginal sex with her however he doesn't want to do oral on her. Each case is different & again just as people change mind from yes to no, people also change mind from no to yes. Sex becomes rape when force & or criminal threats are used to get sex or if a person is unable to agree due to mental retardation or if they're so impaired by drugs, alcohol that they can't understand what they're doing.