The Student Room Group

This is what Feminism has done to our culture

Scroll to see replies

Original post by zippity.doodah
and by the way, the law on rape is also totally ridiculous when only men can be prosecuted for it


It's unlikely to surprise anyone who's reading this, but you're once again wrong.

At least one woman has been charged with - and convicted of - rape. In the case I am thinking of, she held someone down while someone else stuck his penis in them without consent...

the definition of rape only describes cases where a man forcibly penetrates


.. and again. There's no need for 'force' or doing it 'forcibly'.

In any case, any woman making a man have intercourse with her would be guilty of 'Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent', and as it involves penetration, the maximum penalty would be life, just as for rape.
Original post by zippity.doodah
yes, because there is mutual agreement!

Wrong.

There was a time, many years ago, when force (or the threat of it) was necessary for it to be 'rape'. The vast majority of people would say that it is a good thing that it's no longer the case.

oh wow, insulting me is going to go far, isn't it


Every single answer you've given has been wrong. If you were a law student, you'd have been kicked out before the end of your first year.

"if I did the things in my four circumstances to you, would you consider it rape", then obviously, as I've been arguing all this time - no!


Well, you are at least consistent, but obviously I wouldn't do any of those things because they are all, legally, rape.

I get that you don't like that, but I've given references to demonstrate that it's the case and if you want to change it, you'll need to start a campaign to get Parliament to change the law. May I suggest 'Right to Rape' as a name for it?
Original post by zippity.doodah
I can quote you the law which says that a 12 year old boy, who was legally raped, had to pay for the baby that his female rapist had later when he turned 18,


((Citation needed))

or the cases where women have lied about being on birth control and have locked men into 18 years old child support payments - would that be supporting the argument that women should be allowed to rape and exploit 12 year olds though, or lie about being on contraceptives?


If you don't want to be a father, there are a number of very, very easy ways to make sure it won't happen.

Should lying about using contraception be an offence? What should the penalty be?
Original post by unprinted
It's unlikely to surprise anyone who's reading this, but you're once again wrong. At least one woman has been charged with - and convicted of - rape. In the case I am thinking of, she held someone down while someone else stuck his penis in them without consent...
in what country was that? currently, here, they can only be charged with "sexual assault"
.. and again. There's no need for 'force' or doing it 'forcibly'.
what approach are you taking here? because forcing somebody to have sex against their will is rape. fooling somebody into wanting to have sex with you isn't forcing them to have sex with you. it's a different act to "rape"
In any case, any woman making a man have intercourse with her would be guilty of 'Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent', and as it involves penetration, the maximum penalty would be life, just as for rape.
again, I have no idea where you're getting that information from.
.. and again. There's no need for 'force' or doing it 'forcibly'.

In any case, any woman making a man have intercourse with her would be guilty of 'Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent', and as it involves penetration, the maximum penalty would be life, just as for rape.
no, there is, because consent means it's not force (but, rather, voluntary), but mistaken consent doesn't stop it from being consent in that particular moment. she wanted to have sex, and so did the other individual, and no force was involved. deception? sure, but deception doesn't cause a person to have sex against their will in terms of what's actually happening. it's not forcing anybody to do anything. it's only fooling them into consenting, and that is exactly what it says on the tin - consent. to sex. it's just like alcohol - just because it's "drunken" consent, that doesn't stop it from being consent, because it was still that feeling of agreement to the act of sex. if I wanted to have sex with a girl I thought had a triple D bra size, but it turns out she was wearing a push up bra, and this was a reason for me having sex with her and she had suspicions that this went far for a individual such as myself, have I just been "raped"?
Original post by unprinted
((Citation needed))


[citation provided:] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
(yes, the child was apparently 14, not 12, I got that wrong. I apologise.)

If you don't want to be a father, there are a number of very, very easy ways to make sure it won't happen.


and what if she screams at you "finish inside me! I promise, I am on birth control! if you don't I'll divorce you/if you don't I'll *insert bad consequence here*!" - if you're saying it can be rape based on a broken promise made, what about *that*? I know it's a far-fetched example but it's a big world out there where anything like this is bound to happen one day.

Should lying about using contraception be an offence? What should the penalty be?


I simply think that a man should be allowed to opt out of paying future child support before the 24 week period where a future child (a foetus, here) can be aborted, because if he no longer wants to have a child, then he shouldn't be forced into it based on the mother's choice alone - there should be equal choice. if the mother wants the child and wants to raise it alone, she can do that without his help. if she can't do it without him (and his consent is obviously needed for child support) then she'll obviously abort the child if she has any sense or else she is knowingly going to be raising a child without the necessary resources which might even be akin to child abuse.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by unprinted
Wrong.

There was a time, many years ago, when force (or the threat of it) was necessary for it to be 'rape'. The vast majority of people would say that it is a good thing that it's no longer the case.


I don't. I think it's clearly idiotic and I have no idea why a government should be so nosey and ready to intervene in the bedroom when technically no aggression/theft has taken place.

Every single answer you've given has been wrong. If you were a law student, you'd have been kicked out before the end of your first year.


I'm not even answering you from the law though! I'm telling you the law itself is unintelligent/wrong! I have given you examples where the law is repugnant! does that mean nothing to you?! the law has a huge amount of contradictions within it yet you're claiming that we should look towards unintelligent authoritarianism/argument from authority as our guidance?

Well, you are at least consistent, but obviously I wouldn't do any of those things because they are all, legally, rape.


everything's legally rape today in some way, shape or form

I get that you don't like that, but I've given references to demonstrate that it's the case and if you want to change it, you'll need to start a campaign to get Parliament to change the law. May I suggest 'Right to Rape' as a name for it?


oh my ****ing god - how is consensual non-coercive sex "rape"?! how many times do we need to go around this roundabout?! you are trying to make the definition rape so vague, broad and catch-all that I could get to call a woman a rapist for lying about her breast size! I still consented to the sex even though she lied about her biology! my consent, in my own mind, existed, but wouldn't have existed had I known about this trait, BUT, that doesn't mean that my consent suddenly disappeared back in the past just because I found out about it later! the past is the past and the present is the present! the consent existed! it existed immorally but it still existed! she lied to me, but she didn't rape me because I chose to **** her
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by zippity.doodah
in what country was that? currently, here, they can only be charged with "sexual assault" what approach are you taking here?


England and Wales. See the doctrine of 'joint enterprise'. If A assists B in a crime, they're also guilty of even if they never 'do' the actual act - in this case stuck their penis in anyone (including because they don't have a penis to begin with...) It's more usually used in cases of murder etc.

deception doesn't cause a person to have sex against their will in terms of what's actually happening. it's not forcing anybody to do anything. it's only fooling them into consenting, and that is exactly what it says on the tin - consent. to sex. it's just like alcohol - just because it's "drunken" consent, that doesn't stop it from being consent, because it was still that feeling of agreement to the act of sex. if I wanted to have sex with a girl I thought had a triple D bra size, but it turns out she was wearing a push up bra, and this was a reason for me having sex with her and she had suspicions that this went far for a individual such as myself, have I just been "raped"?


You are welcome to try to convince the CPS that breast size goes to the nature of the act, but it is extremely unlikely that you will succeed.

On the other hand, the courts have decided that things like condom use or identity and gender of the partner are critical. If you lie about them, you are a rapist.

Original post by zippity.doodah
(usatoday.com etc) (yes, the child was apparently 14, not 12, I got that wrong. I apologise.)


We're not arguing about the law in one or other US state. (Or at least I'm not.) Find a UK case.

and what if she screams at you "finish inside me! I promise, I am on birth control! if you don't I'll divorce you/if you don't I'll *insert bad consequence here*!" - if you're saying it can be rape based on a broken promise made, what about *that*? I know it's a far-fetched example but it's a big world out there where anything like this is bound to happen one day.


And what if she does? It'd cause me to stop having sex with her...

There is a huge difference between a broken promise ('I will marry / love / pay you if you have sex with me') and deliberately misrepresenting the act - what happens and with who - itself to get consent.

Are you a virgin? The disconnect with reality is so striking, I am wondering if you've ever had sex with another human being.

I simply think that a man should be allowed to opt out of paying future child support before the 24 week period where a future child (a foetus, here) can be aborted, because if he no longer wants to have a child, then he shouldn't be forced into it based on the mother's choice alone - there should be equal choice. (More digging deleted)


Original post by zippity.doodah
I'm not even answering you from the law though! I'm telling you the law itself is unintelligent/wrong!


And I've told you want to do about it.

oh my ****ing god - how is consensual non-coercive sex "rape"?!


I think you're probably the only person here who could believe they were consenting to being penetrated with a condom with someone they knew, discover that it was in fact someone else, of a different gender, without a condom.. and not (correctly) think they'd been raped because they did not consent to what happened.

you are trying to make the definition rape so vague, broad and catch-all that I could get to call a woman a rapist for lying about her breast size!


Look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically S1, S75 and S76.
Original post by unprinted
In any case, any woman making a man have intercourse with her would be guilty of 'Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent', and as it involves penetration, the maximum penalty would be life, just as for rape.


Original post by zippity.doodah
I have no idea where you're getting that information from.


Sexual Offences Act 2003, S4.
Original post by unprinted
England and Wales. See the doctrine of 'joint enterprise'. If A assists B in a crime, they're also guilty of even if they never 'do' the actual act - in this case stuck their penis in anyone (including because they don't have a penis to begin with...) It's more usually used in cases of murder etc.


-_-...that's not a woman raping a man though, is it.
that's just a woman assisting a man raping somebody.
so a woman pinning down a man, who isn't consenting, and forcing him to penetrate, still isn't considered rape.
I have no idea why you're really bringing this in because it's not supporting your argument

You are welcome to try to convince the CPS that breast size goes to the nature of the act, but it is extremely unlikely that you will succeed.


how many times do I need to tell you that I don't care about the misandristic-nature of the current law?

On the other hand, the courts have decided that things like condom use or identity and gender of the partner are critical. If you lie about them, you are a rapist.


"condom use"? why not "birth control use"? and even if birth control lies became legally rape (which, again, I wouldn't say was "rape" but it should be criminal in the sense that it is forcing a man into child support payments against his will), and what aspects of "identity" and why?

We're not arguing about the law in one or other US state. (Or at least I'm not.) Find a UK case.


oh wow, how convenient.
if that happened in the UK, it would probably (more likely than not) still happen - what else would they rule? that the male *didn't* have to pay for the child? who else will? the ruling obviously should have been a court order of an abortion (if she cannot reasonably finance the child by herself) but in the UK we wouldn't get a ruling like that, and the male, like usual, will, likely, take the blame.

honestly, how different do you think the UK and USA, regarding the culture of the courts, are? we have the same problems regarding misandry that they do

And what if she does? It'd cause me to stop having sex with her...


...that's extremely problematic then, isn't it? if your wife, whom you've been with, for years and years, says *this* kind of thing in the bedroom, this would cause you to break up with her? *seriously*? how many other men do you think would take the same approach as you? I don't even believe you so I don't know why I'm continuing with this

There is a huge difference between a broken promise ('I will marry / love / pay you if you have sex with me':wink: and deliberately misrepresenting the act - what happens and with who - itself to get consent.


oh so *now* you're talking about "acts"? when I did that you argued against me. I was saying "the act of consensual sex" caused the situation to not be rape, no matter the nature of the consent, because the act itself had consent. tell me how this is any different/ if I'm misunderstanding, it's honestly because I'm finding you quite difficult to understand in this paragraph - "misrepresenting the act"? the act which is consented to, being misrepresented? I thought you'd have called that rape because it is the basis of the consent, or something?

Are you a virgin? The disconnect with reality is so striking, I am wondering if you've ever had sex with another human being.


so, the fact that I give you a hypothetical situation, which you don't like me bringing up because it helps further my cause, causes you to use an ad hominem?! :lol: oh my ****ing god man. pathetic and desperate. and no I'm not a virgin. this has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge of sex itself, only me, by my own ****ing admission, telling you that the situation was "far-fetched" - I could be accusing you of being a virgin for attempting to lie and get a divorce because a woman told you to finish inside of her and promised that she was on BC, because that's absolute horse ****

And I've told you want to do about it.


I don't even know why you did to be honest - do you go out there and picket every flaw the government upholds?

I think you're probably the only person here who could believe they were consenting to being penetrated with a condom with someone they knew, discover that it was in fact someone else, of a different gender, without a condom.. and not (correctly) think they'd been raped because they did not consent to what happened.


I'm the only person then who's thinking purely objectively - I'm at least telling you it is completely immoral, but not "rape". it's easy to blur lines, but for the sake of objectivity, I don't.

Look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically S1, S75 and S76.


I said *you* were, not the government, because you were giving me information outside of it - but either way, how is the government a logical authority here? is the government, by definition, always correct and always philosophically sound? it's like quoting to me verses of the bible and trying to pass it off as morality - an argument from authority to frame morality is a logical fallacy - suppose there were politicians trying to change the law as it stands - what kind of arguments would you expect them to use if they cannot do anything other than *agree* with the law?

and by the way:
section 1, again, only seems to be against the man, e.g. "penetrates the mouth/vagina/anus", as opposed to "forces the pentration of such things by them themselves against their victim" - I've told you this before about the law, or so the law appears.
section 75 doesn't really seem to be relevant or disagreeing with me(?)
section 76 "intentionally deceived them about the nature of purpose of the act" - how is that forcible unconsented penetration? again, you're seeming to suggest that the government is always logical, when, clearly, there are more holes in the logic of the law than a block of cheese.
(edited 8 years ago)
The modern feminist movement is deeply sexist and frankly anti-male. Its a perversion of the original feminist concept.

The worst one I heard from France is that they want a male pill banned because it would take power from women.
I'm not about to read the entire thread but has it been established that you CAN by law, consent to sex while intoxicated, no matter what sex you are?
Lol. No. That's what alcohol has done to the world culture. Feminism has nothing to do with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Spetznaaz
I'm not about to read the entire thread but has it been established that you CAN by law, consent to sex while intoxicated, no matter what sex you are?


Yes, but there's a dividing line - you can be conscious and even able to talk but lack capacity to consent.
Reply 73
Why argue with a feminist? They dont like logic remember they are women, just point out how dumb it is and laugh it off
Reply 74
It doesnt help that Jake looks like he is waiting for the roofies to kick in.
Original post by Tony_LeaS
I find the argument half invalid at times, because what if a guy says no when he's drunk and the girl does it anyway, is that rape too or do we ignore it because feminists dont entirely consider that aspect?


Not sure if anyone else has pointed that out, but yes, that is absolutely rape too. If someone's passing out drunk and can't physically resist another individual, it doesn't matter which one is the guy or girl. Or it shouldn't, at least. I'm sorry to say I don't know the legal stance on it.
(edited 8 years ago)
feminism rules
Original post by skunkboy
Lol. No. That's what alcohol has done to the world culture. Feminism has nothing to do with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile


alcohol has been here for thousands of years, though.
Original post by whorace
Why argue with a feminist? They dont like logic remember they are women, just point out how dumb it is and laugh it off


sorry I forgot
feminism will never change me. I am a man and will continue to act like a man. If women want to act like men also I will laugh at the ones who try. Just as I laugh at girly men who embarrass themselves

Quick Reply

Latest