What do you think the definition of rape is?

[Stranza]

It is muddier still.

 

There were no women rapers because, by definition, they couldn't.

Some women who self ident now have functioning penis so can be rapers.

 

Just to keep it interesting some women who used to be men with penises were rapist. But now id as women so are women rapers even though when they raped they were men.

[redfox]

I assume that would carry a lesser sentence? Not that men often complain.

 

Same starting point on the guidelines.

[willman]

Because it required penetration.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2018 at 08:31 ----------

 

 

Which is fairly ridiculous really.

For example, a woman can withdraw consent at any point and expect the proceedings to stop.

Now, this is going to be a little convoluted to avoid all the obvious objections, but imagine a BDSM session, male/female, restrained male, viagra. He says stop. She doesn't.

If it were the other way around that would be rape.

In reality it doesn't have to involved restraints and viagra, some women are stronger than some men, and the choice to stop doesn't make an erection magically disappear.

 

And that is the crux of why women supposedly can't force men to have intercourse.

The use of viagra btw doesn't affect the issue - the defence is that the man has to be aroused to attain an erection,viagra doesn't change that.

[Halibut]

And that is the crux of why women supposedly can't force men to have intercourse.

The use of viagra btw doesn't affect the issue - the defence is that the man has to be aroused to attain an erection,viagra doesn't change that.

 

Are you claiming that a man cannot be brought to a state of erection against his will?

[willman]

Are you claiming that a man cannot be brought to a state of erection against his will?

 

Did i say i was making any claim.

I was stating the case as the law sees it.

 

Are you claiming a man cannot prevent an erection at will?

[RootsBooster]

Did i say i was making any claim.

I was stating the case as the law sees it.

 

Are you claiming a man cannot prevent an erection at will?

 

Do you have any examples of this defence that a man has to be aroused to have an erection?

 

Also, of course a man can't (always) prevent an erection at will. Without specific conditioning we have very little control over our bodies' reactions to unexpected situations.

Edited March 24, 2018 by RootsBooster

[Halibut]

Did i say i was making any claim.

I was stating the case as the law sees it.

 

Are you claiming a man cannot prevent an erection at will?

 

Yes. As any teenager will know. Or indeed any adult male.

[willman]

Yes. As any teenager will know. Or indeed any adult male.

 

Well i'm afraid you must live in special place that is far away from reality.

Otherwise we'd all be as the slang is "a walking hard on".

 

---------- Post added 25-03-2018 at 10:05 ----------

 

Do you have any examples of this defence that a man has to be aroused to have an erection?

 

Also, of course a man can't (always) prevent an erection at will. Without specific conditioning we have very little control over our bodies' reactions to unexpected situations.

 

Actually i don't,but i though i had a vague recollection that when the law was petitioned to be changed some bright spark threw that into the mix.

I could easily be wrong,but they still refused to change the law.

[RootsBooster]

Actually i don't,but i though i had a vague recollection that when the law was petitioned to be changed some bright spark threw that into the mix.

I could easily be wrong,but they still refused to change the law.

 

Which law, exactly, did 'they' refuse to change?

[willman]

Which law, exactly, did 'they' refuse to change?

 

The one that only shows rape as having occurred due to penetration.

There was a petition for males forced to have sex with women against there will to be classified as rape.