Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[ok doser]

It is necessarily implied ...

that's not the way legal definitions work


besides - doesn't matter if i enjoyed it or not - by that definition i couldn't give consent due to my incapacitation

a sixteen year old might claim that she enjoyed sleeping with a twenty-three year old - it's still stautory rape because she is unable to consent due to her age

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is necessarily implied else all consensual sex would be classified as rape and we know that is not the case. You are an example of this. Regardless of if others see your fantasy life as abnormal or not, you and your ex seem to have enjoyed a rape fantasy.

You also seem to be having problems reading.

He stated that being under the influence of alcohol removed his ability to "legally" consent, which make the willing sex he had meet the DOJ definition of rape.

He said nothing about "a rape fantasy", so that is coming from the perversions of your own mind, not anything he said.

 

[CabinetMaker]

that's not the way legal definitions work


besides - doesn't matter if i enjoyed it or not - by that definition i couldn't give consent due to my incapacitation

a sixteen year old might claim that she enjoyed sleeping with a twenty-three year old - it's still stautory rape because she is unable to consent due to her age

Note that in your posts, which are being posted some time after the acts, you claim that both you and she enjoyed it. The elements of a criminal act don't exist by your own admission. I understand the point you were trying to make but you do so so poorly that you might consider dropping your stupid claim.

 

[ok doser]

He said nothing about "a rape fantasy", so that is coming from the perversions of your own mind, not anything he said.

all this happened twenty years ago, when the definition of rape made sense

 

[CabinetMaker]

You also seem to be having problems reading.

He stated that being under the influence of alcohol removed his ability to "legally" consent, which make the willing sex he had meet the DOJ definition of rape.

He said nothing about "a rape fantasy", so that is coming from the perversions of your own mind, not anything he said.

He also went on to say that he enjoyed. Obviously, he did not feel assaulted since he is claiming he enjoyed it. I can read just fine. I can read all his posts just fine.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Note that in your posts, which are being posted some time after the acts, you claim that both you and she enjoyed it. The elements of a criminal act don't exist by your own admission. I understand the point you were trying to make but you do so so poorly that you might consider dropping your stupid claim.

One of the points he is making is that the new definition of rape completely removes the requirement for mens rea in rape cases.

 

[genuineoriginal]

He also went on to say that he enjoyed. Obviously, he did not feel assaulted since he is claiming he enjoyed it.

The victim's feelings have no bearing on whether the victim was raped.

I can read just fine. I can read all his posts just fine.

So, your claim is that your reading abilities are not to blame for your general stupidity?

 

[patrick jane]

According to this definition of rape?
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
No, a female is not the only one that can be penetrated by that standard.

We still need to abolish that definition and return to this definition of rape:
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

GO keeps it genuinely original.

 

[genuineoriginal]

all this happened twenty years ago, when the definition of rape made sense

Then you are attempting to apply the new definition ex post facto?
That is not acceptable.

 

[ok doser]

Then you are attempting to apply the new definition ex post facto?
That is not acceptable.

by the current definition used by the USDoJ, what my wife and I engaged in was rape

 

[Rusha]

It's a legit question.
You opened the door by answering a question about your wife with the correction of "ex-wife".
Are you legally divorced, or are you just being loose with terms again?

I am not seeing the problem. Though in order to put this into perspective, he already answered the question here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3849183#post3849183

she filed for divorce and moved out ten years ago

we put the action in abeyance so i could stay on her health insurance

she has established a separate residence and we have no intention of reconciling

in fact, i plan to finalize soon

 

[ok doser]

rusha, the creepy stalker, strikes again!

I am not seeing the problem. Though in order to put this into perspective, he already answered the question here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3849183#post3849183

:thumb:

 

[CabinetMaker]

One of the points he is making is that the new definition of rape completely removes the requirement for mens rea in rape cases.

See if you can find a prosecutor who would take the case based on the claims made by OD on this thread and I'll believe you. We can ignore the statute of limitations for this purpose of finding a prosecutor.

 

[genuineoriginal]

by the current definition used by the USDoJ, what my wife and I engaged in was rape

It could only be considered rape if it was done while the new definition is in effect.

I understand your point is that a married couple willingly engaging in sex after having a few drinks too many fits the current definition.

The personal experiences you are relating do not, due to fact that it happened before the law was changed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

See if you can find a prosecutor who would take the case based on the claims made by OD on this thread and I'll believe you.

What makes you assume that I would be able to find any prosecutor who will follow the law?
Prosecutors only care about convictions by any means possible.

 

[ok doser]

It could only be considered rape if it was done while the new definition is in effect.

not necessarily - the new definition is for reporting - stats gathering - not as a legal guideline for prosecutors

at least, that's what I understand from my limited research

it appears that it was devised in order to inflate the numbers of reported rapes, to shore up the contention that there's a rape crisis ongoing

 

[glorydaz]

Unless you are claiming you were penetrated, you've made a false claim. (of being raped)

It was a joke, get a life.

 

[glorydaz]

So, the 'strippers' while sleeping in their own homes being raped are not ripping the consequences of their actions. Got it.

'Cause they were not stripping. Got it.

If they could get any dumber around here, you'd still manage to come out on top as the dumbest of them all. :chuckle:

 

[ClimateSanity]

that's not the way legal definitions work


besides - doesn't matter if i enjoyed it or not - by that definition i couldn't give consent due to my incapacitation

a sixteen year old might claim that she enjoyed sleeping with a twenty-three year old - it's still stautory rape because she is unable to consent due to her age

Be careful, you will make him contradict himself from march and April of 2014.

 

[lifeisgood]

Then you are attempting to apply the new definition ex post facto?

Talk about reading for comprehension.

That is not acceptable.

I'm sure somehow, ok doser, will say something brilliant to you , genuineoriginal, such as his wife raped him and he raped his wife, and both were so thrilled they kept on raping each other.