When Rape is Legal and Why

[ihopehefails]

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?

 

[VaYank5150]

WTF? I knew you were a fuck up, but WOW, just WOW...

 

[Luissa]

 

[strollingbones]

yea that is exactly what the cops would do.....especially after releasing a victim of dalmers back to him...yeap that is just what the cops would do

 

[ihopehefails]

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?

Apparently no one read this part.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Did you lay awake at night dreaming that one up?

You should have gone back to sleep

 

[VaYank5150]

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?

You got this "analogy" from the Tea Party convention, didn't you?

 

[chanel]

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

Whachu drinkin ihopehefails?

 

[Gadawg73]

You claimed you were going to prove "When rape is legal and why".
You never addressed that.
That was false advertising followed by your post which was false also.
2 for 2.
U R batting 1000%.

 

[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.

 

[ihopehefails]

You claimed you were going to prove "When rape is legal and why".
You never addressed that.
That was false advertising followed by your post which was false also.
2 for 2.
U R batting 1000%.

OK. I admit that but I wanted to make a point that government only acts to protect your freedom.

 

[Some Guy]

What a weird analogy.

 

[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.

 

[Some Guy]

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?

Apparently no one read this part.

It's still weak. The American people voted the current president and congress into office, so basically, they are complicit with what's going on as a whole. The American people will have their chance to change things if they want to in 2010 and 2012.

If anything is truly unconstitutional and does trample on our freedoms in the meantime, we can only hope that the Supreme Court will have our backs.

 

[GHook93]

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!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

yea that is exactly what the cops would do.....especially after releasing a victim of dalmers back to him...yeap that is just what the cops would do

That was a long time ago, but thats what happened isnt it?
But it was sissys and not girls

 

[Kex]

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?

Woah!

 

[GHook93]

yea that is exactly what the cops would do.....especially after releasing a victim of dalmers back to him...yeap that is just what the cops would do

No the cops in Dahmers case were different. See one of the cops there part-timed as a pizza delivery man and at the moment he forgot what job he was doing!

 

[GHook93]

Check out all the most state rape statutes or even the Model Penal Codes. Its involuntary sexual intercourse of a woman other than one's spouse.

Therefore in the good old days raping one's wife was legal.

Oh how things have changed, now the wife's are raping husband!

 

[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.