| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
27 Mar 2007 11:31:44 PM |
| Object: |
It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem. No woman deserves to be raped for any reason, but one must
admit that alot of these women bring about their own predicaments.
There's alot to be said for plain club soda.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390405-details/It%27s+not+always+rape+if+a+woman+is+drunk%2C+says+judge/article.do
A woman cannot claim rape just because she was drunk, a top judge
declared yesterday.
The Appeal Court ruling freed a young man jailed for rape after he had
sex with a drunken student.
It also raised deep doubts over the Government's latest attempts to
toughen rape laws.
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
But the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge, and two other
senior judges branded the idea unrealistic.
A woman who is very drunk may still be capable of agreeing to sex,
they said.
They quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25,
jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-
year-old student.
The girl drank between four and six vodka Red Bulls and two pints of
cider and Mr Bree was also drinking heavily.
They returned to her hall of residence at Bournemouth University,
where, she told Bournemouth Crown Court last year, she was
'continually throwing up'.
She said her next memory was waking up to find Mr Bree having sex with
her. She told the jury her memory was "very patchy" and I knew I
didn't want this but I didn't know how to go about stopping it".
Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent and "seemed keen".
.
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
28 Mar 2007 08:16:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1175056304.832767.103930@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're not
capable of protecting themselves."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
28 Mar 2007 10:46:49 PM |
|
|
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103930@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 06:01:29 AM |
|
|
In article <JEGOh.5247$8l2.3342@trnddc01>, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103930@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk. Other than that, there is no
force and the girl agrees to it. It's a legal determination that even
though she says yes, she doesn't have the mental faculties to understand
the consequences of what she's agreeing to.
Well, the same can be said of men. There are plenty of women who have
sex with drunk men so why is it that they aren't considered rapists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CafeWriter" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 10:15:54 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-D9906E.07012929032007@news.giganews.com...
In article <JEGOh.5247$8l2.3342@trnddc01>, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103930@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're
not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk. Other than that, there is no
force and the girl agrees to it. It's a legal determination that even
though she says yes, she doesn't have the mental faculties to understand
the consequences of what she's agreeing to.
Well, the same can be said of men. There are plenty of women who have
sex with drunk men so why is it that they aren't considered rapists?
Duh! You forgot the strength of a woman compared to the strength of a man.
A man can hold a woman down any way he wants and rape her. A woman cannot
hold a man down any way she wants and rape him.
A woman is not as strong as a man is when it comes to strength. I don't
think that a woman is capable of raping a man unless she had built up
muscles to do so that that's a small minority compared to group of average
women.
So when a man rapes a woman, even if she is drunk, he is still a rapist.
Just because a woman is drunk or dressed sexy does not provide a man with a
legal excuse to rape her.
This is one stupid observation. Did you actually failed Science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 06:17:20 AM |
|
|
In article <Kh%Oh.89080$DN.49051@pd7urf2no>,
"CafeWriter" <cafewriter@shawRemoveThis.ca> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-D9906E.07012929032007@news.giganews.com...
In article <JEGOh.5247$8l2.3342@trnddc01>, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103930@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're
not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk. Other than that, there is no
force and the girl agrees to it. It's a legal determination that even
though she says yes, she doesn't have the mental faculties to understand
the consequences of what she's agreeing to.
Well, the same can be said of men. There are plenty of women who have
sex with drunk men so why is it that they aren't considered rapists?
Duh! You forgot the strength of a woman compared to the strength of a man.
A man can hold a woman down any way he wants and rape her. A woman cannot
hold a man down any way she wants and rape him.
But we're not talking about a violent rape or sex by physical force
here. We're talking about a situation where the woman is saying "yes" to
sex and fully participating in the sex but the law says her consent
isn't valid because she was drunk, therefore she was raped.
The point is, a man can be in the exact same situation: fully
participating in the sex but drunk at the same time. So why doesn't the
law consider *his* consent to be invalid?
This situation is more akin to statutory rape, where it doesn't matter
if the 14-year-old says yes to sex or even initiates sex. The person's
age makes their consent automatically invalid.
A woman is not as strong as a man is when it comes to strength. I don't
think that a woman is capable of raping a man unless she had built up
muscles to do so that that's a small minority compared to group of average
women.
So when a man rapes a woman, even if she is drunk, he is still a rapist.
Just because a woman is drunk or dressed sexy does not provide a man with a
legal excuse to rape her.
Look, Einstein, we're not talking about a situation where a man comes
across a drunk woman, throws her down, rips off her clothes, and forces
himself on her. No one questions that that would be rape and would be a
crime because even though she's drunk, she'd likely be screaming "no"
and fighting against it.
We're talking about a situation where a man and a woman meet (say at a
party or a bar) and after several drinks decide to go home together and
both willingly have sex together. The law as it stands now allows the
woman to claim rape the next morning when she wakes up and feels
embarrassed about having had sex with a total stranger, based on the
fact that she was drunk and her consent to sex was not valid.
This is one stupid observation. Did you actually failed Science?
Maybe when you manage to comprehend the actual issues involved here, you
can start hurling insults without looking stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 11:54:05 PM |
|
|
On 29-Mar-2007, "CafeWriter" <cafewriter@shawRemoveThis.ca> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-D9906E.07012929032007@news.giganews.com...
In article <JEGOh.5247$8l2.3342@trnddc01>, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103930@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be
able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is
drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally
consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're
not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk. Other than that, there is no
force and the girl agrees to it. It's a legal determination that even
though she says yes, she doesn't have the mental faculties to understand
the consequences of what she's agreeing to.
Well, the same can be said of men. There are plenty of women who have
sex with drunk men so why is it that they aren't considered rapists?
Duh! You forgot the strength of a woman compared to the strength of a
man.
A man can hold a woman down any way he wants and rape her. A woman cannot
hold a man down any way she wants and rape him.
A woman is not as strong as a man is when it comes to strength. I don't
think that a woman is capable of raping a man unless she had built up
muscles to do so that that's a small minority compared to group of average
women.
So when a man rapes a woman, even if she is drunk, he is still a rapist.
Just because a woman is drunk or dressed sexy does not provide a man with
a
legal excuse to rape her.
This is one stupid observation. Did you actually failed Science?
While I think he makes a valid point as to drunkenness and consent,
you have a better one in regards to force (but neither one is what I was
discussing).
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 07:51:39 PM |
|
|
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally
consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're
not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk.
I'm discussing the point of "why is this only limitred to women",
not whether it's consent or not.
The fact is that most rape involves men raping women.
Well, the same can be said of men. There are plenty of women who have
sex with drunk men so why is it that they aren't considered rapists?
Because it's a punishment in & of itself?
Seriously, have the men ever woken up & said "Hey, I was drunk,
you raped me"?
In society in general, women do not have to get men drunk; all
they have to do is say "I wanna get laid."
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 09:29:19 PM |
|
|
In article <vaZOh.1463$NO.759@trndny05>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How
come a guy who is drunk is presumed to still be
able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me.
We have to protect those silly girls from themselves
because as the weaker sex, they're not capable of
protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk.
I'm discussing the point of "why is this only limitred to women",
not whether it's consent or not. The fact is that most rape
involves men raping women.
And I'm pointing out that the only reason the men are considered to have
raped the women in the first place is because the law determines the
women to be too drunk to consider the consequences of their actions.
My question is why the law only applies to women in this regard. Why
doesn't the law consider a drunk man in the same light?
This is a British law so there are different concepts of what the
government can and cannot do but here in the USA, such a law would be
ripe for a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution.
Well, the same can be said of men. There are plenty of women who have
sex with drunk men so why is it that they aren't considered rapists?
Because it's a punishment in & of itself?
Seriously, have the men ever woken up & said "Hey, I was drunk,
you raped me"?
I would bet that there are plenty of men who would certainly say that in
response to a woman saying the same thing to them.
When the woman wakes up and says that to the man, it's hardly a stretch
for him to say, "Well, I was just as drunk as you were, sweetheart, so
if I raped you, then you raped me, too."
In society in general, women do not have to get men drunk; all
they have to do is say "I wanna get laid."
Absolutely irrelevant to the legal analysis at issue. Besides, plenty of
couples meet at parties (especially college-age couples) where the man
is *already* drunk so whether she "got him drunk" or not is irrelevant.
Bottom line: if it's rape for a man to have sex with a drunk woman, even
if she's tugging at his belt and whispering "Do me, baby" in his ear,
then it's equally rape for woman to have sex with a drunk man, no matter
how enthusiastic he is about it.
And if they're both drunk, then they've apparently raped each other and
should both be arrested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 11:52:54 PM |
|
|
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <vaZOh.1463$NO.759@trndny05>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How
come a guy who is drunk is presumed to still be
able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me.
We have to protect those silly girls from themselves
because as the weaker sex, they're not capable of
protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk.
I'm discussing the point of "why is this only limitred to women",
not whether it's consent or not. The fact is that most rape
involves men raping women.
And I'm pointing out that the only reason the men are considered to have
raped the women in the first place is because the law determines the
women to be too drunk to consider the consequences of their actions.
Good.
Have fun.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 06:21:12 AM |
|
|
In article <GI0Ph.70668$vI1.55509@trnddc02>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <vaZOh.1463$NO.759@trndny05>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How
come a guy who is drunk is presumed to still be
able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me.
We have to protect those silly girls from themselves
because as the weaker sex, they're not capable of
protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk.
I'm discussing the point of "why is this only limitred to women",
not whether it's consent or not. The fact is that most rape
involves men raping women.
And I'm pointing out that the only reason the men are considered to have
raped the women in the first place is because the law determines the
women to be too drunk to consider the consequences of their actions.
Good.
Have fun.
With snide little remarks like that, it seems like you're taking this
whole thing way too personally, as if I've personally insulted you by
raising an issue directly relevant to the law being discussed.
Sorry if I'm not commenting only on the things you want to read about.
I'll be sure and conform my behavior to your wishes in the future, since
Usenet is all about you and what you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 08:50:02 AM |
|
|
On 30-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <GI0Ph.70668$vI1.55509@trnddc02>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <vaZOh.1463$NO.759@trndny05>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How
come a guy who is drunk is presumed to still be
able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me.
We have to protect those silly girls from themselves
because as the weaker sex, they're not capable of
protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk.
I'm discussing the point of "why is this only limitred to women",
not whether it's consent or not. The fact is that most rape
involves men raping women.
And I'm pointing out that the only reason the men are considered to
have
raped the women in the first place is because the law determines the
women to be too drunk to consider the consequences of their actions.
Good.
Have fun.
With snide little remarks like that,
Just as you have to expect people to only discuss what they feel like
discussing, so is it a good idea for you not to read into what
they are actually saying.
it seems like you're taking this
whole thing way too personally, as if I've personally insulted you by
raising an issue directly relevant to the law being discussed.
You're the one taking it personally.
Ihave been trying to point out what I have been discussing, and
you keep trying to insist Ihave to talk about whatever you want to.
It's just not going to happen.
Sorry if I'm not commenting only on the things you want to read about.
Which is your right & privilege.
Just don't keep whining about me not wanting to dicuss them.
I'll be sure and conform my behavior to your wishes in the future, since
Usenet is all about you and what you want.
How hypocritical of you.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 06:44:47 PM |
|
|
In article <eA8Ph.1$jZ3.0@trnddc06>, wrote:
On 30-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <GI0Ph.70668$vI1.55509@trnddc02>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <vaZOh.1463$NO.759@trndny05>, wrote:
On 29-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How
come a guy who is drunk is presumed to still be
able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me.
We have to protect those silly girls from themselves
because as the weaker sex, they're not capable of
protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
But it's only rape because she's drunk.
I'm discussing the point of "why is this only
limited to women", not whether it's consent or
not. The fact is that most rape involves men
raping women.
And I'm pointing out that the only reason the men
are considered to have raped the women in the first
place is because the law determines the women to be
too drunk to consider the consequences of their
actions.
Good.
Have fun.
With snide little remarks like that,
Just as you have to expect people to only discuss what they feel like
discussing, so is it a good idea for you not to read into what
they are actually saying.
At no point did I state or imply that you shouldn't discuss aspects of
the law that concern you. You see, when people are talking about things
that *I'm* not interested in, I just ignore them and move on to things
that do interest me. I don't passive-aggressively vent my frustration
that everyone doesn't take my desires into account before they post to a
newsgroup.
it seems like you're taking this
whole thing way too personally, as if I've personally insulted you by
raising an issue directly relevant to the law being discussed.
You're the one taking it personally.
Ihave been trying to point out what I have been discussing,
Yes, over and over again, even when it's clear that I'm talking about a
different aspect of the law. If you don't want to discuss that aspect of
the law, fine. Don't reply to my posts. But no, you have to take it a
step further, with your puerile little "Have fun" comments.
and you keep trying to insist Ihave to talk about
whatever you want to.
Please quote me back any of my posts where I've insisted that you talk
about *anything*. Betcha can't.
Sorry if I'm not commenting only on the things you want to read about.
Which is your right & privilege.
Just don't keep whining about me not wanting to dicuss them.
Please quote me back any of my posts where I've "whined" about you not
wanting to discuss something, anything. Betcha can't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Toby A Inkster" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 03:04:04 AM |
|
|
flaviaR wrote:
The fact is that most rape involves men raping women.
Most *reported* rape, that is. I recall hearing (and I'm sorry I can't
point to sources) that police believe the frequency of instances of women
raping men to be much higher than reported, because men feel ashamed at
being overpowered by a woman so are far less likely to report the crime.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 05:20:35 AM |
|
|
On Mar 29, 4:46 am, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
A lot of men would object to a blanket statement like that, tbh.
Susan
If this can be called rape. The woman in this case no doubt regrets
the sex, hell, we've all woken up thinking "what have I done", but to
be rape, it has to be proven that it is rape. The woman involved could
not remember whether she had consented or not. There is no way a sane
jury could convict.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 08:51:20 AM |
|
|
On 30-Mar-2007, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:46 am, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally
consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're
not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
A lot of men would object to a blanket statement like that, tbh.
Especially since I didn't put in what I figured everyone would
already know: that it's not ALL men who are doing it.
I thought that much was a given.
But this IS Usenet, and there ARE idiots who make statements
like that - I should have been more careful not to sound like one of them.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 10:45:53 AM |
|
|
On Mar 30, 2:51 pm, wrote:
On 30-Mar-2007, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:46 am, wrote:
On 28-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <1175056304.832767.103...@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
Plans include a 'sex breathalyser' law under which a woman who had
consumed a certain amount of alcohol would legally no longer be able
to consent to sex.
Why is this proposed law limited to women? How come a guy who is drunk
is presumed to still be able to retain his ability to mentally
consider
the consequences of having sex but a woman is not?
Seems rather patriarchal and protectionist to me. "We have to protect
those silly girls from themselves because as the weaker sex, they're
not
capable of protecting themselves."
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
A lot of men would object to a blanket statement like that, tbh.
Especially since I didn't put in what I figured everyone would
already know: that it's not ALL men who are doing it.
I thought that much was a given.
But this IS Usenet, and there ARE idiots who make statements
like that - I should have been more careful not to sound like one of them.
Thanks for the clarification and no offence taken.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 01:04:58 PM |
|
|
On 30-Mar-2007, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote:
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
A lot of men would object to a blanket statement like that, tbh.
Especially since I didn't put in what I figured everyone would
already know: that it's not ALL men who are doing it.
I thought that much was a given.
But this IS Usenet, and there ARE idiots who make statements
like that - I should have been more careful not to sound like one of
them.
Thanks for the clarification and no offence taken.
Thanks for catching it & thanks for your forbearance.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Toby A Inkster" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 03:12:55 AM |
|
|
flaviaR wrote:
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
In the case in question, both partners were drunk. If she was deemed "too
drunk to give consent", then perhaps he was too, in which case could they
both be charged with rape? If neither had given consent weren't they both
raped?
I'm not entirely sure what this thread has to do with alt.altheism anyway.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 07:48:53 PM |
|
|
On 29-Mar-2007, Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
flaviaR wrote:
Maybe it's because men are doing the raping?
In the case in question, both partners were drunk.
I was only trying to answer the previous poster's question.
I wasn't saying drunk men are more/less culpable.
If she was deemed "too
drunk to give consent", then perhaps he was too, in which case could they
both be charged with rape? If neither had given consent weren't they both
raped?
I'm not entirely sure what this thread has to do with alt.altheism anyway.
The same as it does w/soc.culture.jewish: J. Young is an anal orifice.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
28 Mar 2007 12:30:18 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
But you favor genocide and torture, so what would you know of virtue?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Allen" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
28 Mar 2007 11:41:53 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
It seems that the consensus is 100% correct on you, Young.
You really are a twisted individual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
28 Mar 2007 01:15:06 PM |
|
|
Bill Allen wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
It seems that the consensus is 100% correct on you, Young.
You really are a twisted individual.
Ok, I'm not defending Young here.
It's actually quite a problem for the government and the courts, and
seems to be a particualr UK issue(1). The government is concerned about
the low conviction rates for rape charges while the courts have to
operate within the law.
The government is attempting to change the law to put the burden of
proof onto the accused which goes against current law of innocent until
proven guilty.
The problem is that drunken women can have "bad sex" (I'm not using
emotive terms) that they regret and can bring a rape allegation. The
courts go on whether or not consent was given and there have been many
cases where the woman cannot remember whether she gave consent or not.
Recently a judge stated "drunken consent is still consent". Now the
government want drunken consent to not be valid consent. This places a
burden on men who might be equally as pissed as the woman.
When does 'no' mean 'no' has been established (always), now it is
becoming When does 'yes' not mean 'yes'? When pissed (maybe)
(1) There is a cult for the young people in the UK to binge drink and
get totally pissed especially at weekends.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
28 Mar 2007 11:28:00 PM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 05:22:52 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2007 21:28:00 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
You so conveniently forget that you and your ***** aren't welcome
in alt.atheism every time you post here, IBen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 06:27:15 PM |
|
|
In article <iveo031r5n7b18um4a0lbcjs8so6pgrj8b@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 21:28:00 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
You so conveniently forget that you and your ***** aren't welcome
in alt.atheism every time you post here, IBen.
Who appointed you arbiter of alt.atheism? You certainly don't speak for
me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 05:41:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:27:15 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <iveo031r5n7b18um4a0lbcjs8so6pgrj8b@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 21:28:00 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
You so conveniently forget that you and your ***** aren't welcome
in alt.atheism every time you post here, IBen.
Who appointed you arbiter of alt.atheism? You certainly don't speak for
me.
That's too bad. You'd make a hell of a lot more sense if I did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 06:22:44 AM |
|
|
In article <t9qp03lor7ebv9arj23v5shg643q1sqb07@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:27:15 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <iveo031r5n7b18um4a0lbcjs8so6pgrj8b@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 21:28:00 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting themselves in
position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
You so conveniently forget that you and your ***** aren't welcome
in alt.atheism every time you post here, IBen.
Who appointed you arbiter of alt.atheism? You certainly don't speak for
me.
That's too bad. You'd make a hell of a lot more sense if I did.
Wow. The ego on you... it's simply grotesque.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 08:52:32 AM |
|
|
On 30-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <t9qp03lor7ebv9arj23v5shg643q1sqb07@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:27:15 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <iveo031r5n7b18um4a0lbcjs8so6pgrj8b@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 21:28:00 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this
sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting
themselves in
position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
You so conveniently forget that you and your ***** aren't welcome
in alt.atheism every time you post here, IBen.
Who appointed you arbiter of alt.atheism? You certainly don't speak for
me.
That's too bad. You'd make a hell of a lot more sense if I did.
Wow. The ego on you... it's simply grotesque.
Not nearly as grotesque as making snap judgements without reading up on a
prior history.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
30 Mar 2007 06:38:27 PM |
|
|
In article <AC8Ph.3$jZ3.0@trnddc06>, wrote:
On 30-Mar-2007, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In article <t9qp03lor7ebv9arj23v5shg643q1sqb07@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:27:15 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <iveo031r5n7b18um4a0lbcjs8so6pgrj8b@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 21:28:00 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:41?pm, Bill Allen <B...@nospam.org> wrote:
J Young wrote:
Virtuous women who practice good morals never encounter this
sort of
problem.
So your stance is that woman are responsible for putting
themselves in position to be raped?
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
You so conveniently forget that you and your ***** aren't welcome
in alt.atheism every time you post here, IBen.
Who appointed you arbiter of alt.atheism? You certainly don't speak for
me.
That's too bad. You'd make a hell of a lot more sense if I did.
Wow. The ego on you... it's simply grotesque.
Not nearly as grotesque as making snap judgements without reading up on a
prior history.
I don't care if the guy was the next Pol Pot. That still doesn't mean
Baker speaks for me and/or the entirety of people who post to this
newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not always rape if a woman is drunk, says judge |
29 Mar 2007 06:17:36 AM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 9:28 pm, "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
You so conveniently omitted the part where I stated that " No woman
deserves to be raped for any reason".
If I stick a dozen $100 bills halfway in my pockets in plain sight and
wander through Central Park at night, do I deserve to be robbed?
What about if I walk out in the middle of a battlefield during a
shooting war and yell, "Stop shooting, everyone! Peace is the way!" Do
I deserve to be shot?
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
