Women raping Men? Is it ok if a woman rapes a man? Me2 movement, sorta disappeared. I think it had something to do with this actress. STRANGE, I thought that this movement was important to Democrats, and their politicians? maybe not so much, because it got exposed? https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture...ortedly-settled-sex-assault-complaint-n902106
It happens, but it is much rarer. In a lot of these cases where it happens, the man does not feel "raped", or the man does not suffer enough from it that he is willing to go to authorities, or the man feels too embarrassed to go to authorities, that he was so weak he allowed himself to be raped by a woman. Police and authorities are often less likely to believe a man who says he was raped by a woman, than if it were the reverse in that exact same situation. Or they will be much less likely to take it seriously, if it's a kind of borderline situation. Society has some strong double standards in these sorts of situations. Example: A man and a woman both get drunk. They go up to a room and sleep together. It's much easier for the woman to claim rape in that situation and claim he took advantage of her than for the man to claim he took advantage of her. Of course it is very possible for non-consensual sex to cause emotional damage to a man, but for a variety of reasons, men tend to be less affected by it. (Well, so long as the perpetrator is a woman, if it's a man, that is a different story) I've often wondered about the absurd situation where if a man has sex with a woman, in what might be a borderline grey zone situation, and then is concerned she is going to call the police on him and claim rape, what if he tries to beat her by getting to police first and claiming she was the one who raped him? Or if a woman claims rape on a man, can a man then bring a counter claim that she was the one who raped him, or will no one believe that? I bet the prosecutor would refuse to press any charges on the woman even if the man is already facing charges. Some blatant double standards here. Things that most people do not think about.
Easy to say there should be equality, but harder to put in practice. Bowerbird, although you say men and women should both be treated exactly equally, and I have no doubt you consciously believe that, I doubt you would actually put that into practice if you were a prosecutor in these situations. The thing is, when push comes to shove, actually putting these beliefs into practice in these specific sorts of situations, and being entirely consistent with the ideology you claim to hold, is not so easy.
It is NEVER OK to make anyone do anything against their will, whether that is by force, deception, blackmail or any other reason.
Disagree. It's just been our society we think it's okay for women to take men. Remember Drake saying he puts hot sauce in his condom after he's done with it that's to prevent women from raping him. Rape is reproduction without consent. So a woman lying about being on birth control is "stealthing" a woman's sabotaging a prophylactic is absolutely right if a man did that that would be rape right? There are women trying to get it considered sexual assault for a man to lie about himself. That means if when a woman takes off her makeup and is hideous or had a bunch of dudes but didn't tell him about that should be considered sexual assault. Men just don't say anything because nobody cares.
So if a man tries to reproduce with a woman what she is saying no and trying to fight him off that isn't rape? Or is only rape when men do it?
How would that make a male aggressor attacking a female and raping her vaginally less rape? I never said it can only be that sort of thing I just said that that sort of thing is rape. Is it not?
My point was that forcing someone to reproduce with you is considered rape. Except for of course when the man is the victim.
Does no one read the links? This was not a case of "rape," as in, forcibly against the wishes of the other person-- it was a case of statutory rape, because the guy was only 17 years old, and the woman was an adult. Ridiculous contention, btw, @RoanokeIllinois , that this killed the MeToo movement.
"Argento, 42, settled allegations made in the notice of intent to sue sent by Jimmy Bennett, who is now 22, for $380,000 shortly after she said last October that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein raped her, the Times reported." not very often, you see a male victim of consensual statutory rape get a pay day
Know what killed me too is when Kevin spacey's victims tried to me too him. And that's because they're boys or they were boys when it happened and this level of victimhood is not for males.
statutory rape is still considered rape when a man does it, I think that was the point I think the term should only be called rape if it's really rape Consensual sex with an underage minor of 17 should not be called rape, it should be called "Consensual sex with an underage minor" - still a crime, but it's not rape, keep the term "rape" for real rape
While I would agree, that consensual sex substantially differs from forced rape-- and everyone I'd quoted, had been making the false assumption that this was not a consensual act-- that difference, is what the word "statutory" is supposed to convey: that is, that the "rape" is a more of a "technical" offense, because the underage person is not considered to be competent (mature enough), to legally give their "consent;" that would be the problem with your suggestion, "consensual sex with an underage minor." If a person forcibly raped someone who was underage, the offender could be charged with both rape and statutory rape (unless there already is a charge, combining these two elements). BTW, while they would probably be less likely to be charged, "when a woman does it," it is also "considered rape," as this thread, bears out. Statutory rape, it should be obvious from the name, is considered in the law, as a form of rape. What you seem to be arguing, is for a lowering of the age of legal consent-- presuming that your consensual sex would revert to "statutory rape," at some or other age; for example, if the fully legal adult (21 or over) was having sex with a perfectly agreeable eight year old. Along with this lowering of the consent bar, however, you would introduce a new charge, to cover consensual sex with someone in those years between full childhood and full adulthood. "Still a crime," you say, but not one as significant as rape. At the purely ideological level, I think you have a valid point. There are many "fairness" arguments, when it comes to age of consent-- will it be confusing, if I just refer to it as AOC? All people mature along different schedules, for one thing. It also seems problematic, if all it takes to turn a perfectly legal act, into rape, is just the crossing of a state line-- but this is not the only potential crime, for which this is the case. At the practical level, however, I think you might have a hard time getting others to support your idea. We need remember, the primary impetus for this law, comes from parents who want to prevent the defilement of their daughters (for the most part), by exploitive, older men. The selling points of lessening the severity of this charge, would only appeal to those too young to vote, as well as to those (mostly men) with an interest in pursuing underage girls (Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, Jeff Sessions, and the like). This seems to be the opposite direction, of where society is generally heading. That said, one must acknowledge that behavioral trends often follow the societal backlash model: gradually tightening, until reaching a point that is widely considered excessive, followed by a loosening of mores which, itself, gets to the point, that it incites a reactionary counter-movement, and retrenchment.
"What you seem to be arguing, is for a lowering of the age of legal consent-" no, absolutely not, I am not arguing for a lower age, it was 14 in my Republican State growing up, it's now 16 with a 5-year buffer, I think that is much better than 14, keeps the old creeps out of the mix and covers for the closer ages in my State, a 80-year-old rich man could legally have sex with a 14-year-old.... it's very good that law finally changed and I agree the "statutory" was supposed to cover that, but anymore, some just consider them the same it seems, well if it's the female that is underage and not the male that is
So, then your previous reply-- saying you'd felt that statutory rape should instead, be called, "consensual sex with an underage minor," but not be treated as severely as actual "rape"-- was arguing for lower penalties for statutory rape? I would imagine that there already is a significant difference, on average, between sentences for the statutory offense, versus for a violent rape, in which the victim is not willingly participating. I was only pointing out that there does not seem to be enough of a constituency out there, for pushing through this change. The worst part of being convicted of statutory rape-- I imagine-- is the stigma that goes along with it; both in prison, being potentially known as a child rapist (convicts have kids, too), as well as for the rest of one's life, needing to identify oneself as a "sexual offender." It is a complex issue, because all different sorts, run afoul of this law. I will agree that, in some instances, the penalty is excessive, for the circumstances. But it is not easy to see how laws could be changed to account for this; that is, it would likely come across to many, as trying to split too fine a hair, to determine the emotions of both parties including, in the victim's case, how it will affect them and how they will feel about it, years in the future. What seems the most practical consideration, is that parents generally feel that they don't want any legal "adults," sniffing around their "kids," though this difference in age could be, rather small. IOW, I am offering a pragmatic evaluation, of the chances for any sort of change, akin to what you'd suggested. If there were any changes possible, it would be specifically around that aspect, which I think some states, like your own, have tried to address, with the "buffers," you mention (but don't explain). What exactly does "16 with a 5 year buffer" mean? That people up to the age of 20, can legally have sex with 15 year olds?; up to 19, for 14 year olds; and up to 18, with 13 year olds? Is there a bottom floor? That is, 12 year olds are fair game, for those up to the age of 17; and 11 year olds, for those no older than 16? That would seem a rather progressive policy; and it would force the "80 year old rich man," to wait until a girl reaches 16.
"so, then your previous reply-- saying you'd felt that statutory rape should instead, be called, "consensual sex with an underage minor," but not be treated as severely as actual "rape"" huh, I said it should still be a crime, did not mention less or more, but now that you ask do you think violent forceable rape should be treated the same as consensual statutory rape - I think most think the former should be considered much much worse - I think most would agree with that I agree, the stigma of a 19 year old having sex with a consenting 17 year old could harm them for life... well if the 17 year old is not a male
"What exactly does "16 with a 5 year buffer" mean?" it means that 16 is the age of consent, but yes, 5 years older is the limit, 80-year-old rich men would be committing a crime, no sugar daddies allowed
At what point, then, is the 5 year limit dropped-- I presume that your state is not charging 34 year olds, who hook up with 28 year olds? Also, you did not comment on whether that 5-year buffer applied to anyone under 16. For that given age to have any significance, it must be either the starting point, or the ending point, of the buffers. My understanding is that these are used to cover several ages (as 14 - 16, for example). So, sugar daddies for the 17 year olds? P.S.-- What do you have against the standard way of quoting someone, to send them an alert? More often than not, I would expect that I will not see your reply, if you do not either quote me or, at least, alert me with an @DEFinning.
It is your post, that deserves the "Huh??" Did you somehow miss my opening line: And, a little further on: You got that completely wrong, as well. Your post was about legal punishments. I was talking, then, about the stigma, for the person convicted of statutory rape, in one of those situations that wasn't really a case of exploitation. I think my meaning, had been obvious: Obviously, that identifying is a good thing, in many, probably most, cases. I was conceding to your apparent argument that, for some, the penalty is excessive (as in the 17 and 19 year old hypothetical, you give; there are actual examples, of statutory rapists who were only a year or two older than the "victim," who was actually his girlfriend, who he in fact married, after getting out of prison. That is what I was acknowledging). You really should quote the person you are answering, at least for your own reference.
