|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @04:53PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
A person who initially consents to sexual penetration or sexual conduct is not deemed to have consented to any sexual penetration or sexual conduct that occurs after he or she withdraws consent during the course of that sexual penetration or sexual conduct. So if I'm having consentual sex and she says 'no' half way through, I'm immediately considered a rapist? While I understand that there's a grey area in this scenario, I can see this law being easily abused.
Her: "Intercourse? Yes, please."
...2 seconds after penetration...
Her: "I change my mind. You're now a sex offender."
Given, I have a difficult time understanding why someone would put themselves in a sitaution of sex when they're not sure, but that's not really the issue here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @05:47PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The whole point behind laws like this is to criminalize male hetero-sexuality.
Feminists (expecially the lesbian variety) hate men, and every year they further criminalize masculinity.
When are men (right now we are a bunch of isolated idiots doing nothing) going to stand up against this bullshit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @07:58PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The whole point behind laws like this is to criminalize male heterosexuality. Not quite. While this law is over the top in it's intention of safety, it does not explicitly criminalize male heterosexuality. It does, however, oversimplify an issue.
Consider a legitimate case where the woman changes her mind mid-way through intercourse. The law as is implies that the man immediately becomes a sex offender, without being given an opportunity to withdraw. This is obviously absurd. On the other hand, intercourse in which consent is retracted but the man continues regardless is clearly a violation. So we need some happy medium, which, I should state, is not this law.
This grey zone of intention to withdraw is difficult to define which is why we need to be careful with our laws. The current approach is unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @08:47PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"This law is over the top in its intention of safety"
Indeed. This and every other type of law that deals with a "he said/she said" basis of criminal intent always places men into the position where innocence has to be proven and his name is immediately placed in full public view based on mere allegation.
I say if the "victim" is to remain anonymous, than so is the alleged "abuser" until a court of law decides guilt BEYOND a reasonable doubt.
Feminist laws intend to criminalize hetero-masculinity. period. end of story. If you don't believe this, have you been paying attention to what gets posted on this website day in and day out year after year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't believe this, have you been paying attention to what gets posted on this website day in and day out year after year?"
I do have to say, that I *have* read enough quotes from feminists books, articles and speeches to conclude that, yes, the *elitist* feminists truly are out to prove that male sexualality is evil and women are better off as homosexuals.
I think that most women, even the non-elite feminists are not actually opposed to male heterosexuality, merely misinformed as to the degree of problems associated with it and tottally uneducated on the repercussions false convictions have for innocent men.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
******associated with it and tottally uneducated on the repercussions false convictions have for innocent men*********
Why are so many men convicted of rape and later found to be not guilty via DNA analysis if they were originally convicted under the jurisprudence safeguard of being found guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
When it is a she said/he said situation the she said side obviously takes precedence.
And this is supposed to be a free and just country? Horseshit! Thanks to 30 years of radical feminism the Western countries are in a constitutional crisis and have debased everything that was supposed to make them superior and more civilized in comparison to the other nations.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
