When Rape is Legal and Why

[geauxtohell]

Imagine a scenario where a police officer is walking the night air and hears a woman cry rape. He imediatly* runs to the source of the noise to an apartment. He kicks down the door and sees a man standing over a woman ready to penetrate her. She is still crying rape but the officer does nothing because this is not a crime. The intuitive officer realizes that the couple is playing a kinky sex game when he sees all the bondage and S and M stuff lying around. The couple ask the officer what is the problem and the officer apolagizes and leaves them back to their 'game'.

Now imagine the same scenario but this time when the officer kicks in the door and sees that the woman is not a willing participant. He imediatly* places the man under arrest for the crime of attempted rape.

Even though the two scenarios were almost identical the difference is that in second one someone's freedom was being violated because the woman did not want to be raped while in the first one it was a voluntary kinky sex game. This is the nature of government that ensures freedom in a society. It only acts when someone's freedom is in danger and if it is doing anything else then one must wonder; if it is not ensuring the freedom of every individual then what is it's purpose?

So how is the job writing for the Penthouse Forum treating you?

 

[FireGod]

Sorry the difference between consent and nonconsent makes all the difference in the world while I get the OPs point it does not work. Rape is exclusively used for nonconsent in the legal world.

BTW an officer coming into that scene is usually compelled to take someone to jail. Domestic dispute etc laws. It would be a very long night for the man in the best of circumstances.

Which is why most crime, like rape, is non-consenting activities against other people. That is where government should act. When the freedom of someone is being violated because if their was a consentual rape then it would be consenting sex which is why non-consenting sex is defined as rape. This is where government should act and that is to protect someone's freedom.

Call me slow, but what is your point in this thread? I have yet to see why you have brought this up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rape is not a "freedom" afforded by the constitution. That's why we have criminal laws. And prisons.

Whachu drinkin ihopehefails?

I know which is why I said the second example of involuntary sex was violating the woman's freedom which is why the law should act. The first example, being nearly identical, was not illegal because two people decided to engage in a voluntary act between each other.

Which, by virtue of being voluntary, isn't rape, so there is no "rape is legal" in that example.

 

[ihopehefails]

Rape is not a "freedom" afforded by the constitution. That's why we have criminal laws. And prisons.

Whachu drinkin ihopehefails?

I know which is why I said the second example of involuntary sex was violating the woman's freedom which is why the law should act. The first example, being nearly identical, was not illegal because two people decided to engage in a voluntary act between each other.

Which, by virtue of being voluntary, isn't rape, so there is no "rape is legal" in that example.

Yes but is that because rape is unconsenting sex which violates someone's freedom and the government must act to protect someonen's freedom. This is how governments that respect the freedom of the people act. The don't force people to conform to a standard behavior because that is involuntarily forcing someone to do something that is against their will which violates their freedom.

 

[ihopehefails]

Sorry the difference between consent and nonconsent makes all the difference in the world while I get the OPs point it does not work. Rape is exclusively used for nonconsent in the legal world.

BTW an officer coming into that scene is usually compelled to take someone to jail. Domestic dispute etc laws. It would be a very long night for the man in the best of circumstances.

Which is why most crime, like rape, is non-consenting activities against other people. That is where government should act. When the freedom of someone is being violated because if their was a consentual rape then it would be consenting sex which is why non-consenting sex is defined as rape. This is where government should act and that is to protect someone's freedom.

Call me slow, but what is your point in this thread? I have yet to see why you have brought this up.

To point out that governments that respect freedom do not act to stop consenting acts between two adults but only act to stop unconsenting acts between adults which is why unconsenting sex (rape) is illegal and consenting sex is not.

 

[FireGod]

I know which is why I said the second example of involuntary sex was violating the woman's freedom which is why the law should act. The first example, being nearly identical, was not illegal because two people decided to engage in a voluntary act between each other.

Which, by virtue of being voluntary, isn't rape, so there is no "rape is legal" in that example.

Yes but is that because rape is unconsenting sex which violates someone's freedom and the government must act to protect someonen's freedom. This is how governments that respect the freedom of the people act. The don't force people to conform to a standard behavior because that is involuntarily forcing someone to do something that is against their will which violates their freedom.

Non-consensual sex is rape plain and simple.
Consensual sex is not rape.

That ties into the government how?

 

[Modbert]

I remember saying awhile back that Ihope was legitimately insane. Threads like this further support my hypothesis.

 

[ihopehefails]

Which, by virtue of being voluntary, isn't rape, so there is no "rape is legal" in that example.

Yes but is that because rape is unconsenting sex which violates someone's freedom and the government must act to protect someonen's freedom. This is how governments that respect the freedom of the people act. The don't force people to conform to a standard behavior because that is involuntarily forcing someone to do something that is against their will which violates their freedom.

Non-consensual sex is rape plain and simple.
Consensual sex is not rape.

That ties into the government how?

True but why is one illegal and the other is legal?

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes but is that because rape is unconsenting sex which violates someone's freedom and the government must act to protect someonen's freedom. This is how governments that respect the freedom of the people act. The don't force people to conform to a standard behavior because that is involuntarily forcing someone to do something that is against their will which violates their freedom.

Non-consensual sex is rape plain and simple.
Consensual sex is not rape.

That ties into the government how?

True but why is one illegal and the other is legal?

Is being stupid actually physically painful?

 

[ihopehefails]

Non-consensual sex is rape plain and simple.
Consensual sex is not rape.

That ties into the government how?

True but why is one illegal and the other is legal?

Is being stupid actually physically painful?

Am I stupid? I just asked a question that you have hard time answering? Why is one legal and the other one illegal? Is the physical pain so great you can't form an answer to that question?

 

[FireGod]

Yes but is that because rape is unconsenting sex which violates someone's freedom and the government must act to protect someonen's freedom. This is how governments that respect the freedom of the people act. The don't force people to conform to a standard behavior because that is involuntarily forcing someone to do something that is against their will which violates their freedom.

Non-consensual sex is rape plain and simple.
Consensual sex is not rape.

That ties into the government how?

True but why is one illegal and the other is legal?

Because one (rape) causes harm and society recognizes that harm to be worth prosecuting.

Where are you going with this?

 

[Sarah G]

Imagine a scenario where a police officer is walking the night air and hears a woman cry rape. He imediatly* runs to the source of the noise to an apartment. He kicks down the door and sees a man standing over a woman ready to penetrate her. She is still crying rape but the officer does nothing because this is not a crime. The intuitive officer realizes that the couple is playing a kinky sex game when he sees all the bondage and S and M stuff lying around. The couple ask the officer what is the problem and the officer apolagizes and leaves them back to their 'game'.

Now imagine the same scenario but this time when the officer kicks in the door and sees that the woman is not a willing participant. He imediatly* places the man under arrest for the crime of attempted rape.

Even though the two scenarios were almost identical the difference is that in second one someone's freedom was being violated because the woman did not want to be raped while in the first one it was a voluntary kinky sex game. This is the nature of government that ensures freedom in a society. It only acts when someone's freedom is in danger and if it is doing anything else then one must wonder; if it is not ensuring the freedom of every individual then what is it's purpose?

When are wingnuts retarded and why...

 

[geauxtohell]

True but why is one illegal and the other is legal?

Is being stupid actually physically painful?

Am I stupid? I just asked a question that you have hard time answering? Why is one legal and the other one illegal? Is the physical pain so great you can't form an answer to that question?

If you don't understand the difference between consensual sex between two adults and rape, then, yes, you are stupid.

And most likely headed for a stint in the pokey.

 

[George Costanza]

No the difference is the mens rea (mental state). For most crimes you need the mental state to do the crime. In the first one he didn't have the mental or intent to commit any crime. In the second one he did.

Here is another one. A women goes is walking, is not reckless, but trips and bumps into a man knocking him over a cliff where he falls to his death. She caused his death. He would not have died but for her pushing him over the cliff. But is she guilty of murder? NO, she didn't have the mens rea!

A month ago, I had a TERRIBLE case of mens rea . . .

 

[JD_2B]

Imagine a scenario where a police officer is walking the night air and hears a woman cry rape. He imediatly* runs to the source of the noise to an apartment. He kicks down the door and sees a man standing over a woman ready to penetrate her. She is still crying rape but the officer does nothing because this is not a crime. The intuitive officer realizes that the couple is playing a kinky sex game when he sees all the bondage and S and M stuff lying around. The couple ask the officer what is the problem and the officer apolagizes and leaves them back to their 'game'.

Now imagine the same scenario but this time when the officer kicks in the door and sees that the woman is not a willing participant. He imediatly* places the man under arrest for the crime of attempted rape.

Even though the two scenarios were almost identical the difference is that in second one someone's freedom was being violated because the woman did not want to be raped while in the first one it was a voluntary kinky sex game. This is the nature of government that ensures freedom in a society. It only acts when someone's freedom is in danger and if it is doing anything else then one must wonder; if it is not ensuring the freedom of every individual then what is it's purpose?

Hi! Just wanted to point out that sex is not rape, and that unwanted sex is always rape.

This is probably splitting hairs here- but I am responding to the thread as far as the title being misleading as well as the statement "the difference is that in second one someone's freedom was being violated because the woman did not want to be raped"

Sorry but any time a person is having unwanted sex, it is RAPE, flat out.

When a person is having consensual sex, it is not "rape", it is consensual sex.

People who participate in BDSM are participating in consensual sex, not rape. I know some will say I am splitting hairs, and maybe I am, but there are far too many miscreants on here who think that women who are raped deserve it, and I think the title is extremely misleading to those among us who are already absurdly misinformed.

Perhaps you can change it, please? To "Sometimes saying no to sex is NOT grounds for rape"

 

[JD_2B]

Also- The government is not created to protect people's freedoms. The second amendment was created for that purpose. All the government is supposed to do is represent the citizens. Everyone has a responsibility to work to protect their freedoms, though.

 

[JD_2B]

Sorry the difference between consent and nonconsent makes all the difference in the world while I get the OPs point it does not work. Rape is exclusively used for nonconsent in the legal world.

BTW an officer coming into that scene is usually compelled to take someone to jail. Domestic dispute etc laws. It would be a very long night for the man in the best of circumstances.

Which is why most crime, like rape, is non-consenting activities against other people. That is where government should act. When the freedom of someone is being violated because if their was a consentual rape then it would be consenting sex which is why non-consenting sex is defined as rape. This is where government should act and that is to protect someone's freedom.

Fucking dumbass. Sorry but I concur with everyone else. You are a retard. There is no such thing as a "consensual rape", dummy.

 

[ihopehefails]

Sorry the difference between consent and nonconsent makes all the difference in the world while I get the OPs point it does not work. Rape is exclusively used for nonconsent in the legal world.

BTW an officer coming into that scene is usually compelled to take someone to jail. Domestic dispute etc laws. It would be a very long night for the man in the best of circumstances.

Which is why most crime, like rape, is non-consenting activities against other people. That is where government should act. When the freedom of someone is being violated because if their was a consentual rape then it would be consenting sex which is why non-consenting sex is defined as rape. This is where government should act and that is to protect someone's freedom.

Fucking dumbass. Sorry but I concur with everyone else. You are a retard. There is no such thing as a "consensual rape", dummy.

At what point did I say that rape should be legalized? What I said is that rape is a crime simply because it violates someone else freedom. Consenting sex is not rape but unconsenting sex is and because of that government must act to protect someone's freedom. In this case it is someone's right not to have sex with someone else but in another it could be your right not to let someone have your property which would be theft.

Theft and rape have this element in common with each other. They are both non-consenting activities between two people. The state should act as a wall between people to protect them from others.

And yes, the state should act to protect people's freedom because other human being will not do that which is why we have things like theft and rape. Do you get what I am saying?

 

[ihopehefails]

Sorry the difference between consent and nonconsent makes all the difference in the world while I get the OPs point it does not work. Rape is exclusively used for nonconsent in the legal world.

BTW an officer coming into that scene is usually compelled to take someone to jail. Domestic dispute etc laws. It would be a very long night for the man in the best of circumstances.

Which is why most crime, like rape, is non-consenting activities against other people. That is where government should act. When the freedom of someone is being violated because if their was a consentual rape then it would be consenting sex which is why non-consenting sex is defined as rape. This is where government should act and that is to protect someone's freedom.

Call me slow, but what is your point in this thread? I have yet to see why you have brought this up.

The point was to show why government should act in our lives.

 

[Roybean]

Chanel - "Rape is not a "freedom" afforded by the constitution. That's why we have criminal laws. And prisons".

LOL - are you serious - you know how many convicted sex offenders/rapists/child molesters...are released back into neighborhoods full of children ? To molest and rape and kill again ? I dont either cause there's too many to count. And guess what - there's nothing you can do about it except move but even that wont do you much good. Isn't that a form of "domestic terrorism" - when parents are too afraid to even let their kids play out in their own yards.

This is YOUR government though - the same government that executes an inmate after 20+ yrs in prison ....lol....now thats what i call efficiency !