What is rape?

[MacShreach]

key word is CONSENTING

Quite right, Jen. The question, however, is whether the woman is in a sufficiently coherent mental state to be able to give her consent.

Make an analogy with "date-rape" drugs. It's not just spiking the girl with a drug that constitutes a crime, it's what you do with her afterwards.

Therefore, if you got the girl pissed in order to make her accessible to you sexually, you're doing the same thing-- only while getting someone pissed is not illegal, the sex afterwards, in these circumstances, would be, because in both the woman is not in a competent state to give consent. And obviously, because the what you do after is the same, taking advantage of a girl's already drunken state would count as rape as well.

Regards the OP, Cameron is just electioneering-- the law in both England and Scotland is already clear on this and has been applied firmly in both jurisdictions in the past.

IE if you have sex with a drunk person you are wide open to a rape charge. It doesn't have to be a girl who is raped, BTW, although I have used that term for simplicity.

[arnie666]

key word is CONSENTING

IE if you have sex with a drunk person you are wide open to a rape charge. It doesn't have to be a girl who is raped, BTW, although I have used that term for simplicity.

Yeah but we all know mac that if some bloke complained a hottie 'raped' him as he was too drunk to consent the Rozzers would probably laugh and say he were a hermer . Probably want her phone number too.

[MacShreach]

key word is CONSENTING

IE if you have sex with a drunk person you are wide open to a rape charge. It doesn't have to be a girl who is raped, BTW, although I have used that term for simplicity.

Yeah but we all know mac that if some bloke complained a hottie 'raped' him as he was too drunk to consent the Rozzers would probably laugh and say he were a hermer . Probably want her phone number too.

That's right enough but the legal recourse is still there even though it is more theoretical than anything.

[Mr_Choc69]

Odd thing is - There are Wives who have accused their HUSBANDS of rape. Guess what fellas.....many of those husbands are now in prison. So the length of time you have "dated" or how much history you have may not really matter in a court of law.

[wombat33]

Thought provoking question.

David Cameron (conservative party leader in UK)is on a crusade at the mo, to save girls from being raped, and lock up more rapists. But what is rape. You've dated a girl a few months. It finally happens, she's a bit tipsy, and you fuck her in the heat of the moment, it's all consenting at the time of the act. But she wakes up in the morning, and you have a big fuck off argument, and you dump her, next thing you know, she's on the rape trail. How many guys are serving time cos of this scenario.

no consent, no sex

legal age


cover those two

[Nowhere]

Thought provoking question.

David Cameron (conservative party leader in UK)is on a crusade at the mo, to save girls from being raped, and lock up more rapists. But what is rape. You've dated a girl a few months. It finally happens, she's a bit tipsy, and you fuck her in the heat of the moment, it's all consenting at the time of the act. But she wakes up in the morning, and you have a big fuck off argument, and you dump her, next thing you know, she's on the rape trail. How many guys are serving time cos of this scenario.

And there lies the caveat.

When it's one person's word versus another's, and that's all you've got to argue with, with women being heavily protected, a woman can use this to destroy a man.

Look at Kobe Bryant. The accusation lost him MILLIONS of dollars in contracts. MILLIONS. And, even though he was completely vindicated, she was able to stab him in the back with that.

Face it, it is a fact that a malicious or simply insane woman can claim rape and destroy a man based on the fact that he is on public display and his reputation is severely harmed in the criminal proceedings around it, with no recourse whatsoever, and that's not even addressing the fact that the laws are set in protection of the claimed raped (normally rightfully so), so that in a "your word versus mine" scenario the man can easily be falsely convicted, with no verifiable requirement of proof.

Don't get me wrong, I like that the laws are in place, but some changes need to be made in terms of (A) protecting the accused in the same way the claimed 'raped' persons are and (B) requiring solid proof of that.

Because the way things are, every time a man has sex with a woman, he i risking destroying his own life. Every time he does it, even sober, she could simpy go crazy, lock him up, make him lose his job and the respect of everyone he knows, family, friends, neighbors, etc - and even if he's vindicated, the damage will still be done, since people won't completely believe the vindication unless it's obvious (which can't be done in a he-said, she-said, scenario).

In modern life it is amazing how women can legally stab a man in the back, with full freedom, based on this, with no negative repercussions, whatsoever.

Even if a man is vindicated and it is shown that the woman is doing it with malicious intent, nothing happens to her. Nothing. So, they'll do it over and over again.

As the original poster said, who knows how many countless innocent men are locked up or lives destroyed as a consequence of this?

It's also tragic that this happens, since it belittles the real rape cases that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[arnie666]

Thought provoking question.

David Cameron (conservative party leader in UK)is on a crusade at the mo, to save girls from being raped, and lock up more rapists. But what is rape. You've dated a girl a few months. It finally happens, she's a bit tipsy, and you fuck her in the heat of the moment, it's all consenting at the time of the act. But she wakes up in the morning, and you have a big fuck off argument, and you dump her, next thing you know, she's on the rape trail. How many guys are serving time cos of this scenario.

And there lies the caveat.

When it's one person's word versus another's, and that's all you've got to argue with, with women being heavily protected, a woman can use this to destroy a man.

.

But on the other side of it, many people believe including some women I might add that there is no smoke without fire on BOTH sides. There is still an element of 'she was asking for it' or 'look at what she was wearing' or 'look at her sexual history with other men' . I remember watching a video of two male Police Officers interviewing a woman who had made a rape allegation some years ago. And they basically accused her of making it up citing her mental health calling her mad and sex mad etc. They also used strong language and were shouting at her and no female officer was in the room when doing that. They were both sacked I gather but that was just one incident that the public know about. Things are different now with the Police but I still think in society there is an element of 'no smoke without fire ' concerning some victims of rape.Even when it is a nutter who raped a woman in an alley. I mean a female lawyer said because the victim was fat and her client was a goodlooking young male she must have enjoyed it and wanted attention. This was said in open court

In court too it can be very distressing for rape victims who are essentialy picked apart and asked to relive the whole experience. Of course this is necesscary because the mans life and reputation is at stake but still not pleasant I don't think. You also have the false allegations made by mental cases or women looking for revenge or just attention seekers which mean society doubts the cases of real rape. Personally I would like to see men remain anonymous until conviction because of how a mans life and be ruined .Plus prison sentences for those women who make malicious allegations. A believe one woman was sent to prison last year for this.

I think on the other side court should be make more sensitive perhaps to make it less daunting for women although the burden of proof should still be on the woman proving it. And tougher sentences for rape in general.

[TJ347]

Who did the raping and who was raped is the only question that need be asked. If a man says he was raped by a woman, no one wants to hear about it. If a woman says she was raped by a man, he's guilty until proven innocent, and even then his reputation is permanently besmirched. That's pretty much the way it goes, regardless of what extinuating circumstances there might be. I think Kelly Shore has something to do with things being that way...

[JamesHunt]

The point I was trying to make was that there is a big difference in dating a girl, and after knowing her for a while, you take her out, have a few glasses of wine, and end up having consentual sexual intercourse. Then, maybe you have a disagreement about something or whatever, and she conciously makes the decision to accuse you of rape, cos she knows she can. The motivation isn't that you raped her, she just want's to screw you, and will use the alcohol as an excuse, it's all pretty scary really.

[OEMEnemyNum1]

I thought up until recently it was actually very difficult to get a rape conviction. I heard something like less than 5% ever get convicted. Date rape is one reason that the conviction rate is so low. It's so hard to prove.