Rupert_Baehr Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 No person should be permitted to force another person to engage in a non-consensual sexual act. (Hopefully most people on this forum would agree with that, although in certain societies [and I'm not trying to side-track this thread!] the rules are biased unfavourably towards males.) Ken Clarke (who should've known better) got himself into a deal of trouble a few weeks ago by appearing to suggest that there are 'degrees' of rape. Rape is rape. - But there are degrees of wickedness associated with the rape. Killing is killing, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter (though the maximum penalty for manslaughter is the same as the mandatory penalty for murder.) Consider four rape cases: (a) Stalker (aggressive) rape: A man stalks a woman, abducts her and rapes her. Pre-meditated rape (even if the pre-meditation started when he first saw the woman and decided to stalk her.) A wicked crime. (b) Non-consensual date rape: A couple go on a date. They have a pleasant evening (and perhaps have a little too much to drink.) He goes to her house (is invited) but when he gets there he forces himself upon her. She says 'NO' but he ignores her. That's rape, plain and simple. 'NO' means 'NO'. - She might've been ill-advised to invite him home, but merely being incautious does not negative the right of a victim to say 'NO' If they had both drunk too much and she didn't say 'NO' until the next day, her claim that it was 'rape' might be difficult to argue. (Vide the case I quoted in post #164) The law (as it stands) says that sexual intercourse becomes rape once consent is removed (but not if consent is removed subsequently.) It can be argued that somebody who is inebriated is not capable of giving consent - and that's certainly the argument which would be used on cases involving Rohypnol) but where the inebriation was self-induced voluntarily, would it really be just to argue that intoxication should negative the consent? If that's the case in rape, it must be the case in other crimes... Should the courts throw out a drunken driving casee because the driver was too drunk to make a decision not to drive? Of course not. A driver is expected to make a reasonable decision before consuming alcohol (and to make plans to follow through on that decision.) Why should that logic not apply to the behaviour of a dating couple? If it can be shown that the female was intoxicated and the male was not, and if it can be shown that the male 'spiked' her drinks (or even worse, Rohypnol or a similar drug was used then the 'wickedness' is very similar to that in case (a). If, however, they were both somewhat reckless, then the 'wickedness' is rather less. If she did say 'NO', then it's still rape. © 'Conjugal rape.' (A comparatively new offence): Husband comes home from the pub and forces (even if he does not use physical force, intimidation counts as unlawful force) his wife to have sex with him. She says 'Not tonight, dear' but he persists. That too is rape, but the level of 'wickedness' is less. Grounds for prosecution (and grounds for divorce, too) - but is it as wicked as (a) or even (b)? (d) (And this is the one which worries me.) Withdrawal of consent leading to 'Date Rape: A couple go on a date. They have a pleasant evening. They go to her (or his) apartment and there is no suggestion that either is incapable of making a decision whether or not to engage in intercourse. The evening goes well and they end up in bed. (You know what happens next ... this isn't a porno show so I'm not going to discuss foreplay.) The law is 'black letter' - quite unequivocal. "Consent may be withdrawn at any time." Not at any time before penetration, but at any time before ejaculation. Is this reasonable? IMO, it is not reasonable. Sex is a very powerful driver. (Good thing, really - if it wasn't and people couldn't be bothered, the species would die out.) A female preying Mantis bites the head off the male during mating. When she starts chewing on him, does he stop? - No he does not. Does he want to have his head bitten off? - No he does not, but he is driven by a prime motivator (the continuation of the species and she needs the protein.) It's much the same with Tarantulas (and other spiders) They know they will die, but they do it anyway. Sex is a prime motivator. Humans (Well, some of them anyway ) are a bit smarter than insects but sex is a prime motivator for us, too and I suggest that during intercourse (or possible during foreplay) there comes a point at which the male may be so driven by hormones that he will find it very difficult to stop. (Not impossible - Onan did it.) The law does not take hormonal drives into acount. 'NO' means 'NO'- even on the 'vinegar stroke'. I was a youth in the '60s. I wasn't much into drugs, but both sex and rock & roll had their attractions. I didn't rape anybody (not even by today's standards) but I did engage in a number of sexual encounters which were 'unadvisable'. I'm glad I'm not a teenager/young 20's now. If I was, I would consider carrying a 'consent form' and a pen with me at all times. Under the present law, such a course of action might be advisable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 BTW: Where Rohypnol is used (or where it can be shown that the male 'spiked' the drinks of the female with anything else - including distilled alcohol) - then (IMO) the sentence of the Court should automatically be increased by 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Flying monkey poo??! Are there many flying monkeys in Sheffield? I hope there aren't too many flying pigs. (I'm going on a 'rain ranger' to Sheff later this month. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Are there many flying monkeys in Sheffield? I hope there aren't too many flying pigs. (I'm going on a 'rain ranger' to Sheff later this month. ) Poor Spyda thinks they deliver Christmas presents rather than Santa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 We should have regulated prostitution. That way people would have somewhere for people to turn for sexual gratification. Also it would wittle out any cases where rape could be brought against none payers of the service of which I am sure there will be some. Oh bugger! You're destroying my 'cunning plan' (Well, actually you're not - you're arguing against it, but it would still work.) We live in a 'compensation culture' and it will be a while before that fades If you engage a prostitute and you fail to pay her/him, then you have raped her/him (unless, of course, you are female and you hired a male prostitute - in which case he might have to sue you for 'breach of contract', which would fail because prostitution is not a lawful contract.) Anyway. If you fail to pay your hooker, that's rape. The CICB will (according to a previous poster and the link (s)he provided) pay rape victims £7500. So you 'work as a prostitute'. Charge your clients £4 17s 6d and when they offer you a fiver, you say: "I haven't got change. Exact Fare please!" (The bus companies can get away with doing that - so you can too.) Eventually (if you insist on the exact fare) your mark will leave - without paying - and you go to the police and report a rape. You'll probably spend a few hours being tested, but eventually the police will determine that you are telling the truth and you too will (eventually) be eligible for the £7500 payout from the taxpayer. A tax-free income. Do that once a week and it'll beat working for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 My bold. I think youll find the majority of rape accusations are false. Over 50% from what i hear. That has to be pathetic post of the century.Of course there are false claims but I really think you're being a prat with that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I think he crawled under the lady's shoe. The Spider's name was Boris. RIP Boris. hope the Mozzies eat you alive, BF! You now have no defence ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 ..at it again CG? I'm going to have a side bet on who you were in your previous life here Is this going to happen every time i say something you dont agree with? If it is its going to get very, very boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 That has to be pathetic post of the century.Of course there are false claims but I really think you're being a prat with that post. Most pathetic post yet you feel the need to reply? You agree some women make up a rape story yet im a prat? Whatever:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Most pathetic post yet you feel the need to reply? You agree some women make up a rape story yet im a prat? Whatever:loopy: You quoted a stupid number. Back it up or shut up talking daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.