coogar: alimat: i can only sleep with a muslim, if you are not don't even bother.
coogar: i am a muslim, my second name is ibrahim

#coogar lied to get into bed with alimat
the next day, alimat discovered coogar had lied about his religion to cop a satisfying sex session with alimat, is coogar guilty of rapë?

Coogar would be guilty of deceit because the sex is irrelevant to your religious status. she agreed to have s.ex with you and was conned into believing that you had the same religious beliefs. she willfully had s.ex with you (whether through deceit or con) and you did not force her into doing something that she specifically asked you NOT to do beforehand. see the difference?!

MRbrownJAY:
when some people have nothing to say, they throw insults to smoke screen the fact that they have nothing intelligent to bring to the discussion.

thought as much!

so if i understand you carefully, if a gal agreed to have an.al sex before the acrobatics, and suddenly the guy decides to jam his dikc insode her aass, it shouldnt be ra.pe or abuse, simply because they were having sex?!
anything that is done AGAINST A PERSON's WISH is ra.pe or abuse. how can someone change his mind without informing the participant first? how does that make this act any RIGHT? what institution do you know that will accept such change of contract? the ONLY thing that she can rely upon is what was agrred before the sex, because thats what is relevant.

but this analogy is not even close to what this guy did.
the agreement was penetrate, thrust as much as you want but no spilling of seeds in her. the man got everything right until the spillage. in the case you cited, the woman would verbally or physically object the action of the man. in the case we are discussing, the woman never said no during the act! if she did, that was räpe! the only thing she is laying claims to was what was agreed before the act!

MRbrownJAY:
Coogar would be guilty of deceit because the sex is irrelevant to your religious status. she agreed to have sex with you and was conned into believing that you had the same religious beliefs. she willfully had sex with you (whether through deceit or con)and you did not force her into doing something that she specifically asked you NOT to do beforehand. see the difference?!

but the sëx is relevant to her....
she went to bed with me on the premise that i am muslim! if i had told her the truth, she wouldn't have agreed to bed me! she only shägs muslims.

just like in this case - the wife wilfully had sëx with her husband but the husband conned her into believing he would withdraw. the husband did not force her to lie down there and take the spillage. she wouldn't have known he was spilling until after the act. no force was involved but deception!

mondi_cheeks: if the guys tries to stop himself from reaching an org.asm and the girl still continues against his will then definitely all those guys can press charges against these women

just shut-up mondi-cheeks.

You know i nuked your argument to the stone age.

Why r u always following me anyway? posting r.etarded crap everywhere you go... get of the internet and go take care of your 5 kids. Better yet go "rape" another man and have some more.

coogar:

thought as much!



but this analogy is not even close to what this guy did.
the agreement was penetrate, thrust as much as you want but no spilling of seeds in her. the man got everything right until the spillage. in the case you cited, the woman would verbally or physically object the action of the man. in the case we are discussing, the woman never said no during the act! if she did, that was räpe! the only thing she is laying claims to was what was agreed before the act!

the problem is that you forgot the most important part of the beast man's act: he said (probably when about to cuum) HE WILL DO WHAT HE WANT......thus "forcing" her to accept his change of plans (probably against her will).....and you dont want to call that ra.pe/abuse?

thought as much!

@ coogar... keep wasting your time trying to convince these people of logic.

At the end of the day me and you will have arrived at exactly the same point. Nowhere

The difference is.... i had alot more fun.

plz dats nt molestation and can neva be

MRbrownJAY:
the problem is that you forgot the most important part of the beast man's act: he said (probably when about to cuum) HE WILL DO WHAT HE WANT......thus "forcing" her to accept his change of plans (probably against her will)

that can be argued.......her word against his!
i doubt his rapê conviction would stand - he could be guilty of abuse but certainly not rapë. there was no physical force used. the only discrepancy was what was agreed before the act!

MRbrownJAY:

the problem is that you forgot the most important part of the beast man's act: he said (probably when about to cuum) HE WILL DO WHAT HE WANT......thus "forcing" her to accept his change of plans (probably against her will).....and you dont want to call that ra.pe/abuse?

Its either r.ape or abuse not both.

Everyone can agree that he did something wrong. But the case in question is a r.ape trial., if you think this was a r.ape stand by your silly opinion but don't try and change your argument.

doode: just shut-up mondi-cheeks.

You know i nuked your argument to the stone age.

how was that arguing with u it was a simple solution. He can withdraw his consent and if she proceeds against his will then he can suceed with a charge of rape...how hard is that to understand

mondi_cheeks: how was that arguing with u it was a simply solution. He can withdraw his consent and if she proceeds against his will then he can suceed with a charge of rape...how hard is that to understand

you people are so dumb

Withdrawing his consent should = withdrawing his joystick

For a woman it should = withdrawing her body and telling him to stop.


neither one of those things were done in this case.

coogar: that can be argued.......her word against his!
i doubt his rapê conviction would stand - he could be guilty of abuse but certainly not rapë. there was no physical force used. the only discrepancy was what was agreed befor the act!

this is how i see this scenario, and why i believe the judge sentenced this guy to ra.pe (and nothing else):
the wife said (before the sex) she didnt want to be pregnant and thus she asked hubby to pull out in due time.
the hubby agreed and they started having sex. during the sex and when the hubby was about to cuum, she asked him to pull out (as agreed) but he then said that he will do what he wants and forced her (against her will) to stay put while he relieved himself......thus that is why the judge said that this was ra.pe (and he was right).

these are all MBJ's assumptions but nevertheless, the hubby would have been guilty of abuse if he did it any other way against her will......but by the info we are getting on this story, my above scenario COULD have been the case, and is ra.pe!

coogar:

that can be argued.......her word against his!
i doubt his rapê conviction would stand - he could be guilty of abuse but certainly not rapë. there was no physical force used. the only discrepancy was what was agreed before the act!

physical force is not a requirement for rape (it can only serve as a factor that can prove that valid consent wasn't given)...consent and it has to be valid consent. Sex.ual intercourse wit a person under age, intoxicated or extremely drunk can constitute as rape because these people are regarded not to be in a position to give valid consent to sex.ual intercourse...why do u think pple still get charged wit statutory rape after sleeping wit an under age person even if that minor gave consent

mondi_cheeks: physical force is not a requirement for rape...consent and it has to be valid consent. Sex.ual intercourse wit a person under age, intoxicated or extremely drunk can constitute as rape because these people are regarded not to be in a position to give valid consent to sex.ual intercourse...why do u think pple still get charged wit statutory rape after sleeping wit an under age person even if that minor gave consent

sex with a minor is a different ball game.
this woman is not a minor nor is she a random person...she's his wife! the only discrepancy was what was agreed before the act. no force or disagreement happened during the act!

MRbrownJAY:

this is how i see this scenario, and why i believe the judge sentenced this guy to ra.pe (and nothing else):
the wife said (before the sex) she didnt want to be pregnant and thus she asked hubby to pull out in due time.
the hubby agreed and they started having sex. during the sex and when the hubby was about to cuum, she asked him to pull out (as agreed) but he then said that he will do what he wants and forced her (against her will) to stay put while he relieved himself......thus that is why the judge said that this was ra.pe (and he was right).

these are all MBJ's assumptions but nevertheless, the hubby would have been guilty of abuse if he did it any other way against her will......but by the info we are getting on this story, my above scenario COULD have been the case, and is ra.pe!

yes, they are assumptions!
in my opinion, this woman is just a troublemaker - she's claiming räpe because of disappointment or deceit. not because she said no and the man pressed on regardless.

mondi_cheeks: physical force is not a requirement for rape...consent and it has to be valid consent. Sex.ual intercourse wit a person under age, intoxicated or extremely drunk can constitute as rape because these people are regarded not to be in a position to give valid consent to sex.ual intercourse...why do u think pple still get charged wit statutory rape after sleeping wit an under age person even if that minor gave consent

Again this is why i insult people, you argue like idiots.

statutory rape occurs when someone has sex with an individual the law does not deem old enough to give consent that is completely different from grown woman.

And this woman was completely sober, so stop trying to throw up smoke-screens

It is not to much for society to expect a grown woman to be decide if she want to be intimate with someone or not, there is a point were "molestation laws" need to end and personal responsibility needs to begin. This is that point

doode: you people are so dumb

Withdrawing his consent should = withdrawing his joystick

For a woman it should = withdrawing her body and telling him to stop.


neither one of those things were done in this case.

consent can be withdrawn by words or actions... U don't even know the elements of r.ape, but u wanna call everybody else dumb?

coogar: but the sëx is relevant to her....
she went to bed with me on the premise that i am muslim! if i had told her the truth, she wouldn't have agreed to bed me! she only shägs muslims.

and this is why i have said that the sex is irrelevant, because this is not a case of ra.pe but DECEIT. at NO TIME during the sex you did something sexual against her wishes. the fact that you are not muslim is a case of deceit, not ra.pe!

just like in this case - the wife wilfully had sëx with her husband but the husband conned her into believing he would withdraw. the husband did not force her to lie down there and take the spillage. she wouldn't have known he was spilling until after the act. no force was involved but deception!

on the other hand, in this case the husband did something sexual against her wishes. how can you say this is the same thing? remember, the fact that she wouldnt have known is irrelevant. if i listen to your analogy, then if i give a date ra.pe drug to a lady and ra.pe her (but she doesnt know it because she was unconscious) it is NOT ra,pe?! come on now!
whether wifey knew or not is not the point, the hubby did something to her sexually that he fully well knew (beforehand) she was AGAINST.

mondi_cheeks: consent can be withdrawn by words or actions... U don't even know the elements of rape, but u wanna call everybody else dumb?

Sorry, i don't go by the brainwashed feminist definition of "ra.pe"....
were a woman can claim she was raped 5 years after consentual sex occured.

I go by common sense.

Maybe yall should look at real molestation case, and see that the dynamics are completely different. It makes no sense to charge this man with that crime, when the two don't even resemble each other.

coogar: yes, they are assumptions!
in my opinion, this woman is just a troublemaker - she's claiming räpe because of disappointment or deceit. not because she said no and the man pressed on regardless.

but the judge used the fact that this man said he will do what he want with this woman sexually (whether she agrees to it or not) in order to convict him. these are the words of a ra.pist, and he got punished for his actions, or at least his way of thinking.

MRbrownJAY:
and this is why i have said that the sex is irrelevant, because this is not a case of ra.pe but DECEIT. at NO TIME during the sex you did something sexual against her wishes. the fact that you are not muslim is a case of deceit, not ra.pe!

by the same token, the fact that this man agreed to withdraw knowing fully well he wouldn't withdraw is just deceit. this woman agreed the husband could have vagïnal sex with her. he didn't deviate from that.

on the other hand, in this case the husband did something sexual against her wishes. how can you say this is the same thing? remember, the fact that she wouldnt have known is irrelevant. if i listen to your analogy, then if i give a date ra.pe drug to a lady and ra.pe her (but she doesnt know it because she was unconscious) it is NOT ra,pe?! come on now!
whether wifey knew or not is not the point, the hubby did something to her sexually that he fully well knew she was AGAINST.

wrong analogy, MBJ
vagïnal sex was agreed, man had vagïnal sex - the act was agreed, the deceit was the problem. if the man had been honest before the act, the woman wouldn't have agreed. it's not the act that is the problem, but the deceit - just like in the case of alimat/coogar.

coogar:

sex with a minor is a different ball game.
this woman is not a minor nor is she a random person...she's his wife! the only discrepancy was what was agreed before the act. no force or disagreement happened during the act!



yes, they are assumptions!
in my opinion, this woman is just a troublemaker - she's claiming räpe because of disappointment or deceit. not because she said no and the man pressed on regardless.

the unlawful and intention sexu.al penetration of another without valid consent applies to all married or not...she withdrew consent and he ingored it and carried on, violating what they had agreed upon before..which is for him not to cum inside her. If he had pulled out like they had agreed before they had se.x, the woman's defence would have been baseless...

mondi_cheeks: the unlawful and intention sexual penetration of another without valid consent applies to all married or not...she withdrew consent and he ingored it and carried on, violating what they had agreed upon before..which is for him not to cum inside her. If he had pulled out like they had agreed before they had se.x, the woman's defence would have been baseless...

she didn't withdraw consent
where did you read that from? at no point did she withdraw consent. read the article very well! her claims to being räped is hinged on what was agreed before the act!

a breach of trust is NOT rapë!!!

[size=20pt]Welcome to 2013 were rape has been reduced to failing to pull out in the marriage chamber. [/size]


The funniest thing is ill bet that how 50% of ppl here were born

doode: Sorry, i don't go by the brainwashed feminist definition of "ra.pe"....
were a woman can claim she was raped 5 years after consentual sex occured.

I go by common sense.

Maybe yall should look at real molestation case, and see that the dynamics are completely different. It makes no sense to charge this man with that crime, when the two don't even resemble each other.

so every other legislature, human rights activist and judicial officer is stupid and u are the clever one

coogar: by the same token, the fact that this man agreed to withdraw knowing fully well he wouldn't withdraw is just deceit. this woman agreed the husband could have vagïnal sex with her. he didn't deviate from that.

again, you are looking at the wrong issue here: what they did prior to the act is not important since it was consensual, the act of forcing her to do an act that she had said earlier she was against, is the reason why this was considered ra.pe (imho).

wrong analogy, MBJ
vagïnal sex was agreed, man had vagïnal sex - the act was agreed, the deceit was the problem. if the man had been honest before the act, the woman wouldn't have agreed. it's not the act that is the problem, but the deceit - just like in the case of alimat/coogar.

bro Coogar, if i have sex with a woman who says beforehand that she does NOT want to have an.al sex, and during the act i do it against her will (because i changed my mind or because thats what i wanted from the beginning) would you call that RA:PE or DECEIT?

coogar:
a breach of trust is NOT rapë!!!

but frauduently obtaining consent before sexu.al penetration still constitutes as rape

lol!

[size=15pt]message to men: if you tell a woman you are a pro-footbal player and she has sex with you[/size]

...she can accuse you of rape 5 years later because you "frauduelently obtained consent"