When is rape not a crime?

[Liability]

The olde English Jurist named "Lord Hale" once observed (in the sexist way that many feminists love to hate) the nearly immortal words: "rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused, tho' never so innocent."

The fear he was expressing was that women scheme and cry "rape" falsely. And, of course there is a kernel of truth in that. SOME women do lie. And rape, a crime, can be the subject of a bogus complaint. That's also true.

But considering all that a woman is obliged to go through in order to "cry rape," it is not actually all that "easy" a thing to allege.

Imagne the pure JOY of having to describe to a bunch of strangers (often males) the details of how the rape occured. Then, the treasurable moments associated with having some doctors or nurses at a trauma center swabbing your gentials to gather evidence, making notes of bruisng, tearing or the lack thereof. THEN, happily, you get to speak to counselors and prosecutors. Of course, there is no greater pleaure than for a young woman to tell her mom and dad about what the guy did to her -- or a wife sharing those fun-filled details with her spouse or boyfriend. And the fun is only just beginning. THEN she gets to talk to a bunch of strangers in the Grand Jury. And if they choose to credit her story, eventually she gets to testify in a Courtroom about all the details of the circumstances surrounding the incident, being particulary happy to share those facts with the attorney representing the attacker who will treat her like the whore od Babylon -- but with more lowly moral values.

In most cases, there is absolutely NOTHING "easy" involved for a woman in coming forward to accuse some guy of raping her. That some women can still conceivably do it for ulterior motives is not reasonably deniable. But to think THAT kind of thing happens often is irrational.

 

[JD_2B]

you all got it wrong... its "surprise sex" all kidding aside rape is rape.

Now this is one thing i might worry with ladies... if they say its ok to have sex... yet they call and say you rape them? you toast correct?

Some people have a consent form policy, lol

 

[DiveCon]

you all got it wrong... its "surprise sex" all kidding aside rape is rape.

Now this is one thing i might worry with ladies... if they say its ok to have sex... yet they call and say you rape them? you toast correct?

Some people have a consent form policy, lol

given some of the false accusations that are happening, probably not a bad idea

 

[Contumacious]

And I am a libertarian, who voted almost all the way liberal in the last presidential election,

If you contemplated voting for Obama you are not a Libertarian.

and I can tell you for a FACT that one person's distorted views of rape are not

In "People vs Polasnki" the issue is STATUTORY RAPE - a legal fiction -

Libertarianism do not treat people collectively - it would have been the state's responsibility to OBJECTIVELY prove that Ms Geimer could not consent to sex.

.

 

[Liability]

And I am a libertarian, who voted almost all the way liberal in the last presidential election,

If you contemplated voting for Obama you are not a Libertarian.

and I can tell you for a FACT that one person's distorted views of rape are not

In "People vs Polasnki" the issue is STATUTORY RAPE - a legal fiction -

Libertarianism do not treat people collectively - it would have been the state's responsibility to OBJECTIVELY prove that Ms Geimer could not consent to sex.

.

Libertarians are not spoken for by your imbecility.

In any society, laws like this often have to be written in ways that are clear and objective. How the fuck anybody could determine whether a specific 13 year old child is "ready" for anal sex, oral sodomy and vaginal sex with an adult is pretty much impossible to know. And there's no reason that any society has to go to such controtions and lengths to make such fine distinctions between the "readiness"of different 13 year old girls. A simple bright line rule works FINE to resolve it. Where the child is under a particular -- stated -- perfectly objective and clearly defined -- chronological age, the adult is forbidden to seek or obtain sexual contact with that child. Period. End of story.

I know many libertarians. I see no evidence that they agree with your idiotic pointless point of view. You are a moron.

Statutory rape is a perfectly valid legal concept and nobody cares that your sub-moronic notions of the libertarian view on the topic disagrees. Fuck off, moron.

 

[JD_2B]

And I am a libertarian, who voted almost all the way liberal in the last presidential election,

If you contemplated voting for Obama you are not a Libertarian.

Yes I am. Check the voter registry.
The presidential elections are a result of our plutocratic election system, and because of that, it is essential that we pick the lesser of the two major and several minor evils. I never once have said that I think Obama is the best Candidate in America, hell I actually have this neurotic neighbor that I would like better.. <wink> But, if I have to decide between another capitalist that is anti abortion, married to a twink who is half his age, and who is CLEARLY too old to be trusted to not DIE in office, lol- I pick the younger,pro choice one, who is an awesome public speaker, an advocate for women's rights, and who is a different skin tone that what republicans are used to seeing.. And also because we do need some social change. Oh and also because liberals have done much more for the economy in the long run than our recent republicans have, so I decided it was time we just get some balancing out.. overall. It was more a matter of bipartisanship than anything else, but I chose the person most like me in Character. I think that is the best way to vote.

and I can tell you for a FACT that one person's distorted views of rape are not

In "People vs Polasnki" the issue is STATUTORY RAPE - a legal fiction -

Libertarianism do not treat people collectively - it would have been the state's responsibility to OBJECTIVELY prove that Ms Geimer could not consent to sex.

.

A little girl being drugged by a 40 something year old man, and forced to have sex with him, is not a matter of statutory rape- it is disgusting and wrong, and very much rape, no matter how old she was at the time.
And even if he hadn't drugged her, it is still RAPE because someone that age is incapable of making their own informed decisions about sex. If she can't get a tattoo, or an abortion, morning after pill, a piercing, and is considered to be too young to have the ability to mother a child- I promise you- the concept of consensual sex is also beyond her, as well.

 

[Intense]

And I am a libertarian, who voted almost all the way liberal in the last presidential election,

If you contemplated voting for Obama you are not a Libertarian.

Yes I am. Check the voter registry.
The presidential elections are a result of our plutocratic election system, and because of that, it is essential that we pick the lesser of the two major and several minor evils. I never once have said that I think Obama is the best Candidate in America, hell I actually have this neurotic neighbor that I would like better.. <wink> But, if I have to decide between another capitalist that is anti abortion, married to a twink who is half his age, and who is CLEARLY too old to be trusted to not DIE in office, lol- I pick the younger,pro choice one, who is an awesome public speaker, an advocate for women's rights, and who is a different skin tone that what republicans are used to seeing.. And also because we do need some social change. Oh and also because liberals have done much more for the economy in the long run than our recent republicans have, so I decided it was time we just get some balancing out.. overall. It was more a matter of bipartisanship than anything else, but I chose the person most like me in Character. I think that is the best way to vote.

and I can tell you for a FACT that one person's distorted views of rape are not

In "People vs Polasnki" the issue is STATUTORY RAPE - a legal fiction -

Libertarianism do not treat people collectively - it would have been the state's responsibility to OBJECTIVELY prove that Ms Geimer could not consent to sex.

.

A little girl being drugged by a 40 something year old man, and forced to have sex with him, is not a matter of statutory rape- it is disgusting and wrong, and very much rape, no matter how old she was at the time.
And even if he hadn't drugged her, it is still RAPE because someone that age is incapable of making their own informed decisions about sex. If she can't get a tattoo, or an abortion, morning after pill, a piercing, and is considered to be too young to have the ability to mother a child- I promise you- the concept of consensual sex is also beyond her, as well.

I agree that Obama is exceptional at reading other peoples words from a teleprompter. I would want more from a President than that. Durbin looks better in a Suit, and is from the same Crime Family.

Agreed the Child was drugged and Raped. What the Hell was the Man thinking. Jail served Martha Stewart well, maybe Shit for Brains will find True Love there. Who knows?

 

[Contumacious]

How the fuck anybody could determine whether a specific 13 year old child is "ready" for anal sex, oral sodomy and vaginal sex with an adult is pretty much impossible to know. And there's no reason that any society has to go to such controtions and lengths to make such fine distinctions between the "readiness"of different 13 year old girls.

The government supremacists type claim that the "children" need especial dispensation because of their tender age. So, it must be presumed that they did not consent to sex with nasty, dirty sex initiated by mean old men.

But it is perfectly alright to conclude that children wanted to murder....


A judge in Ventura County, California decided after three days of hearings that 15-year-old Brandon McInerney should stand trial, as an adult, for the murder of his classmate Lawrence King in February 2008:


.

 

[Liability]

How the fuck anybody could determine whether a specific 13 year old child is "ready" for anal sex, oral sodomy and vaginal sex with an adult is pretty much impossible to know. And there's no reason that any society has to go to such controtions and lengths to make such fine distinctions between the "readiness"of different 13 year old girls.

The government supremacists type claim that the "children" need especial dispensation because of their tender age. So, it must be presumed that they did not consent to sex with nasty, dirty sex initiated by mean old men.

But it is perfectly alright to conclude that children wanted to murder....


A judge in Ventura County, California decided after three days of hearings that 15-year-old Brandon McInerney should stand trial, as an adult, for the murder of his classmate Lawrence King in February 2008:


.

Another classic pointless from the blathering simpleton.

Yes, you asshole. We CAN and DO make decisions all the time on whether or not any individial accused of murder was "responsible" for that crime in the sense of having the required mens rea. We do that for ALL defendants, regardless of age, for ALL crimes.

What we DON'T do, you cretin, is determine whether or not a suspect is guilty by assessing the relative level of maturity of the VICTIMS.

We have every right to lay down blanket rules to protect children.

If we tried it YOUR way (you moron) pedophiles would be free to fuck any 13 year old child, regardless of whether that particular child IS actually "ready" for such behavior, and then determine AFTER THE FACT that the child was not ready. In THAT case (i.e., if the pedophile assessed his victim incorrectly) he would be "guilty." Of course, that doesn't actually protect all the children who are NOT "ready" from BEING victimized.

By contrast, if we lay down a universal prohibition, then there's no "testing" needed. The issues become sharp and clear and we've given all individuals in society a PROPER notice of what CONDUCT is permitted and what CONDUCT is prohibited. That's right, mutt, it even protects the potential pedophiles by at least giving them valid prior notice of what is deemed criminal behavior. That prior notice stuff? It's part of "due process." You have complained about a denial of "due process," but you are such an imbecile you SEEK a law that denies due process to everyone. You fucking tool.

 

[Contumacious]

If we tried it YOUR way (you moron) pedophiles would be free to fuck any 13 year old child, regardless of whether that particular child IS actually "ready" for such behavior, and then determine AFTER THE FACT that the child was not ready. l.

Mr dumbass, sir:

Is that you way of ADMITTING that Ms Geimer was BIOLOGICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT to consent to sex but because you are prejudiced against Mr. Polanski you want to summarily punish him?

.

 

[Intense]

If we tried it YOUR way (you moron) pedophiles would be free to fuck any 13 year old child, regardless of whether that particular child IS actually "ready" for such behavior, and then determine AFTER THE FACT that the child was not ready. l.

Mr dumbass, sir:

Is that you way of ADMITTING that Ms Geimer was BIOLOGICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT to consent to sex but because you are prejudiced against Mr. Polanski you want to summarily punish him?

.

How long have You had this Sexual Obsession with Children? Have You Ever Sought Treatment? Have You Ever Been Caught? Are You Registered as A Sex Offender?

 

[Contumacious]

If we tried it YOUR way (you moron) pedophiles would be free to fuck any 13 year old child, regardless of whether that particular child IS actually "ready" for such behavior, and then determine AFTER THE FACT that the child was not ready. l.

Mr dumbass, sir:

Is that you way of ADMITTING that Ms Geimer was BIOLOGICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT to consent to sex but because you are prejudiced against Mr. Polanski you want to summarily punish him?

.

How long have You had this Sexual Obsession with Children? Have You Ever Sought Treatment? Have You Ever Been Caught? Are You Registered as A Sex Offender?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

,

 

[Liability]

If we tried it YOUR way (you moron) pedophiles would be free to fuck any 13 year old child, regardless of whether that particular child IS actually "ready" for such behavior, and then determine AFTER THE FACT that the child was not ready. l.

. . . sir:

Is that you way of ADMITTING that Ms Geimer was BIOLOGICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT to consent to sex but because you are prejudiced against Mr. Polanski you want to summarily punish him?

.

Moron:

I am unable to "admit" your degenerate lie. Tools like you can offer lies, but nobody can "admit" to a lie. Words have meaning, imbecile.

She was only 13 years old. So I presume she was biologically "competent" to have sex. Her mouth apparently was able to open and close (thus her ability to repeatedly say "no" to the pedophile piece of shit you are supporting). Anuses regularly open (normally as an exit). And her vagina was biologically designed to open, although vaginas are usually in a closed state. Thus your "biologically" condition is meaningless.

YOU are of course utterly without basis to claim to know whether she was or was not psychologically capable of "consenting." But we do have significant evidence that she never did. "No" does not mean "go ahead and sodomize my asshole," you asshole.

And I don't want to "summarily punish" Roman the pedophile Polanski. That's just you offering another lie. No surprise.

I DO want him punished, of course. But, there's nothing "summary" about it. The fucker got due process and entered his PLEA of GUILTY in a Court of Law on the record with the assistance of counsel. Then he fled, like the cowardly piece of shit he is. NOW it's time to finally pay the piper.

In short, you are wrong AGAIN on all aspects of your imbecilic post, shitbrain.

 

[GHook93]

fuck him.....

That is a possibility, once he get to Chino!

Buba is going to say, "Jea, I never slept with someone from Hollywood before, I guess there is a first for everything!"

 

[Intense]

Mr dumbass, sir:

Is that you way of ADMITTING that Ms Geimer was BIOLOGICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT to consent to sex but because you are prejudiced against Mr. Polanski you want to summarily punish him?

.

How long have You had this Sexual Obsession with Children? Have You Ever Sought Treatment? Have You Ever Been Caught? Are You Registered as A Sex Offender?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

,

I'm sorry, what was the fallacy, Pedophiles stick together? You appear that way to me. You are defending the drugging and rape of a 13 year old.

 

[JD_2B]

And I am a libertarian, who voted almost all the way liberal in the last presidential election,

If you contemplated voting for Obama you are not a Libertarian.

and I can tell you for a FACT that one person's distorted views of rape are not

In "People vs Polasnki" the issue is STATUTORY RAPE - a legal fiction -

Libertarianism do not treat people collectively - it would have been the state's responsibility to OBJECTIVELY prove that Ms Geimer could not consent to sex.

.

Libertarians are not spoken for by your imbecility.

In any society, laws like this often have to be written in ways that are clear and objective. How the fuck anybody could determine whether a specific 13 year old child is "ready" for anal sex, oral sodomy and vaginal sex with an adult is pretty much impossible to know. And there's no reason that any society has to go to such controtions and lengths to make such fine distinctions between the "readiness"of different 13 year old girls. A simple bright line rule works FINE to resolve it. Where the child is under a particular -- stated -- perfectly objective and clearly defined -- chronological age, the adult is forbidden to seek or obtain sexual contact with that child. Period. End of story.

I know many libertarians. I see no evidence that they agree with your idiotic pointless point of view. You are a moron.

Statutory rape is a perfectly valid legal concept and nobody cares that your sub-moronic notions of the libertarian view on the topic disagrees. Fuck off, moron.

You seem to be bashing ME for what Contumacious said..

I am the one who said that 13 year olds cant consent to various things like tattoos, piercings, abortions, etc.. and thus cant consent to sex. I do not mean that literally- they can say "ok" to having sex, and doing all those other things- but they are, by precedent alone, not capable of making most decisions concerning informed consent.
I think you WERE talking to Contumacious, anyways, but I want to be sure.

 

[JD_2B]

If we tried it YOUR way (you moron) pedophiles would be free to fuck any 13 year old child, regardless of whether that particular child IS actually "ready" for such behavior, and then determine AFTER THE FACT that the child was not ready. l.

Mr dumbass, sir:

Is that you way of ADMITTING that Ms Geimer was BIOLOGICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY COMPETENT to consent to sex but because you are prejudiced against Mr. Polanski you want to summarily punish him?

.

Liability said no such thing.. And he did not even insinuate anything like that, either. You are pulling a straw-man argument out of your hat, and it is not going to work.

Ms Geimer was physically capable of saying yes to any number of things, including becoming the CEO of Sacs Fifth Avenue- How does her ABILITY to say "yes" or "no" somehow equate to her having a firm understanding of exactly what she is agreeing to?

And being DRUGGED and then INVADED without consent- even if it is an ADULT husband and wife MARITAL situation, is still RAPE.

Rape = Sexual penetration without consent/ OR unwanted sexual penetration/ OR unKNOWN sexual penetration..

So slipping someone a mickey and screwing them, does NOT equate to consensual sex.

Having sex with a 5 year old who said yes and stripped his or her own clothes off, and jumped on your penis/vagina and KNEW exactly what to do, is STILL rape- because a 5 year old is not OLD enough to have the psychological or mental capacity to understand the situation fully.

The same applies with a 13 year old- and the reason it applies to a specific age, and in specific situations, is because the LAW MANDATES IT that way. OK??? Stop accusing people of saying or insinuating things they did not, just to somehow throw a monkey wrench into the discussion and bide your time.

 

[Contumacious]

How long have You had this Sexual Obsession with Children? Have You Ever Sought Treatment? Have You Ever Been Caught? Are You Registered as A Sex Offender?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

,

I'm sorry, what was the fallacy, Pedophiles stick together? You appear that way to me. You are defending the drugging and rape of a 13 year old.

Hummmmmmmmmmm


very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.


Ain't you the same dumb ass who was praising the Shah of Iran. yep, I'm really concerned about your opinion.

Your ilk do no respect dissent, in the name of god, of course.

.

 

[Wicked Jester]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

,

I'm sorry, what was the fallacy, Pedophiles stick together? You appear that way to me. You are defending the drugging and rape of a 13 year old.

Hummmmmmmmmmm


very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.


Ain't you the same dumb ass who was praising the Shah of Iran. yep, I'm really concerned about your opinion.

Your ilk do no respect dissent, in the name of god, of course.

.

Seriously dipshit.
If the California Sex Offender Registry website had a message board that allowed this type of interaction, I guarantee that 99.99% of the scumbags registered would hold the same twisted views as you!

You are one sick twisted puppy to be sure!

 

[Contumacious]

YOU are of course utterly without basis to claim to know whether she was or was not psychologically capable of "consenting." .

True, but that is the reason judges are supposed to conduct competency hearings. But ELECTED JUDGES are not going to conduct a competency hearing during a Salem Witchcraft Trial.

.