You deserve this!

[elohiym]

iow, those nights that I was the designated driver and we went out and she had fun having a few glasses of wine and we came home and she was frisky, I was guilty of rape for allowing her to force herself on me

Only in you imagination. If she is able to force you, she's obviously not incapacitated.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Deserved always implies a sense of justice.

That's why the word undeserved exists.

You can't deserve something unjust.

Example: a man doesn't deserve to be scalded to death by prison guards for defecating on himself and dirtying his cell. His death was undeserved.

If you are trying to use this fact to make GDs claims about sowing and reaping illegitimate, it fails to do so. She is making no claims about perfect justice. She is saying that you will sow unpleasant things in your life if you continue to flout known principles in this life that God has established. It doesn't mean that what happens to you is perfect justice. It means every action has a consequence. If GD says you deserve your consequences, she isn't saying that justice was perfectly served. She obviously isn't using the word with its full meaning intact regarding justice.

 

[elohiym]

it is if she's deemed by the state to be incapacitated by inebriation and thus unable to give consent

Do you understand the difference between incapacitated and impaired?

 

[ok doser]

Only in you imagination. If she is able to force you, she's obviously not incapacitated.

:yawn:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Only in you imagination. If she is able to force you, she's obviously not incapacitated.

Try making that point in court where the opposing lawyer is a feminist and determined to make the man pay and forces the judge to use the law in its most literal and narrow form.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Unlike the legal limit for a DUI, there is no "bright line" for how intoxicated a person has to be to be considered impaired enough to be unable to say yes - or no - to sex, says Jennifer Gentile Long, a former prosecutor and the director of AEQuitas, an organization the provides research and assistance to law enforcement prosecuting violence against women.

The issue is further complicated because sexual assault victims don't typically report to a hospital or police until hours and sometimes days after an assault, making an accurate measurement of their impairment impossible.

"These cases are very difficult," says Long, who prosecuted sex crimes as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. "Defense attorneys can use a victim's decision to drink on her own and extend it all the way up to blaming her for everything that happened."

But, says Long, prosecutors can get convictions if they ask the jury - or in this case, the judge - to use common sense: "If you're falling down, and vomiting, is that a situation where you'd going to want to have consensual sex with someone?"

Instead of focusing on the alleged victim's state of being, Long says prosecutors will want to focus on what the defendants did in the situation: "If you saw someone sick, vomiting, why would you take her to a strange place? Why isolate her? Why violate her privacy when she was at her most vulnerable?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steubenville-rape-case-how-drunk-is-too-drunk-to-consent-to-sex/

 

[ClimateSanity]

The change from a gender specific law to one that recognizes men can be victims of rape is a law that protects men's rights. Nothing in the change means "...a woman can send an innocent man to prison."

The word consent makes all the difference in the world. It can be her will to engage in sex but if things go awry, she can use the fact that she never used the word YES to send him to prison.

 

[ok doser]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steubenville-rape-case-how-drunk-is-too-drunk-to-consent-to-sex/

so the only determinant of whether a person is too incapacitated to give consent is "falling down and vomiting"?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Without a claim of rape (or confession!) and evidence of serious incapacitation no prosecutor would attempt to bring charges over drinking that exceeded the DUI limit.

 

[glorydaz]

And like the word deserve, always implies a sense of justice.



Supports my claim.



Supports my claim.



Supports my claim in the OP.

Thanks!

:e4e:

The problem is that your idea of "justice" does not always comport with God's. When you use your own sense of justice you are showing your humanist leanings.

 

[ok doser]

The word consent makes all the difference in the world.

having encountered elo in the past, i can state with some certainty that you will never be able to explain this to him

 

[elohiym]

Valid point ... rape is not a gender specific crime. Even though it doesn't happen as often, men CAN be the victims of rape as well.

The reason rapists are allowed to continue on their rampage is because of stigma that is aimed at the victims of rape.

As we can see from the most recent slew of threads, those who are morally inferior see women as deserving of rape which is why they ask the monumentally retarded question "well what did she do that caused her rapist to rape her". Obviously that means less women willing to report the crime and more rapists on the street to continue their stalking and attacks.

On the flip side, men who are the victims of rape are afraid to come forward out of fear of being harassed for being sissies or liars.

Yes, and the new DOJ definition of rape is worded to recognize that rape victims can be men and boys.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The problem is that your idea of "justice" does not always comport with God's. When you use your own sense of justice you are showing your humanist leanings.

^ this too

 

[Rusha]

The change from a gender specific law to one that recognizes men can be victims of rape is a law that protects men's rights. Nothing in the change means "...a woman can send an innocent man to prison."

Exactly right. The intentional misunderstanding of what you have stated is a figment of every misogynist's convenient imagination.

 

[elohiym]

The problem is that your idea of "justice" does not always comport with God's.

Provide an example or retract that false accusation.

 

[Rusha]

Yes, and the new DOJ definition of rape is worded to recognize that rape victims can be men and boys.

Which, of course, is as it should be.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The problem is that your idea of "justice" does not always comport with God's. When you use your own sense of justice you are showing your humanist leanings.

She obviously isn't using the word with its full meaning intact regarding justice.

:think:

She should stick to the meaning of the word, as should the rest of you.

And since she's the one saying certain women deserve rape .... seems like she's the one with carnal reasoning.

 

[elohiym]

The word consent makes all the difference in the world. It can be her will to engage in sex but if things go awry, she can use the fact that she never used the word YES to send him to prison.

Could that happen before the change in the DOJ definition? Yes or no.

If no, show the specific provision in the new definition that allows what you are claiming to occur.

 

[elohiym]

:think:

She should stick to the meaning of the word, as should the rest of you.

They are using their own definitions of words, like claiming bitter is really sweet.

 

[elohiym]

Try making that point in court ...

Why do you think I would be in court? I have no idea how we got there. Do you imagine secret police checking my wife blood alcohol level prior to, during and following sex with my wife? The scenarios that poster ok doser has given regarding his marriage could never end up in court!

...where the opposing lawyer is a feminist and determined to make the man pay and forces the judge to use the law in its most literal and narrow form.

You are trapped in an imaginary world where you are always the victim that doesn't deserve what he's getting. Stop projecting that or you will have a crappy life.