Someone please define rape to me

Keep thinking that, seriously. Stop playing the sexism card. Like the race card, it's very annoying and is a sign of stupidity.

Just because a court says something, doesn't mean it is true. I will believe it's true when it is thought out and reasoned.

 

This isn't rape, but I do believe it is against the law because you are endangering the person with a deadly disease.

 

Nevermind, we are talking about the wrong one.. I was talking about that Canadian girl. Those two boys are guilty...

 

Yes, it is rape. She would not have had sex with you if you had been truthful, and you had to deceive her to get her to have sex with you. Therefore the consent was not informed. Consensual sex requires an informed consent. As I said, many courts have held this to be the case. Whether you agree with that or not, it is indeed rape.

 

And how do you know this? Why would you assume that this girl would not have had sex with the guy? That's circumstantial evidence. She said yes to sex, therefore it's not rape.

 

I didn't say a so-called feminist hasn't implied/said such a thing. I meant you'd have to wait for some one, who claims to be a feminist, say it here.
I don't take people like that (in the video) that seriously - it just seems too laboured.

Have you ever been bullied? Do you know what the bullies were doing? Do you know what some people do when they have been bullied - even if they have support?

 

I'm not making any assumption other than, in the scenario give, the person claiming rape states they would not have had sex with the other person if they'd know they were infected?

Also, you clearly have no idea what the term "circumstantial evidence" means.

You would consent to sex with someone who was infected with HIV?

 

I wouldn't, but there are some messed up people in the world.

Again, if this scenario played out the guy would be charged with whatever law they have to prohibit that act, not rape.

 

Trust me, Toronto is known for it's radical feminism. Feminists last week shut down a male rights convention by pulling the fire alarm. They called it a hate event when it was just people discussing double standards and how males are being "oppressed" in society. That is tolerance... not.

This is why I don't take feminism seriously. I think there is very little need for it today. When these idiots start claiming every little thing is sexist, there's a problem. Surprisingly, you guys are quite calm and rational. so far

Wrong story!

 

Did you not see me tell you that this has indeed happened several times and the courts found it to be rape? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Whether you elect to call it a rape or not is entirely immaterial.

ETA I also notice you didn't bother to answer my question. Would you consent to having sex with someone who told you they were HIV positive? Yes or no?

 

No need to insult here miss. I'm the troll, but I'm not even the one getting worked up. Ironic eh?

I said to you that I don't give two damns what the courts say. One judge acquitted a Muslim man of assaulting an atheist for attacking his god, reason being he shouldn't have offended him. Is that right? Should I agree because a court said it?

As I said before, I want an explanation that is thought out and reasoned. Me and the other guy here already explained why it isn't rape. Informed consent is just assuming the person would have said no prior to having sex. Since when are assumptions and circumstantial evidence admissable is court?

And I already answered you. No I would not, but there are some crazy people who would. I think if you used a condom you could be safe though. Who knows.

 

What type of feminists pulled the fire alarm? Are you suggesting all feminists act like that lady in your video? I think not only Canada but America and the UK have 'radicals' - I'd say 'fundamentalists', with emphasis on the MENTAL.

It's easy to dismiss something if you gauge the whole based on the few.

Go check out a few of Cherea's threads

?

 

I'm gonna guess you don't understand the concept behind the word "informed."

Thank you. Case closed.

 

No, but these people do not give feminism a good name. Feminism is dying, and even women are beginning to see the stupidity with a lot of it. It's so ironic how some of them behave though... Preaching tolerance and equality, but then shouting and shutting down people who disagree with them?

Who is she?

I was talkign about a different story.

 

Ok, tell me what informed consent is then.

 

Informed means you're aware of all of the facts before you make a decision. If someone hides the fact that they have HIV from you before you make the decision to have sex with them, your decision is, by definition, not informed. Therefore, consent is not valid. Sex without consent = rape.

 

Ok. What you can't seem to understand is that we cannot assume the girl wouldn't have had sex with him if she knew he was HIV positive. You don't seem to understand what proof and admissible evidence is.

 

whiphoze

If you think 'feminism' is stupid - then clearly you are going to seek to find those that suffer from hyperbole. That particular lady looks like she has been reading one to many books on 'feminism'. It's good to be passionate, but not that passionate

Oh right, fair enough.

 

I think if she stands up in front of a courtroom and tells the court she would not have had sex with him if she'd known he was infected, we can indeed assume that she would not have had sex with him if she'd known he was infected.

You're arguing just for the pure sake of arguing without paying attention to context at this point, because if she didn't have a problem with having sex with him if she found out he was infected, she wouldn't even bother to bring a claim of rape forward, now would she? lol

Actually, I am 100% positive I do indeed know what both terms mean and what constitutes "proof" and "admissible" evidence.

 

if you're rejecting the standard legal definition for what rape is, how can you dismiss an argument on the basis that it doesn't meet existing legal standards?

the argument pressented so far is perfectly logically sound. sex needs consent. consent must be informed. if you make a decision without the necessary information to understand the consequences of that decision, then you are unable to give consent.

if i ask you to help rip the insulation out of my house, and you agree, but i withhold the information that the house is riddled with asbestos and you then get asbestosis with life threatening consequences, my defence of "but he agreed!" isn't gonna look so good in court, is it?

oh wait, sorry, you don't care about courts.

to a certain extent, whether or not you would have helped rip the asbestos out of my house even if you knew it was there and could/would give you severe respiratory problems is immaterial, (although you porbably wouldn't drag me to court if that was the case, as GB says)

when you agreed to rip the insulation out of my house, you agreed to rip the insulation out of a house WITHOUT asbestos

essentially, you gave consent for a situation which does not exist

as a result of my actions you did not give consent for the actual situation you found yourself in. and i had you do it without consent, knowing that you had not given it.

dyu get it?