ubunja:

im in Jozi and i seen the shiit men can do.i know it hurts but dont take it personally.SA men have anger problems

oh I see, you think I am an sa citizen

I am not a south African bro I am a Citizen of the most populated black nation on earth. I am a citizen of NIGERIA

greiboy:

oh I see, you think I am an sa citizen

I am not a south African bro I am a Citizen of the most populated black nation on earth. I am a citizen of NIGERIA

im also not a south african.im a zimbabwean but in south africa. point is; stereotypes exist for a reason. a country becomes associated with something it over-does.

Faxole:


I'm usually pragmatic when discussing issues like this. I don't just argue for theoretical purposes. I'm usually more concerned about the practical implications of an argument. I find how you are justifying being insensitive quite shocking and morally reprehensible as well. Someone once said that extreme left wing ideology has the potential to undermine society. I've always found that to be quite a profound statement and when I think about issues like this, the validity of the statement continues to shine forth. Ideas like the one you are holding have the potential to turn humans into apathetic robots who don't care about the effects of their actions on others, on the basis that they have rights and freedoms. One of the things that has helped sustain society, is the acknowledgement that an individual's actions have consequences and these consequences can affect others, so when we make a decision to act, we should do it with the awareness of the negative effects it can have on others, even if it temporarily infringes on our so called rights. You don't just sentence a man to jail for years and destroy his reputation and life just because he couldn't pull out after consentingly opening up your legs for him to fuçk.

It's not just insensitive to take the keys from the friend halfway through his journey, it's also selfish, callous and cruel. And the selfishness, cruelty and callousness of that action doesn't seem to faze you. All you care about is imposing your perceived rights. This is the kind of mindset that led to the death of millions of people in the Soviet union and this is the kind of mindset that's going to lead to the collapse of society as we know it. What you feminists actually care about is power and exercising that power over men. You don't care about the consequences of your actions and the implications of your arguments. You don't care whether they are selfish, insensitive, cruel or callous. You just want to exercise power.

I saw: I am done with this argument as the last line when I read this comment earlier. I don't see it anymore. I don't know if this means you've had a change of heart or............. if you're just limiting your word count . But this is my last rant on the issue, I promise. Please just indulge me.

I’m not justifying insensitivity; I’m distinguishing between what constitutes “unlawful behaviour” and what constitutes “insensitive/ irresponsible/ bad behaviour”. It’s not a debate about morality but legality. We are talking about legislations here after all. People aren’t convicted for insensitivities alone; an act must be “against the law” to warrant prosecution.

Jurisprudence is concerned with morality; but morality is subjective. And ultimately, the law is concerned with protecting people and their fundamental rights.

If it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, can no longer retract consent and must abandon him/her-self to the activity until both parties have achieved completion of purpose; then the law would be requiring that this person abandon him/her-self to several uncertain minutes in the imminent future, during which they cannot stop the activity (even) for their own protection. In effect, the law would be requiring this individual to relinquish control over their body and remain incapable of seeing to their own safety and well-being. That is a vacuum during which the law prevents the individual from being responsible for themselves. (Who is responsible for this person’s safety in those moments?) The law cannot do that – strip an individual of this right to withdraw from sexual activity (That’s rape. That’s duress).

On the other hand, if it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, reserves the right to withdraw consent at any point in course of the activity; then the law acknowledges the individual’s right to be responsible for their own protection.

So, as far as morality goes, the law has its own to maintain. And it cannot “rape” a person. If a person’s rights are to be suspended, they must give written consent (a waiver, or contract) or they must have broken the law. Even if it takes into consideration all those concerns you have listed earlier, the law would reckon that when there are false accusations, entrapment or slander, a person could seek redress in a courtroom. But rendering a person vulnerable is faulty legislation which makes the law itself the perpetrator even before a partner could think of committing anything untoward.

ubunja:

im also not a south african.im a zimbabwean but in south africa. point is; stereotypes exist for a reason. a country becomes associated with something it over-does.

Yeah I know you are zim and you right about the situation in sa

Are you shona? or ndemle?

Ndemle speak a language similar to zulu, am I right?

MissWrite:


I saw: I am done with this argument as the last line when I read this comment earlier. I don't see it anymore. I don't know if this means you've had a change of heart or............. if you're just limiting your word count . But this is my last rant on the issue, I promise. Please just indulge me.

I’m not justifying insensitivity; I’m distinguishing between what constitutes “unlawful behaviour” and what constitutes “insensitive/ irresponsible/ bad behaviour”. It’s not a debate about morality but legality. We are talking about legislations here after all. People aren’t convicted for insensitivities alone; an act must be “against the law” to warrant prosecution.

Jurisprudence is concerned with morality; but morality is subjective. And ultimately, the law is concerned with protecting people and their fundamental rights.

If it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, can no longer retract consent and must abandon him/her-self to the activity until both parties have achieved completion of purpose; then the law would be requiring that this person abandon him/her-self to several uncertain minutes in the imminent future, during which they cannot stop the activity (even) for their own protection. In effect, the law would be requiring this individual to relinquish control over their body and remain incapable of seeing to their own safety and well-being. That is a vacuum during which the law prevents the individual from being responsible for themselves. (Who is responsible for this person’s safety in those moments?) The law cannot do that – strip an individual of this right to withdraw from sexual activity (That’s rape. That’s duress).

On the other hand, if it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, reserves the right to withdraw consent at any point in course of the activity; then the law acknowledges the individual’s right to be responsible for their own protection.

So, as far as morality goes, the law has its own to maintain. And it cannot “rape” a person. If a person’s rights are to be suspended, they must give written consent (a waiver, or contract) or they must have broken the law. Even if it takes into consideration all those concerns you have listed earlier, the law would reckon that when there are false accusations, entrapment or slander, a person could seek redress in a courtroom. But rendering a person vulnerable is faulty legislation which makes the law itself the perpetrator even before a partner could think of committing anything untoward.

My God !

You can write for ages

Please teach me how to write

greiboy:
Yeah I know you are zim and you right about the situation in sa

Are you shona? or ndemle?

Ndemle speak a language similar to zulu, am I right?

its Ndebele. yes i am. and yes its like zulu.the language originated among the zulu.

ubunja:

its Ndebele. yes i am. and yes its like zulu.the language originated among the zulu.

lol
hey! at least I got 60% of the spelling right


I think you guys (Ndebele) fled the prosecution of Shaka Zulu to the north and ended in today's Zimbabwe, according to history... I maybe wrong tho


See you around bro

@ MissWrite & Faxole.

Excellent discussion. You guys both made some valid points. And I must confess, I learned a lot from the both of you.

I think I've been able to pick significant points from each one of your inputs, and I'd like to tell you what I think.

OK.

If MissWrite's position is the THESIS, and Faxole's is the ANTITHESIS, you might as well think of what I'm about to say as the SYNTHESIS.

MissWrite contends that there should indeed be a legislation against failure to stop after suspension or withdrawal of consent, and believes it should be termed rape. But we all know the bargain that carries----rape is not a joke. It's a serious crime that carries sever punishment, so......

Faxole considers it callous to categorize such under RAPE, given the grave consequences it carries for the accused. Hmmm.

I think you guys are both RIGHT AND WRONG.

I would suggest that we look at it from this angle:

Rape should be classified into different TYPES/LEVELS.

There should be MAJOR rape, and there should be MINOR rape----and there can be other levels inbetween. Some types of rape are more serious than others, and the milder ones shouldn't be treated on par with the really severe ones. Like Faxole had pointed out, a rape that happened without any consent at all is not the same as one that happened after the lady had given full consent and in the process of withdrawing it. Both are not equivalent.

So the severe punishment prescribed for rape should not be the same as the punishment for its milder varieties----so that justice can be more JUST and appropriate. The punishment shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime committed. It should be much less severe than the normal penalty for rape.

This way, the lady's right is protected (catering for MissWrite's concerns), and the man is not punished unjustly (that solves the issue for Faxole?).

Tozara:
@ MissWrite & Faxole.

Excellent discussion. You guys both made some valid points. And I must confess, I learned a lot from the both of you.

I think I've been able to pick significant points from each one of your inputs, and I'd like to tell you what I think.

OK.

If MissWrite's position is the THESIS, and Faxole's is the ANTITHESIS, you might as well think of what I'm about to say as the SYNTHESIS.

MissWrite contends that there should indeed be a legislation against failure to stop after suspension or withdrawal of consent, and believes it should be termed rape. But we all know the bargain that carries----rape is not a joke. It's a serious crime that carries sever punishment, so......

Faxole considers it callous to categorize such under RAPE, given the grave consequences it carries for the accused. Hmmm.

I think you guys are both RIGHT AND WRONG.

I would suggest that we look at it from this angle:

Rape should be classified into different TYPES/LEVELS.

There should be MAJOR rape, and there should be MINOR rape----and there can be other levels inbetween. Some types of rape are more serious than others, and the milder ones shouldn't be treated on par with the really severe ones. Like Faxole had pointed out, a rape that happened without any consent at all is not the same as one that happened after the lady had given full consent and in the process of withdrawing it. Both are not equivalent.

So the severe punishment prescribed for rape should not be the same as the punishment for its milder varieties----so that justice can be more JUST and appropriate. The punishment shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime committed. It should be much less severe than the normal penalty for rape.

This way, the lady's right is protected (catering for MissWrite's concerns), and the man is not punished unjustly (that solves the issue for Faxole?).

bro you took this right out of my mouth. i felt if we have different degree of murder and and difference btw murder and manslaughter then thier should be different degree of rape given the condition under which it occurs. this for me is a reasonable solution to this problem

Faxole:


Analogies aren't actually proper ways to evaluate the validity of an argument. Because the interpretation of an analogy seems to bear some similarity with an argument doesn't make that argument valid. I think people who aren't very smart tend to be easily swayed by analogies because on this surface they seems to legitimize an argument, but when you pry deeper and think more critically, you realize they don't.

I think you should be more concerned about raising women who are decisive and empathic. A decisive and empathic woman wouldn't allow a guy penetrate her when she has misgivings about having sex with him, because not only does she possess the ability to make quick rigid decisions, she is also aware of how difficult it would be for a guy to pull out his dick when having sex with a woman.

This kind of legislation gives women too much power and because of this certain women can use the legislative advantage for malicious purposes. Any woman can invite a guy to her home, seduce him, kiss him, engage in pre-intimacy with him and open her pants for him to slot his dick into her, and whenever she likes, even if he is about to cum, she can tell him to pull out and when he doesn't, he is a rapist.

Another aspect of this that lots of you feminists don't take into consideration, and this ties in with my claim about the lack of empathy you guys seem to not possess, is the physiological processes that occur when a man is having sex and how those processes influence his ability to be rational and make decisions. When men have sex, lots of the blood in areas of the brain that control rational processes are drained by the limbic system to sustain erections. When this happens, these areas of the brain, like the prefrontal cortex are unable to function like they should. So it makes it quite hard for a guy to think rationally and evaluate the situation when in such position.

We need to think deeply about these issues.

You are over complicating this...

What he did was rape.

If I had a leg cramp during sex and I say 'ouch ouch ouch' a good man would stop and not try to finish despite my obvious discomfort... am I wrong on this?


My man, even if he is about to come, in that scenario, ^^^ whereby I'm trying to free myself and get him to stop; he would stop and pull out even. Why? Because he can tell that I have 'WITHDRAWN' My consent. That I am no more enjoying this! That I want him to stop.

Why is it so hard to understand?

Why is it different in this case?

I don't get it

Is it because she came? Even if he made me come 5 times my boyfriend would still stop. He could control his body! His body doesn't control him! So he and the millions of men like him are subhuman?

In fact sometimes he doesn't even come... he just stops and that's it, for days he could do this... Many men do this!

So biology lessons and philosophy na reach for here

This man was selfish! This man was reckless! This man is a râpist and you are all sympathisers!

I don't know why I bothered ... I'm trying to reason with people who believe a husband can rape his wife so what am I expecting

MissWrite:
It's an ugly situation here in Nigeria (and probably other African countries as well). It's sad that many of us are still confused about this. We should all be free to decide when we aren't comfortable with something anymore. If we cannot do that, how are we ever supposed to feel safe to engage in the first place?

Agreeing to have sex is not like jumping off a building where regret half-way down is futile. The reason it seems so to many men (and women) is that male sexuality is routinely indulged in Africa (at the expense of women). We believe that a man cannot control himself. But it isn't so much "cannot" as "would not". If a man likes to Bleep around, we say it's in his nature and he gets a pass for promiscuity (it's God's fault for giving him more sperm cells than he knows what to do with). Some guy would guilt a girl into feeling responsible for appeasing his excited dick, just because she's the one who "inspired" it (most of us have heard the myth that a guy would "die" from blue balls). And here again we accept that a man cannot pull out halfway through sex until he cums. They aren't built that way .

I guarantee that this won't fly in this scenario: a man wakes up from sleep to the feeling of another guy's dick in his ass. I bet he won't say "I know your biology prevents you from pulling your dick out of my ass this very minute; but after you've cum, I'll &$@*# ......."

Human beings can all be controlled by their brains. That's our design. The moment that ceases to be true for any particular individual, then he's a mental case and a danger to society. He needs to be removed and rehabilitated.

But in a court of law, however, it would be difficult to establish withdrawal of consent because it's a he-said-she-said situation. I wish we would make progress with 24/7 personal surveillance chips.

*Exhales

#There's still hope

Cuteamigo1:

bro you took this right out of my mouth. i felt if we have different degree of murder and and difference btw murder and manslaughter then thier should be different degree of rape given the condition under which it occurs. this for me is a reasonable solution to this problem

Exactly so. Thank You.

greiboy:
My God !

You can write for ages

Please teach me how to write

Yes, it's therapeutic for me. I don't really expect people to read it though. I don't like reading long epistles myself.....normally, when I see long things like this, I jump and pass . Unless it's a story or my peeps or a reply to my long thing, then I know I started it.

Don't be like me, SSG. , Save yourself.

Tozara:
@ Miss.Write & Fax.ole.

Excellent discussion. You guys both made some valid points. And I must confess, I learned a lot from the both of you.

I think I've been able to pick significant points from each one of your inputs, and I'd like to tell you what I think.

OK.

If Miss.Write's position is the THESIS, and Fax.ole's is the ANTITHESIS, you might as well think of what I'm about to say as the SYNTHESIS.

Miss.Write contends that there should indeed be a legislation against failure to stop after suspension or withdrawal of consent, and believes it should be termed rape. But we all know the bargain that carries----rape is not a joke. It's a serious crime that carries sever punishment, so......

Fax.ole considers it callous to categorize such under RAPE, given the grave consequences it carries for the accused. Hmmm.

I think you guys are both RIGHT AND WRONG.

I would suggest that we look at it from this angle:

Rape should be classified into different TYPES/LEVELS.

There should be MAJOR rape, and there should be MINOR rape----and there can be other levels inbetween. Some types of rape are more serious than others, and the milder ones shouldn't be treated on par with the really severe ones. Like Fax.ole had pointed out, a rape that happened without any consent at all is not the same as one that happened after the lady had given full consent and in the process of withdrawing it. Both are not equivalent.

So the severe punishment prescribed for rape should not be the same as the punishment for its milder varieties----so that justice can be more JUST and appropriate. The punishment shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime committed. It should be much less severe than the normal penalty for rape.

This way, the lady's right is protected (catering for Miss.Write's concerns), and the man is not punished unjustly (that solves the issue for Fax.ole?).

Tozara, I agree with you absolutely. Dare I say a Daniel has come to judgement?

I'm not disputing the fact that there could be "degrees of rape" that would deserve varying degrees of punishment. But I don't accept that a person should lose their right to protect themselves just because they gave initial consent.

MissWrite:


I saw: I am done with this argument as the last line when I read this comment earlier. I don't see it anymore. I don't know if this means you've had a change of heart or............. if you're just limiting your word count . But this is my last rant on the issue, I promise. Please just indulge me.

I’m not justifying insensitivity; I’m distinguishing between what constitutes “unlawful behaviour” and what constitutes “insensitive/ irresponsible/ bad behaviour”. It’s not a debate about morality but legality. We are talking about legislations here after all. People aren’t convicted for insensitivities alone; an act must be “against the law” to warrant prosecution.

Jurisprudence is concerned with morality; but morality is subjective. And ultimately, the law is concerned with protecting people and their fundamental rights.

[b]If it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, can no longer retract consent and must abandon him/her-self to the activity until both parties have achieved completion of purpose; then the law would be requiring that this person abandon him/her-self to several uncertain minutes in the imminent future, during which they cannot stop the activity (even) for their own protection. In effect, the law would be requiring this individual to relinquish control over their body and remain incapable of seeing to their own safety and well-being. That is a vacuum during which the law prevents the individual from being responsible for themselves. (Who is responsible for this person’s safety in those moments?) The law cannot do that – strip an individual of this right to withdraw from sexual activity (That’s rape. That’s duress).

On the other hand, if it were to be legislated that: a person, who has consented to sex, reserves the right to withdraw consent at any point in course of the activity; then the law acknowledges the individual’s right to be responsible for their own protection.[/b]

So, as far as morality goes, the law has its own to maintain. And it cannot “rape” a person. If a person’s rights are to be suspended, they must give written consent (a waiver, or contract) or they must have broken the law. Even if it takes into consideration all those concerns you have listed earlier, the law would reckon that when there are false accusations, entrapment or slander, a person could seek redress in a courtroom. But rendering a person vulnerable is faulty legislation which makes the law itself the perpetrator even before a partner could think of committing anything untoward.

If this your proposed legislation becomes law, it will take 65 years under a Nigeria judicial system for any type of justice to take place

Foremost of all, it has too many loopholes that can be abused by both the plaintiff (most likely the lady) and defendant (most likely a man) Lawyers i.e. how will the evidence be gathered in such a lawsuit, since they both agreed to have sex in the first place? Will the word of the plaintiff be enough grounds to prosecute the defendant? If that is the case, how will a blackmail be separated from a case of actual rape?

Secondly, it imparts a lot of power to the plaintiff to determine the moment the rape occurred, thereby making it hard for the defendant to make a case, in the event of any rape allegations.

Thirdly, you said somewhere in your post that the defendant can seek redress in the court room. How will that take place without making the case look like a waste of precious effort and resources in the first place. If all that is required is a simple denial of the rape allegations by the defendant, which is expected, (Your word against mine scenario) Why waste precious effort to start with.

I mean except there is a solid evidence in such case like a video recording as proof, or a third person, which will make the whole thing appear like planned work. It is almost like defeat before trial for the complainant.


If I was the lawyer of the defendant, I will run around with this case, until the judge gets tired and throws it out

MissWrite:







Yes, it's therapeutic for me. I don't really expect people to read it though. I don't like reading long epistles myself.....normally, when I see long things like this, I jump and pass . Unless it's a story or my peeps or a reply to my long thing, then I know I started it.

Don't be like me, SSG. , Save yourself.

I want to be like you

intelligent, a good writer and everything

Faxole:


A guy who is told by a woman to pull out after being shown the green light has the same ability to pull out as does the guy who is raping a sleeping victim who immediately wakes. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the circumstances matter and the results and after effects of both situations differ, and we really need to take them into consideration.

I have issues with legislatively categorizing a situation where a guy refuses to pull out when a woman who has expressed consent, and even allowed him fuçk her for a period of time, asks him to as rape and attaching punitive measures to it. I know rape is defined as a forceful appropriation of the body of another person to satisfy a sexual need and one could argue, although not conclusively, that refusing not to pull out is tantamount to rape. But rape is also considered rape because of the victim status of the person who's body is being appropriated. I'm finding it hard to see how a woman who already gives a guy green light, kisses him, engages in pre-intimacy with him and opens her legs wide for him to penetrate, and then at an arbitrary point during the penetration insists that the guy pulls out, is the victim, even if he doesn't pull out. In this situation, how is the woman more of a victim than the guy? Who is experiencing more suffering in this situation? Isn't the guy also a victim since his pleasure and happiness has been forcefully cut off for arbitrary reasons after getting his hopes up? Isn't this an equivalent of deception and manipulation which is also a crime, hence making the guy the victim?

You are also implying in your argument that women have no obligation to be sensitive to the potential negative effects of their actions on a man. Let's be honest. What valid reason could a woman have to insist that a guy pulls out, after kissing, touching, engaging in reciprocal pre-intimacy with him and being pummeled for over a minute? I honestly can't think of one, besides maybe experiencing pain from the intercourse, which in most situations isn't the case. Most women who insist that a man pull out during intercourse do it for arbitrary reasons that I regard as insensitive and of lesser magnitude than the negative effects it would have on the man, which they don't seem to give a fuçk about.

Like I said in another response, there is also the potential problem of cases of malicious intent on the part of women that could spring up as a result of legislating this as rape and attaching punitive consequences. This kind of law gives women too much power and some can abuse this power. Any woman can invite a guy to her home, seduce him, kiss him, engage in pre-intimacy with him and open her pants for him to slot his dick into her, and whenever she likes, even if he is about to cum, she can tell him to pull out and when he doesn't, he is a rapist.

You don't know what rape feels like so I guess you could talk like this.... Deeeep, sigh

So his lost pleasure, and feeling scammed [b ] verses [/b] her feelings of powerless-Ness

I wonder which is worse

greiboy:
I want to be like you

intelligent, a good writer and everything

Lol, thank you but.........see how well you did all on your own. Let me go and read it now...

greiboy:
If this your proposed legislation becomes law, it will take 65 years under Nigeria judicial system for any type of justice to occur

First of all, it has too many loopholes that can be abused by both the plaintiff (most likely the lady) and defendant (most likely a man) lawyers i.e. how will the evidence be gathered in such a case, since they both agreed to have sex in the first? Will the word of the plaintiff be enough evidence to prosecute the defendant ? if that is the case, how will a blackmail be separated from a case of real rape?

Secondly, it gives a lot of power to the plaintiff to determine the moment the rape occurred, thereby making it hard for the defendant to make a case, in the event of any rape allegations.

Thirdly, you said somewhere in your post that the defendant can seek redress in the court room. How will that happen without making the case look like a waste of precious effort and resources in the first place. if all that is needed is a simple denial of the rape allegations by the defendant, which is expected,(Your word against mine scenario) why waste precious effort to begin with.

I mean except there is a solid evidence in such case like a video recording as proof, or a third person, which will make the whole thing appear like planned work. it is almost like defeat before trail for the plaintiff.


if I was the lawyer of the defendant, I will play around with this case, until the judge get tired and throws it out

Lol! 65yrs........true, there are inefficiencies and there's potential for abuse. And delay tactics are in every lawyer's arsenal.

MissWrite:



Lol! 65yrs........true, there are inefficiencies and there's potential for abuse. And delay tactics are in every lawyer's arsenal.

Yeah, 65 years... There is little justice in Nigeria, just courts

Tozara:
@ MissWrite & Faxole.

Excellent discussion. You guys both made some valid points. And I must confess, I learned a lot from the both of you.

I think I've been able to pick significant points from each one of your inputs, and I'd like to tell you what I think.

OK.

If MissWrite's position is the THESIS, and Faxole's is the ANTITHESIS, you might as well think of what I'm about to say as the SYNTHESIS.

MissWrite contends that there should indeed be a legislation against failure to stop after suspension or withdrawal of consent, and believes it should be termed rape. But we all know the bargain that carries----rape is not a joke. It's a serious crime that carries sever punishment, so......

Faxole considers it callous to categorize such under RAPE, given the grave consequences it carries for the accused. Hmmm.

I think you guys are both RIGHT AND WRONG.

I would suggest that we look at it from this angle:

Rape should be classified into different TYPES/LEVELS.

There should be MAJOR rape, and there should be MINOR rape----and there can be other levels inbetween. Some types of rape are more serious than others, and the milder ones shouldn't be treated on par with the really severe ones. Like Faxole had pointed out, a rape that happened without any consent at all is not the same as one that happened after the lady had given full consent and in the process of withdrawing it. Both are not equivalent.

So the severe punishment prescribed for rape should not be the same as the punishment for its milder varieties----so that justice can be more JUST and appropriate. The punishment shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime committed. It should be much less severe than the normal penalty for rape.

This way, the lady's right is protected (catering for MissWrite's concerns), and the man is not punished unjustly (that solves the issue for Faxole?).

You are right in your conclusions. I concur. I understand Misswrite's arguments and I understand how the legal system works, but I was more concerned about the level of moral reasoning that undergirded her arguments and that of people who support her position.

Dimples129:


You don't know what rape feels like so I guess you could talk like this.... Deeeep, sigh

So his lost pleasure, and feeling scammed [b ] verses [/b] her feelings of powerless-Ness

I wonder which is worse

Please answer this question honestly:

Do you think a man who refuses to pull out midway during sexual intercourse with a consenting partner who engaged in reciprocal pre-intimacy with him and willingly opened her legs for him should face the same legal punishments as the typical rapist?

Faxole:


Please answer this question honestly:

Do you think a man who refuses to pull out midway during sexual intercourse with a consenting partner who engaged in reciprocal pre-intimacy with him and willingly opened her legs for him should face the same legal punishments as the typical rapist?

Yes. Because all rape shares the same mental process and reasoning. Putting your need before the other person's rights. Knowing the consequences and choosing to deal with them later. It quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Rape is all the same and the reason you don't want to understand it is because you are sympathising with the perpetrator and not the actual victim. His name and future is more important to you than her name and future effects. So... Yes! Throw the book at them...

MissWrite:



Tozara, I agree with you absolutely. Dare I say a Daniel has come to judgement?

I'm not disputing the fact that there could be "degrees of rape" that would deserve varying degrees of punishment. But I don't accept that a person should lose their right to protect themselves just because they gave initial consent.

Yeah, that's right. I understand perfectly well.

Faxole:


You are right in your conclusions. I concur. I understand Misswrite's arguments and I understand how the legal system works, but I was more concerned about the level of moral reasoning that undergirded her arguments and that of people who support her position.

I get you, but I think that's an entirely different issue on its own that might have no bearing on legislation.

Morality and ethics belong to a different domain.

The law is more about the rights of the citizen and protecting the state from harm, than it is about our moral obligations towards one another, that are actually more about issues between individuals based on INFORMAL agreement. Breaching them is bound to have no legal consequences----but infringing on another's right DOES.

Tozara:
I get you, but I think that's an entirely different issue on its own that might have no bearing on legislation.

Morality and ethics belong to a different domain.

The law is more about the rights of the citizen and protecting the state from harm, than it is about our moral obligations towards one another, that are actually more about issues between individuals based on INFORMAL agreement. Breaching them is bound to have no legal consequences----but infringing on another's right DOES.

rubbishhh
morality and ethics are the foundation of all Legislation. thats why all court cases begin with a witness swearing on the Bible.

ubunja:

rubbishhh
morality and ethics are the foundation of all Legislation. thats why all court cases begin with a witness swearing on the Bible.

I personally consider it morally reprehensible to be insensitive to the plight of a handicapped beggar by the road side, scoffing and hissing at his pleas, telling him to fück off, and going your own way. To me it's completely terrible and inhumane. Where's the compassion?

But many people do this. Why don't we arrest them? Or you don't consider it immoral? What are the legal consequences? Well, there's none because the fellow who did that has the RIGHT to his money and is under no obligations to give it out to the hopeless beggar.

And we all know that the beggar will be jailed if he takes the money by force after the guy has rudely refused to give him a dime without pity or compassion.

You can find some people's values and principles disgusting, but you can't infringe on their right. You can only detest them and their pettiness.

What's immoral to you isn't immoral to another person. But the law is the same for everybody. It guarantees them the protection of their fundamental rights.

Tozara:
I personally consider it morally reprehensible to be insensitive to the plight of a handicapped beggar by the road side, scoffing and hissing at his pleas, telling him to fück off, and going your own way. To me it's completely terrible and inhumane. Where's the compassion?

But many people do this. Why don't we arrest them? Or you don't consider it immoral? What are the legal consequences? Well, there's none because the fellow who did that has the RIGHT to his money and is under no obligations to give it out to the hopeless beggar.

And we all know that the beggar will be jailed if he takes the money by force after the guy has rudely refused to give him a dime without pity or compassion.

You can find some people's values and principles disgusting, but you can't infringe on their right. You can only detest them and their pettiness.

What's immoral to you isn't immoral to another person. But the law is the same for everybody. It guarantees them the protection of their fundamental rights.

you cant talk about personal rights without morality coz the basis of all rights is Do unto another as you would like done unto you. we are all equal before God and the law. how are you not seeing this??

ubunja:

you cant talk about personal rights without morality coz the basis of all rights is Do unto another as you would like done unto you. we are all equal before God and the law. how are you not seeing this??

I think you don't get it.

Does a lady have the right to tell you "STOP" during sex? I think she does. Would it affect you in some way? Pretty much. And stopping immediately might also be difficult, since you're human after all, and not a robot. Can we say she's being unfair to you? Well, it depends on her REASON.

If the reason is important and has got to do with either her physical or mental well-being, you would try to understand, even though it spoiled the mood for you. You shouldn't care about your pleasure alone. Her well-being is more important.

If she did it just because she can, or for some petty reason without caring about your feelings, then yes, she's unfair, and based on whatever relationship that you two might have, and your expectations towards one another, you would be justified to be angry and find her disgusting. Detesting her for this isn't bad. But remember that even though she's being a bastard, a selfish piece of shiit, it's still her right, since it's her body. So, do you think you actually have the right to continue against her wish because you don't want her to treat you like some shitty toy that she can play around with the way she wants? I don't think so. She's an ashole, yeah, and the best you can do is delete her from your life.

If you lent a friend your car to go somewhere, and while he was on his way, enjoying the vehicle, you called and told him to give back your car immediately for no cogent reason than to exercise your power, does he have the right to say "NO"? Of course not. But he would have the right to call you a disgusting person and delete you from his life.