|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next time you are having sex, have the woman sit on top and just before she climaxes tell her to stop. If she doesn't, boom, you sue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of course, you don't mean this. If so, what does that say about YOU?
Not much.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a joke, fruitloop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was in VERY poor taste. Cereal...still unfunny.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a slight flaw in this....
Now the women is on top and she says stop. Hmm!
(Sometimes poor taste jokes have a comedic value all thier own).
regards,
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...right before she climaxes YOU tell HER to stop." Try reading it again. This time with your head out of your ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark,
Yes, I understand.
I think you missed a couple of things though.....
1 I was replying to the comment that said the joke was in bad taste and thought that even though the joke may have been in bad taste, it actually was mildly amusing and relevant.
2 I was also addressing the comments made about Women saying stop at any point and making the observation that this may in fact prove slightly more difficult, for the man, if the women were on top.
Maybe this use of supportive statements with an undertone of indirect referential commentary was a little subtle.
Anyways, there is no need to be insulting.
regards,
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 01, @05:28PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
you're a guy, you're not allowed to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't apologize for that comment! It should be possible if women can do it do us. Otherwise there is blatant discrimination here. We need to get people to "reverse values," if you will, to see what's really fair. Maybe our lawmakers wouldn't pass these ridiculous laws if they were to imagine situations like the one you just did. In fact, I wish someone on the floor of the legislature had brought this up before the vote. Legally, what you proposed SHOULD DARN WELL BE possible if women are going to have it their way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will a man be able to use this law as well?
Perhaps, but only if it's a case of tokenism, so the powers-that-be can pretend that they're applying the law in a balanced manner. To get an idea, of how equitable such legislation and current social attitudes are, consider the law that Cherie Blair, wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair, is promoting in the United Kingdom. (The same type of law that has support from feminists around the world.)
If Cherie's Law is passed, it will be the case that when a woman and a man both have drinks, and they engage in and enjoy consensual sex, the woman will have done nothing wrong, and the man will have committed rape.
I'm a heterosexual, but I have to say, the closest thing to safe sex, for a man in most of Western society today, is gay sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 01, @02:10PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, sex with an other man's wife is safest. Low risk of VD, AIDS or "commitment".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, sex with an other man's wife is safest.
One of the most common reasons for false rape accusations is the fear, on the part of a woman, that an affair will be discovered. To cover for herself, she claims that her lover raped her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the law, if someone says "no" at any time the other person must stop or it becomes rape.
Erm, ok, but even if the guy jumps straight off the girl the very nanosecond she withdraws consent, she's _still_ going to _say_ she was raped anyway (oh please - how often do people withdraw consent mid-hump? what other motives could there possibly be?), so what's the incentive for the guy to actually, erm, withdraw, given that even his full compliance with this law _still_ isn't going to protect him from it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This law is written in gender neutral language. It was written so that rape is characterized as "penetration" for women, and "sexual conduct" for men, while clearly defining in the language that the law is applicable to both women and men. Illinois legislation is usually very liberal yet very fair in this regard. Unfortunately, what was enacted to clarify existing law, creates another layer of fog and the opportunity for more false accusations. Will somebody hard of hearing be convicted of rape? Will a simple miscommunication between two people be considered rape? Will the continuation of the sex act after five seconds constitute rape, but one second, maybe two, be considered an acceptable end to the sex act? And who determines that time frame? And what about the revenge factor? How do we distinguish between an actual criminal rape and a well executed criminal act of revenge?
The original intent of this law was to clarify an existing law that was very similar to the one in California. Illinois was trying to avoid the lengthly and expensive court battle that ensued concerning the young man and the state of Cal. over his rape charge filed by his girlfriend. In the end, Illinois' knee-jerk reaction may just cause them more headaches.
For those who would like to check it out go to: www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fullt ext.asp?Name=093-0389
If that doesn't work, use search for: Illinois general assembly. Search for either Senator Dan Rutherford (R-Pontiac) or bill #SB406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 02, @02:56PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see which gender this law will predominately be applied to. Could it be men?
I suspect men lack the cunning to employ this law as opportunistically as females will. Sexploitation is a book written by Matthew Fitzgerld. On the cover it says, "How women use their bodies to extort money from men." Considering that a person can sue in civil court after a case has been heard in criminal court, it would make perfect sense for a vindictive, sexploitive female to cry rape, exhaust the sucker males money in criminal court, then completely destroy him in civil.
Feminazi law in america today is a ready willing and able vehicle in the cause of completely destroying the amercian male and empowering the american female. This law in the hands of that corrupt system is just one more tool in the tool box building that living hell for all western men.
Just because I'm paranoind doesn't mean there isn't a vast, ever-expanding, feminazi conspiracy out there to disempower and batter men. Can you hear me now through the static of male denial? I have to go now. There's a frog boiling in the pot on the stove, and I have to turn the heat up a little. I think it's a male frog.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 02, @01:11AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Women have often complained about men who experience premature ejaculation. I suggest that every man forget about satisfying the woman and just get off as quickly as possible.
#1 If you're quick enough, it should greatly lessen the chance of an accusation of rape.
#2 In fact now that I think about it I've been raped hundreds of times by forcing myself to have sex just to satisfy the woman, when I would just as soon have stopped.
#3 From now on anytime after a man ejaculates he should just yell out "STOP!" and walk away. If the woman is upset, the man should just say, "If we continued on you'd be forcing me to have sex you'd be raping me. I'd probably be so upset in the morning I'd have to call the police."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is proposed has been found to be the law elsewhere (eg in Australia) absent any specific statute. Consent can be withdrawn. You can withdraw your consent for your neighbour to use your ride on mower, you can withdraw consent to sex. I don't see anything to get especially excited about in this.
Personally, if a woman withdrew consent during sex then I'd stop pronto. The most likely reason is that it was hurting her due to inadequate lubrication or some other problem, and I have no interest in hurting my sexual partners.
cheers,
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 02, @01:58PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
SD, with all respect:
We live in a society where, when it comes to false accusations, any female lie will do. Sorry to be contrary, but I'm excited. In a western society adrift with radical feminist indoctrination throughout our eductational system, these laws will only enable Pheminuts to more easily exploit males. Young naive males coming up are especially vulnerable.
My opinion is that there is plenty to be excited about, because that light at the end of the tunnel is the feminazi express, and while we were busy checking to make sure it was or wasn't a train with our number on it, pheminazi lawmakers were busy greasing the male escape route out of the tunnel.
What ever more diabolical traps await the unwary male at every turn of the road coming up? Who knows, but you can bet there will be plenty. Hey, just becuase I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a feminazi conspiracy out there to disempower and batter men.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 03, @04:53AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
We live in a society where, when it comes to false accusations, any female lie will do. Sorry to be contrary, but I'm excited. In a western society adrift with radical feminist indoctrination throughout our eductational system, these laws will only enable Pheminuts to more easily exploit males. Young naive males coming up are especially vulnerable.
If you believe "any female lie will do" then I don't see how this law makes any difference. A female liar could just as well say she never consented as say she consented and then changed her mind. In fact taking the latter line would just reduce her credibility. The position you and others are taking on this issue here amounts to demanding special legal privileges for men while they are copulating. Far better, IMHO, to demand the application of the normal standards which apply in criminal law to accusations of sexual assault etc. If the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, then a conviction under this provision is very unlikely unless the defendant makes admissions.
cheers,
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 03, @09:10AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
wow, talk about missing the point! lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 03, @11:34AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"The position you and others are taking on this issue here amounts to demanding special legal privileges for men while they are copulating."
What we are demanding here is "equal justice for men," in an area of law where truth, innocence and guilt are very difficult to determine. I do not believe that demanding "eqaul justice" is demanding special privelege in this murky area.
Clearly, the present laws of the state of Colorado, California, Massachusettes, etc are set up to give speical privelege to females in that allleged rape victims are not subjected to the same scrutinty as men who are accused of rape. Clearly there is a bias in the law giving special priveleges to the rape accuser (rape shield).
Men have been convicted of rape with far slimmer evidence than that we have in the Kobe case and I suspect that he too will be sacraficed on that great alter of feminist privelege we have built in the western world.
The only question that remains in my mind is, "Will the punishment he receives befit the crime he will eventually be railroaded for?" It looks like that light in the tunnel is getting closer.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 03, @06:34PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Most of you know what the Missionary position is. It's the standard guy on top woman on bottom position. You won't see this very significat question come up (no pun intended) on any of the major networks so this is a good place to talk about it.
Since consent is a major part of the "new rape definition" a guy should always say honey why don't you go on top so you can have more control of the action?
We could even make this a law and call it something like the "male rape shield law."
If a guy has an orgasm and the woman is so selfish that she continues on forcing the guy to satisfy her, a guy could even say something like, "I should be going now," and later claim that she raped him.
I have no doubt with the strong core of men's activist that exist in this feminasty state of california there's a male civil rights tester out there just dying to try this one out on a female to see if the law discriminates.
Female scam artists beware, the rape laws will be made fair, one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnally, if I ever get picked for jury duty on one of these rape accusations I will vote for aquittal if the female did not have a stop watch available during the sex **AND** if she did not make it known to her partner beforehand that she has a stop watch and will expect him to withdraw within a specific amount of time after she says stop.
Actually, we as a society now view sex as male explotation of females. Ergo; all heterosexual sex is by definition is rape. We have bought into the femitwit social agenda crappola much to our collective misfortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that there is anything to see in the Meth Capital of the midwest but I will not be spending anymore money in Hillinois.
I live in Missouri and have visited the Single Mother State numerous times. No More.
If they hate men in that state, they can just do without male tourism dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
