|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no evidence, just a 17 year old girls word against the word of a 17 year old boy, and he was convicted.
Sex is a weapon, and the unscrupulous will rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if Cheri Blair, wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair, has gotten it onto the books in the United Kingdom that if a man and woman enjoy having a few drinks and afterwards enjoy consensual sex, then the man has raped the woman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Government is committed to the law mentioned in the Queen's Speech, that covers this parliamentary session, and therefore it should be put before parliament in the next few months. Cheri Blair is not part of the Government although she may think she is.
Raymond Cuttill
Men's Books/ Men's Radio /Bracknell Home for stray cats, old computers and political incorrectness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheri Blair is not part of the Government although she may think she is.
Of that I'm aware. Thanks for clarifying it, though.
If that outrage goes on the books (when a man and a woman enjoy having a few drinks and then enjoy consensual sex, the man has raped the woman), and UK men don't rise up and remove the government, they all deserve to be locked up, for being insane if not for being rapists.
I've visited the UK and had sex with my wife after we had some wine. According to the atrocity that may become law (hopefully not a retroactive one), I will have raped her. Interesting how much she enjoyed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was then! You better hope she doesn't change her mind!
I don't think she would, but that's why I say I hope the law isn't retroactive. I've enjoyed the UK the few times I've visited there, but I won't go again if that fascist proposal becomes law. And I'll tell everyone I can why they, too, should never visit the place, or buy anything that's manufactured there, for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is clear that this ruling is a result of feminists using billions in funding from the VAWA to redefine rape-using male hate centric ideas. Rape is now any act that a female regrets or later regrets. Consent is no longer meaningful.
All men in California should be alarmed! Yet when I talk to them about this issue they simply say, oh...I guess the teenagers should have waited until marriage. They completely fail to realize that this ruling will apply to their marriage also. So, if a wife says, I need to take a walk while the male is in the throws of an orgasm, if the male doesn't immediately withdraw it is now defined to be marital rape. The repercussions of this ruling are stunning and the male population continues in ignorant apathy.
Worse, I have to teach my teenage and young adult sons that if they get consent, and the female expresses anything remotely connected to regret during intercourse, that they are to immediately stop and leave. Failure to do so may result in allegations of rape.
How do I rationally explain this to my son's? This is f___ing insane! Literally, anything can be counted as a withdrawal of consent!
If anybody in California fails to see the seriousness of this ruling then they are literal retards. They are stupid. This is without question the most alarming ruling to ever take place in California. No male should have sexual relations with a female married or not until this is overturned by an outcry on the part of women and men all over California! Any man in California that has sexual relations with a female while this ruling stands is betraying other males.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any man in California that has sexual relations with a female while this ruling stands is betraying other males.
There is no longer any excuse for not fighting the vile atrocity known as feminism. I often wonder if any man, who is crushed by this evil after doing nothing to combat it, is getting exactly what he deserves. For a man today to ignore the diabolic nature and profound threats of feminism is similar to German Jews ignoring the dangers of Nazism during the 1930s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @07:18PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"Any man in California that has sexual relations with a female while this ruling stands is betraying other males."
My Reply:
Having any sex with a female while this ruling stands is suicidal. Having sex while standing (in case of the need for quick withdrawal) is better than being on top, but still too risky in my book. The only safe position left might be if the man is on the bottom, and the woman is on the top. That way when she says, "I should be going," and she stays, it is clear that she is exercising "power and control" in the decision making process. ...But then it's always been all about women having "power and control" over men hasn't it?
It's another great day for the great Feminazi attack on heterosexuality and males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @07:34PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It might be safe to do it doggie style, but if you get frisky and she bumps her head on the bed frame your off to jail on a domestic violence charge you brute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" The only safe position left might be if the man is on the bottom, and the woman is on the top. "
Sorry but do not count on this as a defence. Their goal is to criminalize men in all ways they possibly can. If that were not the case than for two people to go out for drinks then say the woman was no competent to make consent but the man is........... Obviously a double standard is being applied. And you can bet your ass that lesbiens will be pushing for more laws that penalize men.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you the "repercussions of this ruling are stunning". I'm stunned.
It seems to me, it will only be another few days before a woman decides unfulfilling sex was rape. I can imagine a scenario where it was running through her mind "This is incredibly boring, I'd rather be doing the laundry." Then later on she can claim that he should have known she was not consenting because she wasn't really paying attention or participating. She wouldn't even have to say anything.
In addition to huge implications for men, these cases have huge implications down the road for serious and real rape situations. Rape is a very serious complex subject and this kind of ludicrous case only trivializes it to the nth degree. What on earth are they thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What on earth are they thinking? "
It's called save your hide from large loud mouthed feminists who have nothing better to do than picket the court houses.
It's a seven to zero score. Not one dissenting Judge on the matter. These people are hand picked by politicians based on well whats good for their election process. But when the processes are based on faulty definitions you have faulty laws.
I mean 'bad sex' I am so done for.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @07:11PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
As a woman, I have a really hard time with this. To be quite frank, my first expirience was this same scenario. I consented until penetration, then said no and cried to no avail. This was a one night stand at 14.
I never considered this a rape. I never even told anyone about it until I was married. I felt that I put myself in that scenario, and I just had to chalk it up to expirience. My husband feels it was rape because I said no, but I don't think the man ever realized I was upset (OK, he was not the most observant person.)
I think in my case, now, I would have no problem getting a rape charge. Back then it would have been unheard of. But even if it happened today, I would not press charges. I feel that each party has an obligation to at least be clear. I could have made it much more clear, by screaming, punching, saying STOP NOW, etc. I did not. yes I was very young and scared to death, but I was not too young to get in that situation to begin with.
I think that standards need to be set for both sides, men needing to be aware of their rights and responsibilities, and women theirs. Women must prove they communicated without a doubt that they no longer consent. Saying 'I should get going' is not acceptable. Saying STOP NOW! would be more understandable.
Women like these who cry wolf are desensitizing people to the horror that is actual rape.~Lou
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women like these who cry wolf are desensitizing people to the horror that is actual rape.
This is very true and very dangerous. Thanks for pointing it out, Lou.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had an experience several years ago that I could now consider to be rape.
I was having sex with my girlfriend. She started doing something that she seemed to enjoy very much but was painful to me. I said Ouch! Stop! She slightly modified what she was doing but did not stop. According to the standards set by this ruling she is a rapist.
Silly me. I liked her a lot and just explained later that it hurt when she did that.
But now I realize the truth. Is there a statute of limitations on rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women like these who cry wolf are desensitizing people to the horror that is actual rape.~Lou"
Ya and lets not forget the innocent lives that are ruined because of a criminal record, jail time(which is LIFE THREATENING!)and the constant stigma that is forced onto their reputation. After getting more details on this case, I agree it is total bullshit.
During sex one can hardly realize what is part of the 'sex act' such as moaning, crying out or what.
I've had women saying 'no, no, no,' over and over after we started. When I stop they give me this look and ask "Why'd you stop for?".
However, I think the lawyers may have argued the wrong thing on this. If the boy 'stopped' eventually after a minute or so it shows that he did understand what she meant. Otherwise why did he stop. I leave that as a possibility.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @05:47PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I see sales of nanny cams booming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see sales of nanny cams booming.
AU,
It is ignorant to assume that a nanny cam would prove innocence in this scenario. Men must come to realize that California women no longer have the burden to clearly communicate to a male that she has withdrawn consent during intercourse.
Why women are so incapable of being unable to clearly communicate their desires is beyond men. What is even more alarming is that most men believe this ruling is just fine.
They ignorantly argue that well any women can falsely allege rape anyway. Then they conclude that for this reason the ruling doesn't matter.
Well they are beyond stupid and ignorant. This is alarming, and the ruling means that women no longer have the responsibility to clearly communicate their intention as it relates to consent.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is alarming, and the ruling means that women no longer have the responsibility to clearly communicate their intention as it relates to consent.
No doubt.
"I should be going now" and "I need to go home" could be understood as "Hurry up. Let's finish this soon. I don't want to get in trouble for getting home late."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 08, @07:29PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you. However, when the standard is that man must prove his innocence, some visual evidence may be better than no evidence at all. Men are not going to stop having sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I have said in the past the law on sexual offenses is quickly moving to where an accusation would mean conviction would mean extreme punishment. Not only is a man presumed guilty but also he has no right to maintain his innocence in prison.
Few of us have studied the psychological and medical tortures inflicted on sex offenders in prisons. Have you studied it? You should read the first chapter of my work "Punishment and Crime" which describes what the system is going to be like.
As for obstaining from sex 100% -- it is TOO extreme. Only 5 per 1000 sexually active males get convicted of date rape. Soon it will be 20 per 100, but I doubt it will ever go above 5%. That would be like a woman abstaining from sex with men for the fear of HIV.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This stuns, sickens and scares me. I also can't imagine how the phrases "I should be going home" can be translated, even in the most militant of femi-nazi's translators into "THIS IS RAPE! STOP!" Ugh. And apparently we still need to teach boys to be "sensitive" to girls - how about teaching girls to not be moronic in sexual matters? Oh, but that would be blaming the "victim."
It also sounds like a very vindictive 17-year-old girl, or perhaps her parents, to charge him with ANYTHING... I did vaguely know the mother of an 18-year-old convicted of child molestation for having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" I also can't imagine how the phrases "I should be going home" can be translated, even in the most militant of femi-nazi's translators into "THIS IS RAPE! STOP!" Ugh."
The problem with that is, is that feminists are the ones telling women how to react and what everything actually means. If she sneezes it was a sign that she wanted to end it. Feminists don't really care if this is actually true or not, it just works into their agenda. The victim industry. They use psychology to reshape how women think they should react and respond. What women should feel. It is hardly liberating for women and their sexuality.
It is my opinion that it is feminist who are the worst predators, waiting for vulnerable women in crises centers etc..
They use billboards, television movies, comercials and whatever media outlet they can think of to transform the hive mind into automated response. Its a business and they have to advertise. They use the overdramatizations depicted in scenarios to teach women how they should respond. This leads to bad legislation and bad laws like we have here.
If the men's movement is going to get any where, it needs to advertise.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They use psychology to reshape how women think they should react and respond. What women should feel. It is hardly liberating for women and their sexuality.
Unfortunately, Dan, you're right. I think there is a large segment of radical feminists who would love nothing more than to convince all heterosexual women that they really don't want or enjoy sex with men.
The weird thing is, I don't really see their agenda as wanting to convert more women to lesbians, as many people claim is their motive. I don't get that impression at all. From what I can discern, their agenda is simply to strike out at males. How females end up feeling about about their own sexuality is irrelevant to them. The only important thing is to use women as weapons to lauch at men.
Not very empowering to women as you've said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How females end up feeling about about their own sexuality is irrelevant to them. The only important thing is to use women as weapons to lauch at men. "
It's a shame that is come to this. Government funded bigotry. I've met another fellow today who has sucumbed to a biased justice system. A mere accusation has turned his life upsidedown. And the accusation wasn't even one of violence. The claim was about a verbal threat. His side of the story is irrelevant. Welcome to Ontario home of Radical Feminist Buearacrates.
Radical Feminists make Nazis look like Humanitarians.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a hunch this 17 year old was manipulated and brainwashed. I can't see someone that young coming up with this on her own. I'd bet plenty there is someone else behind this. There will probably be a recantation and a book somewhere in the future. I pray she wises up as she gets older and comes forth with the truth how this all came about and who is responsible for putting her up to this, both to clear the boy's name and for the betterment of us all.
Sorry, but something is just not adding up about this whole thing. Seventeen year olds are horribly gullible to unscrupulous adults. There is something else going on here behind the scenes it's not really about this girl. I'll wait and see, but I feel she (and the boy) are being horribly used for someone else's agenda. It'll come out sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are exactly right Lorianne. There is no doubt in my mind that feminists have set this up and are using it as a “pry bar” to change the law to get as close as possible to their ultimate goal (concerning rape) which is:
Any woman can accuse any man of rape at any time for any reason she chooses. The man is automatically guilty and must be jailed for a very long time – hopefully life. There cannot be the slightest consideration that the man is innocent.
The political advantages (for the feminists) of such a repressive society (for men and boys) are obvious.
It is certain that there is a nest of feminists surrounding this girl.
It is also certain that they have been giving her instruction from the word go. She will be being told exactly what to say and do. Feminists from many different groups (especially legal groups) will have been “think-tanking” this right from the very beginning. Most feminists will have been focused on this test case. It did not come out of the blue.
In fact, it is my opinion that feminist legal groups will have been “fishing” for a test case to pull off this attack on men – maybe for years. By this, I mean that they will have been looking for any sexually active heterosexual female that is known to any of “The Sisterhood” (friends, relatives, daughters nieces etc.) They will have questioned these girls (and women) and then briefed them fully on what was required – all the time searching to put a case together.
“Have you had sex with a man and told him to stop but he didn’t?”
“Have you had sex with a man and hinted that he should stop but he didn’t?”
“Have you had sex with a man, had an orgasm and told him you were board waiting for him to finish?”
“Would you be prepared to go the police and say he raped you?”
“Yes?”
“The next time something like this happens to you, tell us immediately and we’ll do the rest”
There is no doubt in my mind that questions like these will have been asked thousands of times to females close to members of “The Sisterhood” during the last year or so. They will have just been waiting for the right time and place.
What the feminists were looking for was a way to turn any man into a “rapist” at any given instant during heterosexual sex – and now they have got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is certain that there is a nest of feminists surrounding this girl.
It is also certain that they have been giving her instruction from the word go.
If you mean from the moment that she could understand language, through the media, through the educational institutions, and through personal contact, then you are right, Johnny Man. The disease of feminism infects our entire culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rape is when someone does one or more of the following to force another to have or maintain intercourse:
- Uses superior or matching strength.
- Uses drugs such as alcohol or sedatives.
- Uses the advantage of surprise, such as engaging someone in their sleep or in a stupor, drug-related or otherwise.
If she does not actually say "no" then she should have nothing to stand on. The law should not be used to help people who can't say the one word that is common to almost every spoken language in the modern world. Sorry lady, you have to grow a spine like the rest of us. And if you didn't want to have sex with him you shouldn't have taken your clothes off. It is difficult for some men to abort sex. And what if she told him to stop after the point of no return, at which it is almost impossible to stop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would you call sex coerced by threats? What if she tells you she will beat your children when you are gone, or she ties you up while you are sleeping and holds a knife to your throat? Rape, assault, or....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At that point you throw the kids into the car and disappear. As sad as it is, I don't see a move viable choice in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just nuts. And, there's no evidence of force, etc., just she said-she said! And the judge agreed!
Good God. I am now totally in favor if single sex education primarily to protect better the boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am now totally in favor if single sex education primarily to protect better the boys.
I went to an all-boy, Jesuit high school. It was one of the finest experiences of my life. Boys definitely need and deserve access to all-boy schools. Men deserve and need access to all-men colleges. Males have the right to educational institutions where they can be safe from females, learn how to defend themselves from females, and learn that they are not despicable trash because they weren't born female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are a man, and you have sex with a woman in California consider at some point making a comment like, "It's late. I've got to get going." Then continue to have sex for at least another minute.
After that, if the woman ever bothers you any reason, you can have her convicted of raping you and sent to prison. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
(sarcasm off)
As if the legal system would ever treat women in the fascist manner in which it treats men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would just plain love to get a copy of the court transcript.
You know, I hope this ruling is overturned on appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 12, @11:39PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
On a very serious note, now that California has so broadened the definition of rape, a test case should be brought in which a woman is charged with rape -- someone who ignored a clear request to stop. Under the new ruling, there is nothing except bigotry that would make rape a male-only crime.
Of course I am not suggesting that people bring charges against their girlfriends. But nonetheless I would love to see a group like NCFM locate a plaintiff whose female rapist ignored a request to stop.
What is amazing about this case is that it is not a ruling by some drunk judge in a backwater town. This is California's highest court and the ruling is now the law of the state. Perhaps this would be a good time to stop buying California produce, and to let the governor know why.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
