Barry Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 i wonder. can women rape men? no seriously. currently the law does not recognise the rape of men by women. so effectively a woman could rape a man and get off 'scott free' . . . in the UK anyway . . . Oh come on guys, how can a woman rape a man ? Have you guys ever heard of a woman that raped a man ? personally, i have never heard of an incident. so i dunno it would be very difficult but with the use of certain drugs i'm sure that it would be achievable if the woman were particularly determined and the guy all drugged up (with 'date-rape drug' or something). the problem is that the vulnerbale guy may not be able to control his 'reaction' to certain 'stimuli' and thus he may be exploited in a sexual manner . . . i don't think that it's the most practical thing to do but it is possible . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 i wonder. can women rape men? no seriously. currently the law does not recognise the rape of men by women. so effectively a woman could rape a man and get off 'scott free' . . . in the UK anyway . . . Oh come on guys, how can a woman rape a man ? Have you guys ever heard of a woman that raped a man ? Actually, it's possible. It varies completely from person to person. Because men are generally larger and stronger than most women, it's unlikely, but there are exceptions. I think a fairly strong, athletic girl could potentially rape a guy. But again, it would depend on the guy. The biggest problem would be classifying something as rape, because men are less likely to be unwilling to have sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worshipper pa Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 The biggest problem would be classifying something as rape, because men are less likely to be unwilling to have sex.Yes, In Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 like she'd want to but really, who cares? it (male rape) should be included within law but isn't really a major issue to be frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnaBB Cover Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 but really, who cares? it (male rape) should be included within law but isn't really a major issue to be frank.Yeah, is not something that happens everyday. But millions of woman are being rapped and that's the major problem . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 but really, who cares? it (male rape) should be included within law but isn't really a major issue to be frank. Yeah, is not something that happens everyday. But millions of woman are being rapped and that's the major problem . i know women being raped is a much larger problem. i just think that for the sake of equality maybe male rape should be on the statute books as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 and this is stupid, Jimmy addressed most of the problems in his post. Not to say I endorse spanking, but used correctly, it can work. There's a big difference between punishment and abuse following the 'spanking' argument would it not logically be alright to smack/punish any obstinate individual then? i feel that it would be highly hypocritical to allow 'punishment' of some sectors of society, especially such a silent and poorly represented minority, in a supposedly equal society. Sad to say it, but there is no equality in society. And it's not hypocritical. You're just not recognising the difference between abusing someone and punishing them appropriately. Admittedly, they both involve hitting, but the degree of power which one chooses to use and the intention behind it also matter. By the way, what was the spanking argument? I know you'd like it :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 but really, who cares? it (male rape) should be included within law but isn't really a major issue to be frank. Yeah, is not something that happens everyday. But millions of woman are being rapped and that's the major problem . i know women being raped is a much larger problem. i just think that for the sake of equality maybe male rape should be on the statute books as well seriously, there'd probably be 3 cases a year per nation or something I'd like to quote from another forum... any hole's a goal and from American Pie 3: The Wedding pussy's pussy These aren't my views but I just thought it'd be funny to quote them anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discostu Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 i wonder. can women rape men? no seriously. currently the law does not recognise the rape of men by women. so effectively a woman could rape a man and get off 'scott free' . . . in the UK anyway . . . Oh come on guys, how can a woman rape a man ? Have you guys ever heard of a woman that raped a man ? isnt it considered rape if you say no and they keep going anyways? im pretty sure it is...and if thats true then i've been raped by my girlfriend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Sad to say it, but there is no equality in society. And it's not hypocritical. You're just not recognising the difference between abusing someone and punishing them appropriately. Admittedly, they both involve hitting, but the degree of power which one chooses to use and the intention behind it also matter. ok fine. let's focus on 'punishing'. so if someone i knew or i was related to or who i was married to misbehaved then it would be alright to "punish them appropriately", correct? or if i had the 'right' intention then it would be ok? so it would be alright to hit a woman as long as it's not too hard? that seems to follow logically . . . (it's not my personal opinion but i think that treating both issues as totally separate is somewhat nonsensical) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 (edited) are you saying that we can hit each other, if its going to have a positive effect?:| Edited November 29, 2005 by Francesca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Don't be silly, Barry. Parenting is a responsibility and a unique relationship. It is the foundation of society and has always been. You can't compare this to any other relationship like apples to apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 ^ Yes, what he said. believe it or not, there ARE guys who dont want to have sex ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lullaby Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 [*] About three percent of American men Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worshipper pa Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 isnt it considered rape if you say no and they keep going anyways? im pretty sure it is...and if thats true then i've been raped by my girlfriend Yes, it is a rape in that case but the question is why did you say no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Don't be silly, Barry. Parenting is a responsibility and a unique relationship. It is the foundation of society and has always been. You can't compare this to any other relationship like apples to apples. you said earlier that it was alright if you have the right intentions? effectively violence is violence. the only difference is the person on the receiving end. i think that it's not really fair to justify violence against one sector of society by saying that it's a "unique relationship" and therefore the same rules don't apply. all relationships are "unique" so i think that saying this is "unique" is a bit of a cop-out. marriage is a "unique relationship." could i justify violence in a marriage by saying that it's "unique" and therefore normal rules don't apply? . . . Plato's 'Republic' is organised differently and advocates the abolition of private family . . . i know it's not enacted but it is a different system that in theory at least could work . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Sad to say it, but there is no equality in society. And it's not hypocritical. You're just not recognising the difference between abusing someone and punishing them appropriately. Admittedly, they both involve hitting, but the degree of power which one chooses to use and the intention behind it also matter. ok fine. let's focus on 'punishing'. so if someone i knew or i was related to or who i was married to misbehaved then it would be alright to "punish them appropriately", correct? or if i had the 'right' intention then it would be ok? so it would be alright to hit a woman as long as it's not too hard? that seems to follow logically . . . (it's not my personal opinion but i think that treating both issues as totally separate is somewhat nonsensical) The law allows for discipline of children because they aren't fully developed and don't know what is right and what is wrong (as well as the sheer chaos it'd cause if parents had to accompany kids to court everytime they did something wrong). The role of the parent is to teach their kids right and wrong, though this may not always be the case. Women are adults and assuming they are of a sane mind, then they can fully think things through and know what they are doing. That's why the penalties for adults and kids are different. Are you implying that we should treat kids and adults the same in court as well, in light of the fact that children do not have the same cognitive capacities as adults? Regarding the point about punishing women, both men and women are considered adults and are viewed as equals in the legal system. Why would a man punish a woman? Are you implying that men are legally superior to women? If anything it should be the authorities and legal system that do so. Excuse my use of rhetorical questions, by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Don't be silly, Barry. Parenting is a responsibility and a unique relationship. It is the foundation of society and has always been. You can't compare this to any other relationship like apples to apples. you said earlier that it was alright if you have the right intentions? effectively violence is violence. the only difference is the person on the receiving end. i think that it's not really fair to justify violence against one sector of society by saying that it's a "unique relationship" and therefore the same rules don't apply. all relationships are "unique" so i think that saying this is "unique" is a bit of a cop-out. marriage is a "unique relationship." could i justify violence in a marriage by saying that it's "unique" and therefore normal rules don't apply? . . . Plato's 'Republic' is organised differently and advocates the abolition of private family . . . i know it's not enacted but it is a different system that in theory at least could work . . . So if both marriage and the parent-child links are "unique relationships" in their own right, doesn't that make them unique to each other, hence making them different relationships relatively? So, if they are different, then you shouldn't equate the use of force in each relationship. Continuing on with that line of thought, using force in a marriage can be deemed as abuse, and using force in a parent-child relationship can be deemed as punishment, which actually coincides with (Western) society's interpretation of each situation funnily enough. Did that all make sense? Beers make it really hard to think properly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Sad to say it, but there is no equality in society. And it's not hypocritical. You're just not recognising the difference between abusing someone and punishing them appropriately. Admittedly, they both involve hitting, but the degree of power which one chooses to use and the intention behind it also matter. ok fine. let's focus on 'punishing'. so if someone i knew or i was related to or who i was married to misbehaved then it would be alright to "punish them appropriately", correct? or if i had the 'right' intention then it would be ok? so it would be alright to hit a woman as long as it's not too hard? that seems to follow logically . . . (it's not my personal opinion but i think that treating both issues as totally separate is somewhat nonsensical) The law allows for discipline of children because they aren't fully developed and don't know what is right and what is wrong (as well as the sheer chaos it'd cause if parents had to accompany kids to court everytime they did something wrong). The role of the parent is to teach their kids right and wrong, though this may not always be the case. Women are adults and assuming they are of a sane mind, then they can fully think things through and know what they are doing. That's why the penalties for adults and kids are different. Are you implying that we should treat kids and adults the same in court as well, in light of the fact that children do not have the same cognitive capacities as adults? Regarding the point about punishing women, both men and women are considered adults and are viewed as equals in the legal system. Why would a man punish a woman? Are you implying that men are legally superior to women? If anything it should be the authorities and legal system that do so. Excuse my use of rhetorical questions, by the way. one of the reasons why the kids shouldn't be smacked could be because they "aren't fully developed" and are more impressionable and will see beatings when someone is 'naughty' as the norm or an acceptable thing to do. yes, parents are 'supposed' to teach their kids what is right and wrong but i don't see why that needs to be done through the medium of violence. as i said previously. violence is violence and in this case the only difference is the person at the end of the violence and the acceptance of the violence by society. (i should point out that i was using violence against women as an example. if you seriously think that i think that "men are legally superior to women" then shame on you. i just cited that as an example. i could have given an example where wives beat up their husbands. they had a documentary on that on TV a while back ) in terms of courts, i think that there should be more leniency towards very yound kids 'cos they may not necessarily know the difference between what is right or wrong and so need to be given a chance. i also think that society should give people a chance and try and rehabilitate individuals who have strayed and so sentences or penalties awarded to younger persons should be more lenient. at the same time though i don't think that penalising a little lad by slapping him or whatever will instill a strong moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong' in the little chap. it merely teaches the little guy that if you get caught then you get a slap . . . no worries about the rhetorical questions. i like 'em . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Don't be silly, Barry. Parenting is a responsibility and a unique relationship. It is the foundation of society and has always been. You can't compare this to any other relationship like apples to apples. you said earlier that it was alright if you have the right intentions? effectively violence is violence. the only difference is the person on the receiving end. i think that it's not really fair to justify violence against one sector of society by saying that it's a "unique relationship" and therefore the same rules don't apply. all relationships are "unique" so i think that saying this is "unique" is a bit of a cop-out. marriage is a "unique relationship." could i justify violence in a marriage by saying that it's "unique" and therefore normal rules don't apply? . . . Plato's 'Republic' is organised differently and advocates the abolition of private family . . . i know it's not enacted but it is a different system that in theory at least could work . . . So if both marriage and the parent-child links are "unique relationships" in their own right, doesn't that make them unique to each other, hence making them different relationships relatively? So, if they are different, then you shouldn't equate the use of force in each relationship. Continuing on with that line of thought, using force in a marriage can be deemed as abuse, and using force in a parent-child relationship can be deemed as punishment, which actually coincides with (Western) society's interpretation of each situation funnily enough. Did that all make sense? Beers make it really hard to think properly i am making the point that ALL relationships are "unique" and different but that one should have a consistent code which they follow when it comes to violence. i think that one should follow a consistent code of ethics rather than have a mish-mash of different contradictory beliefs. that is Western society's interpretation but is it necessarily correct??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.