Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker because that is the definition.
What definition?
Quote:
The reason you have not seen anything about women raping men within their peer group is because women cannot be defined as rapists (except perhaps with children) since they are not legally required to get consent.
So you're saying that women can't be convicted of rape?
And why would a woman be able to rape (in legal terms) a child but not an adult?
Quote:
There are states that have adopted gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a non-gender specific manner. Suppose you and a woman went out for drinks. You both tie one on and the have a roll in the sack. In the morning she claims she was to drunk to consent and thus you are a rapist. You could attempt to claim the reverse is true, that she never asked you if you wanted to have sex, but I have never seen a single prosecution of that. You are welcome to find a case where the prosecution has occured. I honestly wouldn't mind being wrong on that issue because I want gender equality on that issue and that would proof of movement toward it.
Oh king of hypothetical anecdotal evidence, have you ever heard of a man who went through that situation unwillingly?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but penis sex is only possible with a man if he is aroused. I've never been held at knifepoint or somesuch so I don't know how the equipment works under such duress, perhaps it is possible, perhaps not.
It is certainly possible for a woman to rape a man using a foreign object, however.
How does homosexual marriage allow polygamy? I really don't get it. I mean, why doesn't heterosexual marriage allow polygamy? Because society decided that polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Why couldn't you still say that polygamy shouldn't be allowed?
Could you state succinctly why the Massachusetts ruling allows polygamy? Or are you talking about the Texas Lawrence decision - but that wasn't about marriage, right? I'd just like to hear the argument, because I honestly don't get it.
No problem. The Texas decision basically decriminalized sodomy. It did so via the right to privacy which sets a pretty high bar of state interest before a law can be enacted against something.
Using this decision, the Massachusettes court ruled that homosexual marriage cannot be illegal. It was a 4-3 decision and there are some intangibles to consider here so give me a bit of breathing room on this okay.
The Texas case (I may have said court) legalized sodomy across the United States. Most states had already decriminalized sodomy but there were, I believe about 13 states that had not. So a court might be more reluctant to legalize a marriage that cannot have the act of consumating it be done in all the other states. Even if Massachusettes allows homosexual marriage, there is the question of whether other states would reciprocate with regard to the license.
However that question really becomes easier to sort out because of the Texas ruling with regard to privacy. They set the bar quite high. It can't be just history, religious belief or precident. There must be a compelling reason to act against the person's privacy right. it has basically flipped the responsibility onto the state. If the state can't give a good reason why, then the right defaults to the individual. The privacy right is strong enough to give 12 year olds abortion without parental consent or notification. It is strong enough to override a marriage challenge.
The reason for marriage exclusively between a man and a woman? Well no one here can defend why it ought only be between a man and a woman, so it will default to the individuals right to marry who they wish. Historical claims about child rearing and things of that nature will not be found valid, promoting monogamy, etc. We can already see that they won't pass the bar set by the Texas case.
So then the issue will turn to polygamy. Marriage between two people has no more significance than marriage between a man and a woman. It is a social construct and doesn't have to be that way. What Will mentioned is that it was easier to argue for two person marriage because you have two genders and marriage was understood to be between one party of each of those genders. However that is about to change isn't it? No-fault divorce already allows a sort of serial polygamy with some folks being married 5-7 times. When marriage is no longer defined as between a man and a woman, it opens up new definitions, not just with regard to WHO you can love, but does the state have a compelling reason to limit how many you can love.
As high as the Texas bar is, I can't see a reason they could rule against polygamy. The standard has been set that the state must prove a compelling interest. Can you think of a compelling interest as to why a man shouldn't be able to marry say two women when he could marry them one after the other with a divorce in between? It wouldn't change his legal or financial obligations.
Understand that even though 75% of the Republican party is against homosexual marriage, well over 50% of the Democratic party is as well. You only implicated one group when the view has majorities in BOTH parties. Don't be hypocritical when even six out of 9 major Democratic candidates don't endorse homosexual marriage.
You know, I hear this argument all the time. But, there's something wrong with the leap of logic here. While the statistic above may be true, there has NEVER been an instance where any of the Democrats are in FAVOR of codifying laws against homosexual marriage. I cannot find one article or comment by any of the Democratic presidential candidates that will go so far as to make it ILLEGAL. They may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I guarantee you they would never vote for for such a discriminatory law as the Republican appear to be willing to do.
So you're saying that women can't be convicted of rape?
And why would a woman be able to rape (in legal terms) a child but not an adult?
Oh king of hypothetical anecdotal evidence, have you ever heard of a man who went through that situation unwillingly?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but penis sex is only possible with a man if he is aroused. I've never been held at knifepoint or somesuch so I don't know how the equipment works under such duress, perhaps it is possible, perhaps not.
It is certainly possible for a woman to rape a man using a foreign object, however.
I'm saying I haven't heard nor read of a conviction of a woman against a man for nonconsentual rape via regular intercourse due to that woman not getting the man's consent. I said you are welcome to find a case and prove it wrong. I even said I would like to be wrong on that matter.
Why can a woman rape a child and not another man? Because we change who can give consent there. It becomes a sort of guilt by default. Children are not seeing as being able to give consent to any party, be they man or woman.
Now, I'm going to be a little harsh here Grove, but only because I'm asking you to think about what you would say to someone who suggested the reverse of what you said regarding penis sex. If a woman said no to sex, but was wet via the foreplay and the man did it anyway, what would you say to someone who claimed that wasn't rape because she had signs of arousal? I think you would take their claim and basically ram it back down their throat. Rape isn't about arousal. It is about consent.
As for whether any men I have known have gone through that scenario. I've gone through it myself. It's just as easy for a woman to jump on a man as is the reverse. Likewise coercion when a party is unsure or proceeding without clear consent is just as possible from a woman. Laws have been changed to show that physical resistance isn't necessary because it could cause more harm to the party that does resist. The issue comes down purely to consent. (I wonder what sort of ranting reply I would get from you if I suggested that K.F. didn't physically resist Kobe and thus it wasn't rape.)
Now please understand that when I say I've gone through it, what I am saying is that I have had sex a couple of times with some very aggressive women who basically jumped on top while I was still not sure if I wanted to even have sex with them, and still wasn't sure even afterwards. It would be pretty much the classic definition of date rape if reversed. Also yes I have heard of this happening to more than just me.
I'm saying I haven't heard nor read of a conviction of a woman against a man for nonconsentual rape via regular intercourse due to that woman not getting the man's consent. I said you are welcome to find a case and prove it wrong. I even said I would like to be wrong on that matter.
I've never heard of a case like that, either.
Why do you think that is?
Quote:
Why can a woman rape a child and not another man? Because we change who can give consent there. It becomes a sort of guilt by default. Children are not seeing as being able to give consent to any party, be they man or woman.
If a woman holds a man down and shoves a dildo up his ass, is that not rape?
Women rape men. It's not common at all, but it happens.
Quote:
Now, I'm going to be a little harsh here Grove, but only because I'm asking you to think about what you would say to someone who suggested the reverse of what you said regarding penis sex. If a woman said no to sex, but was wet via the foreplay and the man did it anyway, what would you say to someone who claimed that wasn't rape because she had signs of arousal? I think you would take their claim and basically ram it back down their throat. Rape isn't about arousal. It is about consent.
Don't worry about offending my delicate sensibilities, trumpt.
I never said that a man couldn't be raped via penile sex because an erect penis is an indicator of acceptance, I posed the question.
But it's a good point, so let's work with that and move forward with some hypotheticals.
Let's say Joe and Jane are making out and things are getting heavy. Little Joe gets hard and Little Jane gets wet.
THEN!
(1) Joe decides he doesn't want it to go any further, but Jane says "oh yes it is", so she forces Little Jane down on Little Joe.
(2) Jane decides she doesn't want it to go any further, but Joe says "oh yes it is", so he forces Little Joe inside Little Jane.
It is given that (2) is more frequent and likely than (1), but that's not the point here.
This is the point...
Quote:
It's just as easy for a woman to jump on a man as is the reverse. Likewise coercion when a party is unsure or proceeding without clear consent is just as possible from a woman.
I would say your first sentence is false. Women are not as strong as men, therefore women have a more difficult time forcing their will on men in such a situation. (Talk to me about the daily workings of a relationship and I'll tell you women can dominate that. ) But when it comes to a primal, physical encounter the man will win. Men are stronger, that cannot be ignored.
Women are not as capable as men at physical coercion. Non-physical or non-threatening coercion is not rape, so on that front there would be no rape, male or female victim.
Quote:
Now please understand that when I say I've gone through it, what I am saying is that I have had sex a couple of times with some very aggressive women who basically jumped on top while I was still not sure if I wanted to even have sex with them, and still wasn't sure even afterwards. It would be pretty much the classic definition of date rape if reversed. Also yes I have heard of this happening to more than just me.
Why not report it? (<-- KEY QUESTION!)
And beside that, do you realize that happens to women all the time and that most cases are not reported?
Now please understand that when I say I've gone through it, what I am saying is that I have had sex a couple of times with some very aggressive women who basically jumped on top while I was still not sure if I wanted to even have sex with them, and still wasn't sure even afterwards.
No problem. The Texas decision basically decriminalized sodomy. It did so via the right to privacy which sets a pretty high bar of state interest before a law can be enacted against something.
Using this decision, the Massachusettes court ruled that homosexual marriage cannot be illegal.
etc.
Although the Mass. decision may have cited Lawrence, it was really a state constitutional issue. They interpreted the Massachusetts constitution as allowing gay marriage, not the federal constitution.
Anyway, I think you could make an argument that polygamy sets up an inherently unequal-status situation, and that, even among homosexuals, pairs are the ideal and stable state that should be encouraged. You could also argue that polygamy doesn't work because there may not be enough women to go around if lots of men have more than one. That's assuming that polygamy is a lot more common than polyandry.
More generally, is it such a bad thing that a government must have a compelling reason to make a law against something? That seems to me to just mean that you can't pass a law unless there's a good reason for it. It can't just be arbitrary. Doesn't that sound about right?
I saw on CSPAN last week a debate between Dershowitz, Strossen of the ACLU, and another church-state-separation guy on one side, and Coulter, Limbaugh's brother, and Jay Sekulow on the other. It was quite amusing.
Basically, the conservatives were arguing that the Constitution only provides very limited freedoms, and states can take away lots of people's "rights" if they want. The liberals took a broader view of Constitutional rights, and argued that we have a lot more basic rights embedded in the Constitution. Typical conservative strict-constructionists vs. liberal expansionists.
Anyway, it just strikes me as odd, because I thought conservatives believed in inherent, God-given rights, and the Constitution doesn't just grudgingly dole out rights, but rather limits government. And liberals are supposed to be the fascists and conservatives the libertarians, at least according to right-wing talk shows and the like. But here the conservatives are basically arguing that people have less basic rights than the Supreme Court has determined over the years. We only have a very limited set of rights, and everything else is basically up for grabs, according to the whims of the states.
The effect you're talking about in your last paragraph is what has happened when "conservative" philosophy mixes with the idea of small government.
Libertarians are not "conservative" by the very definition of the word. They are pro small government and pro personal freedom, which is more liberal in today's American political spectrum.
Specific to these issues is the manner in which religion has infected (yes, that's the word I choose to use) government. For instance, the criminalization (in America) of polygamy is a bitch between protestants and Mormons in the 19th century. Not legislation born of rational thought or sociological consideration, but "My church says 'no'!"
Throw the conservative, whose defined stance is resistance to change, into this specific mix and you have them arguing archaic and illogical positions for no reason other than inertia.
Simply put, in my opinion the Texas ruling tossed out the baby with the bath water. There were two issues addressed. The right to privacy and equal protection. Using equal protection they could have simply ruled that homosexual sodomy had to be legal since heterosexual sodomy was legal. Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
How is polygamy confined to the bedroom? Marriage is a social structure, not a sexual preference.
you have them arguing archaic and illogical positions for no reason other than inertia.
no, the politicians (at least) argue it for the votes. if tomorrow Bush or random Democratic canidate could have a lock on the presidancy by declaring gay marrige legal nationwide, i can virtually promise they'd all roll.
You know, I hear this argument all the time. But, there's something wrong with the leap of logic here. While the statistic above may be true, there has NEVER been an instance where any of the Democrats are in FAVOR of codifying laws against homosexual marriage. I cannot find one article or comment by any of the Democratic presidential candidates that will go so far as to make it ILLEGAL. They may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I guarantee you they would never vote for for such a discriminatory law as the Republican appear to be willing to do.
What are you talking about? They probably put many of the current laws on the books. We have a protection of marriage act here in California for goodness sakes and we haven't had a Republican legislature for as long as I can remember. We are also a heavily Democratic state so even when it was voted on, it was done so my Democrats to pass.
Clinton as you remember implimented Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when he simply could have wiped away the prohibition against homosexuals in the military. (Which is still there by the way even though he was in office for 8 years) He had to address it head on and choose to simply keep them in the closet.
The effect you're talking about in your last paragraph is what has happened when "conservative" philosophy mixes with the idea of small government.
Libertarians are not "conservative" by the very definition of the word. They are pro small government and pro personal freedom, which is more liberal in today's American political spectrum.
Specific to these issues is the manner in which religion has infected (yes, that's the word I choose to use) government. For instance, the criminalization (in America) of polygamy is a bitch between protestants and Mormons in the 19th century. Not legislation born of rational thought or sociological consideration, but "My church says 'no'!"
Throw the conservative, whose defined stance is resistance to change, into this specific mix and you have them arguing archaic and illogical positions for no reason other than inertia.
"Why should polygamy be illegal?"
"Because it's against the law."
Write this date down because Groverat and I...agree.
Ding, ding, ding... the man wins a prize. He hit it dead on.
Well as I said it is because the definition of rape has always involved a man and his actions. Some states have changed it to gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a historical understanding. Sort of like how we say firefighter when the overwhelming majority (I believe it is still about 96%) are men. Changing the gender of the word doesn't always affect how it is applied.
Quote:
If a woman holds a man down and shoves a dildo up his ass, is that not rape?
Women rape men. It's not common at all, but it happens.
(Shudder) I am assuming of course that the man didn't ASK for that sort of treatment. The dildo up the ass would be rape in my opinion. My point is that when considered in the context of consent (not say five months of kidnapping, torture and sexual abuse) the numbers are much higher. However there is a clear agenda out there to criminalize a lot of sexual matters with men. I'm not speaking about matters that obviously are crimes. I'm talking about things like date rape (the parties were both drunk and remorseful in the morning), sexual harassment, etc.
The point of this is of course there are groups working to decriminalize and free up more types of relationships and sexual matters. I am supportive of these groups however I want the attitude to prevail for all. So if we as a society are going to work to insure no one thinks homosexuality is a a sick and evil disorder, we need to stop calling men paying custody deadbeat dads, and need to prevent feminists on college campuses calling men "potential rapists" and things of that nature. It should be about stopping hate, not changing who you hate.
Quote:
Don't worry about offending my delicate sensibilities, trumpt.
I never said that a man couldn't be raped via penile sex because an erect penis is an indicator of acceptance, I posed the question.
But it's a good point, so let's work with that and move forward with some hypotheticals.
Let's say Joe and Jane are making out and things are getting heavy. Little Joe gets hard and Little Jane gets wet.
THEN!
(1) Joe decides he doesn't want it to go any further, but Jane says "oh yes it is", so she forces Little Jane down on Little Joe.
(2) Jane decides she doesn't want it to go any further, but Joe says "oh yes it is", so he forces Little Joe inside Little Jane.
It is given that (2) is more frequent and likely than (1), but that's not the point here.
This is the point...
I would say your first sentence is false. Women are not as strong as men, therefore women have a more difficult time forcing their will on men in such a situation. (Talk to me about the daily workings of a relationship and I'll tell you women can dominate that. ) But when it comes to a primal, physical encounter the man will win. Men are stronger, that cannot be ignored.
Women are not as capable as men at physical coercion. Non-physical or non-threatening coercion is not rape, so on that front there would be no rape, male or female victim.
Again it isn't about physical strength, it is about getting consent. Likewise consider that a society we condition men not to apply physical force to women. So even though Joe doesn't want sex from Jane, he has been conditioned not to harm her. I mean think about that police report there Grove. Given the prejudices in society today, how well would that honestly go over. Think about the officer that would have to believe that this man assaulted this woman in order to prevent her from having sex with him. Likewise all the woman would have to do is suddenly claim that her injuries were caused as a result of him ATTEMPTING to rape her and his ass would be in jail for quite a while as they attempted to sort out who really didn't want to do who.
So the threat of force women bring isn't physical force, it is societal force which they know about and will claim via false claims of rape, assault and domestic violence. Obviously there are women who suffer from those crimes and that is why we have those protections in place. But that doesn't mean there aren't women who won't abuse them as well.
Quote:
Why not report it? (<-- KEY QUESTION!)
And beside that, do you realize that happens to women all the time and that most cases are not reported? [/B]
I do realize it happens to women all the time. However you really won't find me an advocate of date rape. Real rape I am solidly against. Date rape (most definitions) really strikes me as more of a "buyer's remorse" and I don't think anyone should go to jail over that.(I'm not speaking of examples where women said no, but rather those where the woman claims she had bad feelings later, felt coerced and didn't say anything, or was to drunk/high/whatever to consent and so was the man)
I didn't report it probably for the same reason most women don't report it, which is there is a large area between between actively resisting/nonconsent and consenting to all the prior actions and just being unsure about the last action. The difference is when it "just sort of happened" in reverse, men can go to jail.
I mean, and I know this will sound weird, as why I didn't report, but it will sound just like what they say about women who don't report. It is very flattering to be pursued. One of the incidents involved quite a bit of drinking on my part. It was late, I brought them back to my house, there was plenty of intent up until that point. However while I enjoyed all that, I knew I didn't want to have a relationship with these girls, and thus I didn't want to have sex. They pretty much didn't care either way. They just wanted to have sex and were pretty aggressive about it. I registered concern about sex with them, but I didn't say no.
So understand that I don't consider myself to have been raped. I think the term buyers remorse is a somewhat decent way of conveying the feelings regarding it. However I don't think of these as rape on the female-side either. But what I think isn't what society thinks or acts on in this matter.
Well as I said it is because the definition of rape has always involved a man and his actions. Some states have changed it to gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a historical understanding. Sort of like how we say firefighter when the overwhelming majority (I believe it is still about 96%) are men. Changing the gender of the word doesn't always affect how it is applied.
You have still not given me an example of a state with a definition of rape that excludes females.
Quote:
My point is that when considered in the context of consent (not say five months of kidnapping, torture and sexual abuse) the numbers are much higher.
What numbers?
Quote:
However there is a clear agenda out there to criminalize a lot of sexual matters with men. I'm not speaking about matters that obviously are crimes. I'm talking about things like date rape (the parties were both drunk and remorseful in the morning), sexual harassment, etc.
And we come to the word, "agenda".
Whose agenda? (<- key question!) How are they pushing this agenda specifically?
Quote:
So if we as a society are going to work to insure no one thinks homosexuality is a a sick and evil disorder, we need to stop calling men paying custody deadbeat dads, and need to prevent feminists on college campuses calling men "potential rapists" and things of that nature. It should be about stopping hate, not changing who you hate.
What do those two things have to do with each other?
Who calls men "potential rapists"? Who calls men paying what they are legally required to "deadbeat dads"? Do you realize how logically disconnected the first part (homosexuality) is from the last (your usual gripes about women attacking men)?
Quote:
Again it isn't about physical strength, it is about getting consent. Likewise consider that a society we condition men not to apply physical force to women.
I would just like to point out that you screamed like a stuck pig when I brought up how social conditioning affects women in these matters, so I really have a difficult time respecting your use of it now.
Quote:
So even though Joe doesn't want sex from Jane, he has been conditioned not to harm her.
So Jane jumps on Joe... and the only way he can stop it is to harm her? Pushing her off is harming her? Unless we're talking about 5'2" Joe and 6"3" Jane I do not see where the harm would happen from a man resisting.
Quote:
I mean think about that police report there Grove. Given the prejudices in society today, how well would that honestly go over. Think about the officer that would have to believe that this man assaulted this woman in order to prevent her from having sex with him.
I do not think it would be as ridiculous as you state. You make the assumption that it would not be accepted and run off into the wild blue with it, that just doesn't make sense.
Joe and Jane make out, Jane gets all hot and bothered and starts to take Joe's pants off. "oh... no... I don't think..." and she gets ready to go and he pushes her off and walks away... then what?
Quote:
Likewise all the woman would have to do is suddenly claim that her injuries were caused as a result of him ATTEMPTING to rape her and his ass would be in jail for quite a while as they attempted to sort out who really didn't want to do who.
Ok, so your assertion is that, worst case, that man would have to sit in jail for a bit while they decided what happened?
Seems reasonable to me. Are you asserting that that (theoretical) temporary jail stay is what's keeping men from reporting rape by women?
Quote:
So the threat of force women bring isn't physical force, it is societal force which they know about and will claim via false claims of rape, assault and domestic violence. Obviously there are women who suffer from those crimes and that is why we have those protections in place. But that doesn't mean there aren't women who won't abuse them as well.
How many men who are falsely accused of rape say that the women actually tried to rape them?
You are bringing up a tactic you claim is used by females with absolutely no backing that it is actually used? You are quite literally making this up as you go along.
Quote:
So understand that I don't consider myself to have been raped. I think the term buyers remorse is a somewhat decent way of conveying the feelings regarding it. However I don't think of these as rape on the female-side either. But what I think isn't what society thinks or acts on in this matter.
The first sentence invalidates the rest of the paragraph. How the hell can you deem your experience comparable enough to label what others feel? Insanity.
Comments
Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker because that is the definition.
What definition?
The reason you have not seen anything about women raping men within their peer group is because women cannot be defined as rapists (except perhaps with children) since they are not legally required to get consent.
So you're saying that women can't be convicted of rape?
And why would a woman be able to rape (in legal terms) a child but not an adult?
There are states that have adopted gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a non-gender specific manner. Suppose you and a woman went out for drinks. You both tie one on and the have a roll in the sack. In the morning she claims she was to drunk to consent and thus you are a rapist. You could attempt to claim the reverse is true, that she never asked you if you wanted to have sex, but I have never seen a single prosecution of that. You are welcome to find a case where the prosecution has occured. I honestly wouldn't mind being wrong on that issue because I want gender equality on that issue and that would proof of movement toward it.
Oh king of hypothetical anecdotal evidence, have you ever heard of a man who went through that situation unwillingly?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but penis sex is only possible with a man if he is aroused. I've never been held at knifepoint or somesuch so I don't know how the equipment works under such duress, perhaps it is possible, perhaps not.
It is certainly possible for a woman to rape a man using a foreign object, however.
Originally posted by BRussell
How does homosexual marriage allow polygamy? I really don't get it. I mean, why doesn't heterosexual marriage allow polygamy? Because society decided that polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Why couldn't you still say that polygamy shouldn't be allowed?
Could you state succinctly why the Massachusetts ruling allows polygamy? Or are you talking about the Texas Lawrence decision - but that wasn't about marriage, right? I'd just like to hear the argument, because I honestly don't get it.
No problem. The Texas decision basically decriminalized sodomy. It did so via the right to privacy which sets a pretty high bar of state interest before a law can be enacted against something.
Using this decision, the Massachusettes court ruled that homosexual marriage cannot be illegal. It was a 4-3 decision and there are some intangibles to consider here so give me a bit of breathing room on this okay.
The Texas case (I may have said court) legalized sodomy across the United States. Most states had already decriminalized sodomy but there were, I believe about 13 states that had not. So a court might be more reluctant to legalize a marriage that cannot have the act of consumating it be done in all the other states. Even if Massachusettes allows homosexual marriage, there is the question of whether other states would reciprocate with regard to the license.
However that question really becomes easier to sort out because of the Texas ruling with regard to privacy. They set the bar quite high. It can't be just history, religious belief or precident. There must be a compelling reason to act against the person's privacy right. it has basically flipped the responsibility onto the state. If the state can't give a good reason why, then the right defaults to the individual. The privacy right is strong enough to give 12 year olds abortion without parental consent or notification. It is strong enough to override a marriage challenge.
The reason for marriage exclusively between a man and a woman? Well no one here can defend why it ought only be between a man and a woman, so it will default to the individuals right to marry who they wish. Historical claims about child rearing and things of that nature will not be found valid, promoting monogamy, etc. We can already see that they won't pass the bar set by the Texas case.
So then the issue will turn to polygamy. Marriage between two people has no more significance than marriage between a man and a woman. It is a social construct and doesn't have to be that way. What Will mentioned is that it was easier to argue for two person marriage because you have two genders and marriage was understood to be between one party of each of those genders. However that is about to change isn't it? No-fault divorce already allows a sort of serial polygamy with some folks being married 5-7 times. When marriage is no longer defined as between a man and a woman, it opens up new definitions, not just with regard to WHO you can love, but does the state have a compelling reason to limit how many you can love.
As high as the Texas bar is, I can't see a reason they could rule against polygamy. The standard has been set that the state must prove a compelling interest. Can you think of a compelling interest as to why a man shouldn't be able to marry say two women when he could marry them one after the other with a divorce in between? It wouldn't change his legal or financial obligations.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Understand that even though 75% of the Republican party is against homosexual marriage, well over 50% of the Democratic party is as well. You only implicated one group when the view has majorities in BOTH parties. Don't be hypocritical when even six out of 9 major Democratic candidates don't endorse homosexual marriage.
You know, I hear this argument all the time. But, there's something wrong with the leap of logic here. While the statistic above may be true, there has NEVER been an instance where any of the Democrats are in FAVOR of codifying laws against homosexual marriage. I cannot find one article or comment by any of the Democratic presidential candidates that will go so far as to make it ILLEGAL. They may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I guarantee you they would never vote for for such a discriminatory law as the Republican appear to be willing to do.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
What definition?
So you're saying that women can't be convicted of rape?
And why would a woman be able to rape (in legal terms) a child but not an adult?
Oh king of hypothetical anecdotal evidence, have you ever heard of a man who went through that situation unwillingly?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but penis sex is only possible with a man if he is aroused. I've never been held at knifepoint or somesuch so I don't know how the equipment works under such duress, perhaps it is possible, perhaps not.
It is certainly possible for a woman to rape a man using a foreign object, however.
I'm saying I haven't heard nor read of a conviction of a woman against a man for nonconsentual rape via regular intercourse due to that woman not getting the man's consent. I said you are welcome to find a case and prove it wrong. I even said I would like to be wrong on that matter.
Why can a woman rape a child and not another man? Because we change who can give consent there. It becomes a sort of guilt by default. Children are not seeing as being able to give consent to any party, be they man or woman.
Now, I'm going to be a little harsh here Grove, but only because I'm asking you to think about what you would say to someone who suggested the reverse of what you said regarding penis sex. If a woman said no to sex, but was wet via the foreplay and the man did it anyway, what would you say to someone who claimed that wasn't rape because she had signs of arousal? I think you would take their claim and basically ram it back down their throat. Rape isn't about arousal. It is about consent.
As for whether any men I have known have gone through that scenario. I've gone through it myself. It's just as easy for a woman to jump on a man as is the reverse. Likewise coercion when a party is unsure or proceeding without clear consent is just as possible from a woman. Laws have been changed to show that physical resistance isn't necessary because it could cause more harm to the party that does resist. The issue comes down purely to consent. (I wonder what sort of ranting reply I would get from you if I suggested that K.F. didn't physically resist Kobe
Now please understand that when I say I've gone through it, what I am saying is that I have had sex a couple of times with some very aggressive women who basically jumped on top while I was still not sure if I wanted to even have sex with them, and still wasn't sure even afterwards. It would be pretty much the classic definition of date rape if reversed. Also yes I have heard of this happening to more than just me.
Nick
I'm saying I haven't heard nor read of a conviction of a woman against a man for nonconsentual rape via regular intercourse due to that woman not getting the man's consent. I said you are welcome to find a case and prove it wrong. I even said I would like to be wrong on that matter.
I've never heard of a case like that, either.
Why do you think that is?
Why can a woman rape a child and not another man? Because we change who can give consent there. It becomes a sort of guilt by default. Children are not seeing as being able to give consent to any party, be they man or woman.
If a woman holds a man down and shoves a dildo up his ass, is that not rape?
Women rape men. It's not common at all, but it happens.
Now, I'm going to be a little harsh here Grove, but only because I'm asking you to think about what you would say to someone who suggested the reverse of what you said regarding penis sex. If a woman said no to sex, but was wet via the foreplay and the man did it anyway, what would you say to someone who claimed that wasn't rape because she had signs of arousal? I think you would take their claim and basically ram it back down their throat. Rape isn't about arousal. It is about consent.
Don't worry about offending my delicate sensibilities, trumpt.
I never said that a man couldn't be raped via penile sex because an erect penis is an indicator of acceptance, I posed the question.
But it's a good point, so let's work with that and move forward with some hypotheticals.
Let's say Joe and Jane are making out and things are getting heavy. Little Joe gets hard and Little Jane gets wet.
THEN!
(1) Joe decides he doesn't want it to go any further, but Jane says "oh yes it is", so she forces Little Jane down on Little Joe.
(2) Jane decides she doesn't want it to go any further, but Joe says "oh yes it is", so he forces Little Joe inside Little Jane.
It is given that (2) is more frequent and likely than (1), but that's not the point here.
This is the point...
It's just as easy for a woman to jump on a man as is the reverse. Likewise coercion when a party is unsure or proceeding without clear consent is just as possible from a woman.
I would say your first sentence is false. Women are not as strong as men, therefore women have a more difficult time forcing their will on men in such a situation. (Talk to me about the daily workings of a relationship and I'll tell you women can dominate that.
Women are not as capable as men at physical coercion. Non-physical or non-threatening coercion is not rape, so on that front there would be no rape, male or female victim.
Now please understand that when I say I've gone through it, what I am saying is that I have had sex a couple of times with some very aggressive women who basically jumped on top while I was still not sure if I wanted to even have sex with them, and still wasn't sure even afterwards. It would be pretty much the classic definition of date rape if reversed. Also yes I have heard of this happening to more than just me.
Why not report it? (<-- KEY QUESTION!)
And beside that, do you realize that happens to women all the time and that most cases are not reported?
Originally posted by trumptman
Now please understand that when I say I've gone through it, what I am saying is that I have had sex a couple of times with some very aggressive women who basically jumped on top while I was still not sure if I wanted to even have sex with them, and still wasn't sure even afterwards.
You bad bad boy.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You bad bad boy.
I wonder if it's wife knows about these women.
Anyway, she was probably just trying to get him to pay more.
Originally posted by trumptman
No problem. The Texas decision basically decriminalized sodomy. It did so via the right to privacy which sets a pretty high bar of state interest before a law can be enacted against something.
Using this decision, the Massachusettes court ruled that homosexual marriage cannot be illegal.
etc.
Although the Mass. decision may have cited Lawrence, it was really a state constitutional issue. They interpreted the Massachusetts constitution as allowing gay marriage, not the federal constitution.
Anyway, I think you could make an argument that polygamy sets up an inherently unequal-status situation, and that, even among homosexuals, pairs are the ideal and stable state that should be encouraged. You could also argue that polygamy doesn't work because there may not be enough women to go around if lots of men have more than one. That's assuming that polygamy is a lot more common than polyandry.
More generally, is it such a bad thing that a government must have a compelling reason to make a law against something? That seems to me to just mean that you can't pass a law unless there's a good reason for it. It can't just be arbitrary. Doesn't that sound about right?
I saw on CSPAN last week a debate between Dershowitz, Strossen of the ACLU, and another church-state-separation guy on one side, and Coulter, Limbaugh's brother, and Jay Sekulow on the other. It was quite amusing.
Basically, the conservatives were arguing that the Constitution only provides very limited freedoms, and states can take away lots of people's "rights" if they want. The liberals took a broader view of Constitutional rights, and argued that we have a lot more basic rights embedded in the Constitution. Typical conservative strict-constructionists vs. liberal expansionists.
Anyway, it just strikes me as odd, because I thought conservatives believed in inherent, God-given rights, and the Constitution doesn't just grudgingly dole out rights, but rather limits government. And liberals are supposed to be the fascists and conservatives the libertarians, at least according to right-wing talk shows and the like. But here the conservatives are basically arguing that people have less basic rights than the Supreme Court has determined over the years. We only have a very limited set of rights, and everything else is basically up for grabs, according to the whims of the states.
It just makes me go "hmmm..."
Libertarians are not "conservative" by the very definition of the word. They are pro small government and pro personal freedom, which is more liberal in today's American political spectrum.
Specific to these issues is the manner in which religion has infected (yes, that's the word I choose to use) government. For instance, the criminalization (in America) of polygamy is a bitch between protestants and Mormons in the 19th century. Not legislation born of rational thought or sociological consideration, but "My church says 'no'!"
Throw the conservative, whose defined stance is resistance to change, into this specific mix and you have them arguing archaic and illogical positions for no reason other than inertia.
"Why should polygamy be illegal?"
"Because it's against the law."
Originally posted by trumptman
Simply put, in my opinion the Texas ruling tossed out the baby with the bath water. There were two issues addressed. The right to privacy and equal protection. Using equal protection they could have simply ruled that homosexual sodomy had to be legal since heterosexual sodomy was legal. Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
How is polygamy confined to the bedroom? Marriage is a social structure, not a sexual preference.
you have them arguing archaic and illogical positions for no reason other than inertia.
no, the politicians (at least) argue it for the votes. if tomorrow Bush or random Democratic canidate could have a lock on the presidancy by declaring gay marrige legal nationwide, i can virtually promise they'd all roll.
Originally posted by Northgate
You know, I hear this argument all the time. But, there's something wrong with the leap of logic here. While the statistic above may be true, there has NEVER been an instance where any of the Democrats are in FAVOR of codifying laws against homosexual marriage. I cannot find one article or comment by any of the Democratic presidential candidates that will go so far as to make it ILLEGAL. They may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I guarantee you they would never vote for for such a discriminatory law as the Republican appear to be willing to do.
What are you talking about? They probably put many of the current laws on the books. We have a protection of marriage act here in California for goodness sakes and we haven't had a Republican legislature for as long as I can remember. We are also a heavily Democratic state so even when it was voted on, it was done so my Democrats to pass.
Clinton as you remember implimented Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when he simply could have wiped away the prohibition against homosexuals in the military. (Which is still there by the way even though he was in office for 8 years) He had to address it head on and choose to simply keep them in the closet.
I get really sick of this double standard.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
How is polygamy confined to the bedroom? Marriage is a social structure, not a sexual preference.
How is sodomy confined to the bedroom? You can now sodomize in the living room or anywhere else it is legal to have sex.
How is abortion confined to the bedroom? The right to privacy extends to more than the bedroom.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
The effect you're talking about in your last paragraph is what has happened when "conservative" philosophy mixes with the idea of small government.
Libertarians are not "conservative" by the very definition of the word. They are pro small government and pro personal freedom, which is more liberal in today's American political spectrum.
Specific to these issues is the manner in which religion has infected (yes, that's the word I choose to use) government. For instance, the criminalization (in America) of polygamy is a bitch between protestants and Mormons in the 19th century. Not legislation born of rational thought or sociological consideration, but "My church says 'no'!"
Throw the conservative, whose defined stance is resistance to change, into this specific mix and you have them arguing archaic and illogical positions for no reason other than inertia.
"Why should polygamy be illegal?"
"Because it's against the law."
Write this date down because Groverat and I...agree.
Ding, ding, ding... the man wins a prize. He hit it dead on.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Write this date down because Groverat and I...agree.
Ding, ding, ding... the man wins a prize. He hit it dead on.
Nick
12-04-2003 at 9:07 AM.... a date that shall live in infamy.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
I've never heard of a case like that, either.
Why do you think that is?
Well as I said it is because the definition of rape has always involved a man and his actions. Some states have changed it to gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a historical understanding. Sort of like how we say firefighter when the overwhelming majority (I believe it is still about 96%) are men. Changing the gender of the word doesn't always affect how it is applied.
If a woman holds a man down and shoves a dildo up his ass, is that not rape?
Women rape men. It's not common at all, but it happens.
(Shudder) I am assuming of course that the man didn't ASK for that sort of treatment. The dildo up the ass would be rape in my opinion. My point is that when considered in the context of consent (not say five months of kidnapping, torture and sexual abuse) the numbers are much higher. However there is a clear agenda out there to criminalize a lot of sexual matters with men. I'm not speaking about matters that obviously are crimes. I'm talking about things like date rape (the parties were both drunk and remorseful in the morning), sexual harassment, etc.
The point of this is of course there are groups working to decriminalize and free up more types of relationships and sexual matters. I am supportive of these groups however I want the attitude to prevail for all. So if we as a society are going to work to insure no one thinks homosexuality is a a sick and evil disorder, we need to stop calling men paying custody deadbeat dads, and need to prevent feminists on college campuses calling men "potential rapists" and things of that nature. It should be about stopping hate, not changing who you hate.
Don't worry about offending my delicate sensibilities, trumpt.
I never said that a man couldn't be raped via penile sex because an erect penis is an indicator of acceptance, I posed the question.
But it's a good point, so let's work with that and move forward with some hypotheticals.
Let's say Joe and Jane are making out and things are getting heavy. Little Joe gets hard and Little Jane gets wet.
THEN!
(1) Joe decides he doesn't want it to go any further, but Jane says "oh yes it is", so she forces Little Jane down on Little Joe.
(2) Jane decides she doesn't want it to go any further, but Joe says "oh yes it is", so he forces Little Joe inside Little Jane.
It is given that (2) is more frequent and likely than (1), but that's not the point here.
This is the point...
I would say your first sentence is false. Women are not as strong as men, therefore women have a more difficult time forcing their will on men in such a situation. (Talk to me about the daily workings of a relationship and I'll tell you women can dominate that.
Women are not as capable as men at physical coercion. Non-physical or non-threatening coercion is not rape, so on that front there would be no rape, male or female victim.
Again it isn't about physical strength, it is about getting consent. Likewise consider that a society we condition men not to apply physical force to women. So even though Joe doesn't want sex from Jane, he has been conditioned not to harm her. I mean think about that police report there Grove. Given the prejudices in society today, how well would that honestly go over. Think about the officer that would have to believe that this man assaulted this woman in order to prevent her from having sex with him. Likewise all the woman would have to do is suddenly claim that her injuries were caused as a result of him ATTEMPTING to rape her and his ass would be in jail for quite a while as they attempted to sort out who really didn't want to do who.
So the threat of force women bring isn't physical force, it is societal force which they know about and will claim via false claims of rape, assault and domestic violence. Obviously there are women who suffer from those crimes and that is why we have those protections in place. But that doesn't mean there aren't women who won't abuse them as well.
Why not report it? (<-- KEY QUESTION!)
And beside that, do you realize that happens to women all the time and that most cases are not reported? [/B]
I do realize it happens to women all the time. However you really won't find me an advocate of date rape. Real rape I am solidly against. Date rape (most definitions) really strikes me as more of a "buyer's remorse" and I don't think anyone should go to jail over that.(I'm not speaking of examples where women said no, but rather those where the woman claims she had bad feelings later, felt coerced and didn't say anything, or was to drunk/high/whatever to consent and so was the man)
I didn't report it probably for the same reason most women don't report it, which is there is a large area between between actively resisting/nonconsent and consenting to all the prior actions and just being unsure about the last action. The difference is when it "just sort of happened" in reverse, men can go to jail.
I mean, and I know this will sound weird, as why I didn't report, but it will sound just like what they say about women who don't report. It is very flattering to be pursued. One of the incidents involved quite a bit of drinking on my part. It was late, I brought them back to my house, there was plenty of intent up until that point. However while I enjoyed all that, I knew I didn't want to have a relationship with these girls, and thus I didn't want to have sex. They pretty much didn't care either way. They just wanted to have sex and were pretty aggressive about it. I registered concern about sex with them, but I didn't say no.
So understand that I don't consider myself to have been raped. I think the term buyers remorse is a somewhat decent way of conveying the feelings regarding it. However I don't think of these as rape on the female-side either. But what I think isn't what society thinks or acts on in this matter.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You bad bad boy.
No actually they were bad, bad girls.
Originally posted by giant
I wonder if it's wife knows about these women.
Anyway, she was probably just trying to get him to pay more.
Leave your mom out of this.
Nick
http://www.renerisque.com/
check out the music section and the song CVHS.
Well as I said it is because the definition of rape has always involved a man and his actions. Some states have changed it to gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a historical understanding. Sort of like how we say firefighter when the overwhelming majority (I believe it is still about 96%) are men. Changing the gender of the word doesn't always affect how it is applied.
You have still not given me an example of a state with a definition of rape that excludes females.
My point is that when considered in the context of consent (not say five months of kidnapping, torture and sexual abuse) the numbers are much higher.
What numbers?
However there is a clear agenda out there to criminalize a lot of sexual matters with men. I'm not speaking about matters that obviously are crimes. I'm talking about things like date rape (the parties were both drunk and remorseful in the morning), sexual harassment, etc.
And we come to the word, "agenda".
Whose agenda? (<- key question!) How are they pushing this agenda specifically?
So if we as a society are going to work to insure no one thinks homosexuality is a a sick and evil disorder, we need to stop calling men paying custody deadbeat dads, and need to prevent feminists on college campuses calling men "potential rapists" and things of that nature. It should be about stopping hate, not changing who you hate.
What do those two things have to do with each other?
Who calls men "potential rapists"? Who calls men paying what they are legally required to "deadbeat dads"? Do you realize how logically disconnected the first part (homosexuality) is from the last (your usual gripes about women attacking men)?
Again it isn't about physical strength, it is about getting consent. Likewise consider that a society we condition men not to apply physical force to women.
I would just like to point out that you screamed like a stuck pig when I brought up how social conditioning affects women in these matters, so I really have a difficult time respecting your use of it now.
So even though Joe doesn't want sex from Jane, he has been conditioned not to harm her.
So Jane jumps on Joe... and the only way he can stop it is to harm her? Pushing her off is harming her? Unless we're talking about 5'2" Joe and 6"3" Jane I do not see where the harm would happen from a man resisting.
I mean think about that police report there Grove. Given the prejudices in society today, how well would that honestly go over. Think about the officer that would have to believe that this man assaulted this woman in order to prevent her from having sex with him.
I do not think it would be as ridiculous as you state. You make the assumption that it would not be accepted and run off into the wild blue with it, that just doesn't make sense.
Joe and Jane make out, Jane gets all hot and bothered and starts to take Joe's pants off. "oh... no... I don't think..." and she gets ready to go and he pushes her off and walks away... then what?
Likewise all the woman would have to do is suddenly claim that her injuries were caused as a result of him ATTEMPTING to rape her and his ass would be in jail for quite a while as they attempted to sort out who really didn't want to do who.
Ok, so your assertion is that, worst case, that man would have to sit in jail for a bit while they decided what happened?
Seems reasonable to me. Are you asserting that that (theoretical) temporary jail stay is what's keeping men from reporting rape by women?
So the threat of force women bring isn't physical force, it is societal force which they know about and will claim via false claims of rape, assault and domestic violence. Obviously there are women who suffer from those crimes and that is why we have those protections in place. But that doesn't mean there aren't women who won't abuse them as well.
How many men who are falsely accused of rape say that the women actually tried to rape them?
You are bringing up a tactic you claim is used by females with absolutely no backing that it is actually used? You are quite literally making this up as you go along.
So understand that I don't consider myself to have been raped. I think the term buyers remorse is a somewhat decent way of conveying the feelings regarding it. However I don't think of these as rape on the female-side either. But what I think isn't what society thinks or acts on in this matter.
The first sentence invalidates the rest of the paragraph. How the hell can you deem your experience comparable enough to label what others feel? Insanity.