To which YOU replied that Nehalem was right, and to which I replied that - no - he (and YOU) are incorrect.
Or is it your opinion that if the woman had used the phrase "sexually assaulted," which is also well defined by the PA legislature - which, for whatever reason, preferred that terminology to "2nd-degree rape", then all of the sturm und drang about "I let him have sex with me" and saying "no" only once would evaporate and everyone would be agreeing that a sex crime had likely been committed?
Little minds can't get beyond terminology; deeper minds discuss ideas.
I'm curious, what would the typical female response be if every time a guy wanted to have sex with his wife/girlfriend/hook-up partner he had to ask "want to have sex?" I'm guessing it would be along the lines of "Not now. Why don't you try being romantic and spontaneous and actually take some initiative?"
There would also be no make-up sex ever, since that usually starts with a woman saying "I'm not having sex with you, I'm still mad," followed by implicit consent when the man keeps trying.
Equality in the year 2014
Source
All men are potential rapists, all women are potential rape victims. All men are exclusively responsible for determining whether consent was given and remains in effect (has not been later revoked), and women lose all agency when a penis is in their proximity. (proximity is appropriately vague, definitively it depends on what would give the greatest benefit to the woman in question)
Authors note: it is not a requirement that the penis is real
can't or wont? Fact remains that he was technically right. Re-read the posts. It doesn't matter whether it's a silly point or not. It's of no consequence for you to just admit your error, since it would still be sexual assault without force in PA, just not "rape." Neh used the term rape. I promise.
Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. sexual assault.
Obama administration is riding to the rescue of sexual assault victims.
The administrations crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent too high but nowhere near 20 percent.
Why don't YOU acknowledge that Nehalem's so-called point was utterly irrelevant to the discussion and a complete waste of time? But, no, you're too busy giving Oracular, two-word replies.
I'm curious, what would the typical female response be if every time a guy wanted to have sex with his wife/girlfriend/hook-up partner he had to ask "want to have sex?" I'm guessing it would be along the lines of "Not now. Why don't you try being romantic and spontaneous and actually take some initiative?"
There would also be no make-up sex ever, since that usually starts with a woman saying "I'm not having sex with you, I'm still mad," followed by implicit consent when the man keeps trying.
I'm pretty sure the point of contention is that people are arguing that laying there and doing nothing equals consent. That's insane.
No one who has sex with things that aren't real dolls thinks that someone laying there motionless is indicative of consent, particularly after they already told you no.
No more insane that trying to claim that girl would rather be viciously raped than bother to say no to a 2nd advance.
When women actually have equal or better power in this dynamic, then people can start complaining about how complicated the issues of consent are. As it stands, men maintain a significant power imbalance in their favor and still bitch about how they can't just have 100% of it.
Actually it's a lot more insane. You have fairly serious mental health issues when it comes to women though, so I doubt you will understand.
So you are saying that if some guy grabbed your ass. You told him no. Then 5 minutes later he grabbed it again you would just lay there and let him ass "rape" you?
And even the girl didn't claim she was motionless. She kind of just laid there. Which leaves ample ambiguity.
I just kind of laid there and didnt do anything
I thought that too, but try reading it again.
I just kind of laid there and didnt do anything
No. It is that lack of fighting someone off does not imply consent. The courts, yet again, back me up on this one.
We aren't talking about a lack of fighting someone off.
We are talking about someone who decided not to say no.
She decided to have sex with him rather than deal with his continued nagging. Nagging for sex isn't rape
The explicit word of the law and the courts disagree. Absolutely zero resistance is required in any way, and lack of resistance does not mean consent.
Yet again, the courts have owned you.
Note the key words in bold.
Find one court case where a guy was convicted of rape after a girl jumped into bed with him and let him undress her without complaint.
There is a reason that liberals want these cases tried in campus "courts" under preponderance of the evidence standards. And its not because they want to keep rapists out of jail.
Find one court case where a guy was convicted of rape after a girl jumped into bed with him and let him undress her without complaint.
There is a reason that liberals want these cases tried in campus "courts" under preponderance of the evidence standards. And its not because they want to keep rapists out of jail.
"Kind of"... would you really make a court hear such arguments?
"Mam, were you enjoying it, did you move your hips at all?"
This train of thought is a disaster.
Well it wouldn't have anything to do with keeping rapists out of jail, since it relates only to how the schools deal with the allegations: suspension/expulsion.
How about I don't dig through the annals of rape cases and just rely on the explicit letter of the law. How utterly unsurprising that you want to abandon the letter of the law as soon as it doesn't suit you anymore.
If you want to be able to have sex with motionless people that aren't your Real Doll, go get states to change the law.
If the man is in jail then obviously he won't be in school. Why should schools be involved in rape cases at all?