Reply to Moms of sons - do you guide your son to be respectful of girls?

Forum Index » Tweens and Teens

Reply to "Moms of sons - do you guide your son to be respectful of girls?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]now adays anything can amount to rape.

There are many grey situations where a woman may consent to sex and then regret it later. Under today's definition, that would be rape.

It could be drunk sex where both parties were mutually drunk (not sex where someone slips something into your drink or purposely makes you drunk to incapcitate you, that's rape)

It could be where the woman was unable to speak up clearly and said yes to sex even though the situation was uncomfortable to her. These people would also classify it as sex.

There are people trying to say that if someone lies to you to have sex (e.g. he tells you he is rich but he is not) that is also rape.

Its ridiculous.
[/quote]

Someone asked who the people classifying those instances as rape were:

[b]Drunk sex where both parties were mutually drunk: [/b]http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html

But in cases like the Occidental one, where both parties are going through the motions and saying the words of enthusiastically consenting to sex, the incapacitation standard presents a legitimate paradox: Once she filed a report, Jane’s incapacitation became the sole evidence that she had been victimized, and yet John’s incapacitation could not be used as a defense. According to Occidental’s sexual misconduct standard, Jane was too drunk to consent to sex because she lacked “awareness of consequences,” the “ability to make informed judgments,” and the “capacity to appreciate the nature and the quality of the act.” Meanwhile, John was held responsible because he “knew or should have known” Jane was incapacitated—a calculation that’s based on what a sober person would have known in his circumstances.

In order to resolve those contradictions, some people are comfortable assuming that the man is at fault. In a 2004 article on common legal approaches to intoxicated sexual encounters, the California Western Law Review’s Valerie Ryan noted that “the justification for demanding that men assume the greater legal burden and be held responsible when there is an allegation of rape may be that, in almost all cases of rape, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.” But while it’s true that most sexual predators are men, that doesn’t mean that most men are sexual predators

[b]women agreeing to sex even though she is inwardly uncomfortable with it[/b]
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/heres-how-to-start-fixing-our-culture-of-sexual-assault-903
Canadian feminist author Anne Thériault laments “the still-pervasive and very flawed idea that if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape” — clearly referring not just to attacks involving violence or incapacitation (for which few would demand a verbal “no” as proof of rape), but encounters in which a woman yields to unwanted overtures, like I did.

[b]If someone lies to you to get sex[/b]
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html

So yes, the very simple definition of rape, sex against your will by force has become murkier to encompass sex. Why don't we just criminalize it all together.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics