nPeace
Veteran Member
Why are you refusing to answer my question?Yes.
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are you refusing to answer my question?Yes.
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
I answered your question. I answered it clearly and directly.Why are you refusing to answer my question?
Not feminism, elementary moral reasoning.Just as I thought Feminism It's about the woman The man is of no account.
755 times.Yes.
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
What facts shall I take a gander at?You seem to have much to say about others, but really caring to take the time to look at the facts, helps alleviate the judgmental mentality.
Oh. Sorry. I didn't realize you said yes to that.I answered your question. I answered it clearly and directly.
You asked "
During sex, the guy says, "Stop."
The girl continues. Is she guilty of rape?"
I answered "Yes".
If you were referring to this question:
"Really? You don't seriously believe that. Do you?"
The answer is Yes. Yes really. Really Yes. I do seriously believe that.
I think I have been more than clear. I think I have answered your question clearly.
Actually, I don't know if you have ever tickled your children.You seem to have a serious mental block that prevents you from understanding what is really a very simple concept.
If someone says stop, stop.
The facts which show that there are courts in place to prevent frivolous cries of alleged rape.What facts shall I take a gander at?
I had no idea that is where you were going with that.Actually, I don't know if you have ever tickled your children.
Did they ever tell you stop? Did you?
When you stopped, did they want you to continue?
Yeah. I know. Staring at one side of a coin does that to one.I had no idea that is where you were going with that.
Say what? You're joking right?But if you are tickling a child and they say stop, stop. If you don't stop it is child abuse.
No, I am not joking. But I knew you would not understand.Say what? You're joking right?
I do understand.No, I am not joking. But I knew you would not understand.
Marriage doesn't make rape - i.e. nonconsensual sex - okay, regardless of these disgusting court rulings (no doubt tainted by religious superstition). In some countries, the legal system punishes rape victims for "adultery". However, the corrupt legal systems of primitive societies do not justify such heinous and unjust acts.Oh. Sorry. I didn't realize you said yes to that.
Obviously that is your opinion.
I would like to see you win that case in court.
There are no one sided coins that I am aware of.
You seem to be staring at one side of the coin, and saying that's the whole coin. Flip it, and the other side shows up.
Actually, I don't know if you have ever tickled your children.
Did they ever tell you stop? Did you?
When you stopped, did they want you to continue?
So, I ask again. Did you mean like this...
STOP! STOP!
I'm putting the words to the picture, in case you didn't notice.
View attachment 77706Woman tells trial she was in shock during alleged rape
A woman has described how she felt paralysed and her "body and mind went into autopilot" as she was allegedly raped and sexually assaulted by five men.www.rte.ie
Would you like to judge this case?
The facts which show that there are courts in place to prevent frivolous cries of alleged rape.
Try these.
sexual assault case was tossed because the woman didn’t scream during alleged attack
The woman told authorities that the man threatened to not provide her with work if she did not submit to sexual acts, according to the BBC, which cited a report by an Italian newspaper.
The woman said that, perhaps, she should have been more forceful, but “with people who are too strong, I just freeze,” she said, according to the BBC.
Once penetration has occurred with the female's consent, if the female changes her mind does force from that point (where she changes her mind) constitute rape?
These cases point out that the presence or absence of consent at the moment of initial penetration appears to be the crucial point in the crime of rape. For example, if at the moment of penetration the victim has not consented, no amount of consent given thereafter will prevent the act from being a rape. Also, a victim may give consent during preparatory acts all the way up to the moment of penetration, but the victim may withdraw that consent immediately before penetration and if communicated to the perpetrator, the act of intercourse that follows will be a rape no matter how much consent was given prior to penetration. It follows that if consent is given at the moment of penetration, that act of intercourse will be shielded from being a rape even if consent is later withdrawn during the act.
California case law and statutory law also seem to focus on the moment of penetration as the crucial moment of the crime of rape.
Here is an interesting case.
WHILE ruling that a husband was cruel for forcing his wife to have sex against her will on numerous occasions, a Supreme Court justice has found that “there is no rape in marriage” under Bahamian law.
Wife... Married fifteen years and feeling like a rape victim throughout the marriage.
Husband... waited until marriage to have sex out of respect for his wife, but during the union his sexual needs “were not being met” due to his wife’s job obligations. He said it is his belief that a “wife’s obligation is to have sex with her husband.”
Of course, they're humans who are fallible and subseptible to corruption. Laws that are irrational and unjustified indeed need to change. Again trash laws made by trash legislators, or trash rulings made by trash judges, do not make rape acceptable. Also, yes, rape apologists lack empathy and humanity, and therefore are indeed sick sociopaths.Of course, you may think many lawmakers are "sick sociopath", and many laws need to change.
But there is no ambiguity when it comes to rape. If someone's penis is in your body and you don't want it in you, that's rape. Period. If someone says no, you don't insert your penis. If someone said yes, but then wants to stop, you pull it out. It's that simple. It doesn't matter that the silly laws of primitive religions or cultures might say otherwise, the civilized world is better than that.The thing is, it's not as easy as saying black is black, and white is white, and lawmakers are aware of this.
It's her body. It doesn't matter why she said stop. If he defies her wishes, then it's clearly rape.One girl told the guy she was having sex with, "Stop". Why. She thought one of her parents had come home.
The guy didn't stop. Crying rape isn't going to save her bacon.
Nor will any of that kind of baloney stand up in court.
In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.It's her body. It doesn't matter why she said stop. If he defies her wishes, then it's clearly rape.
I didn't refer to human decency as baloney.Calling human decency "boloney" is an example of religious superstition overriding reason and compassion.
There you go judging again.No means no. Stop means stop. Period.
You can't just magic away people's bodily autonomy with the wave of a crucifix.
Why are you so adamant about defending rapists anyway? Did you or someone close to you do something?
What a disgustingly abusive and toxic notion. No, that doesn't justify violating a person's bodily autonomy.In marriage... The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.
You disagree with this?
You referred to holding rapists accountable as "baloney", faulting instead the victim, which of course is an attack on human decency.I didn't refer to human decency as baloney.
I know you can read. Right?
Of course I judge those who would victimize the innocent, along with their enablers; I have a sense of justice and morality (one far superior to religious superstition I might add.)There you go judging again.
False accusations happen and are inexcusable, yes. But what does that have to do with actual occurrences of rape? Stay on topic.With such a mentality, and you as magistrate, I can see prisons full of men who had casual sex with someone who agreed. Of course, I don't support sexual immorality, but there are men and women out there, who get involved in casual sex... Not rape, in all cases. Then the cry of rape is used as a trump card to get at an individual... for one reason, or other. It happens, doesn't it?
I thought so.What a disgustingly abusive and toxic notion. No, that doesn't justify violating a person's bodily autonomy.
Quote me on that.You referred to holding rapists accountable as "baloney", faulting instead the victim, which of course is an attack on human decency.
Using language like the 'F bomb', and other behaviors isn't considered moral, even by many non-believers.Of course I judge those who would victimize the innocent, along with their enablers; I have a sense of justice and morality (one far superior to religious superstition I might add.)
I'm on topic. You haven't actually described an actual occurrence of rape. You gave your opinion, on what you consider rape.False accusations happen and are inexcusable, yes. But what does that have to do with actual occurrences of rape? Stay on topic.
Sure. Just say no... and if the person tries to put it in, scream rape, or just scream your lungs out.Nobody is obligated to allow a penis to penetrate them, nor remain inside of them, against their will.
Which of Christ's beatitudes greenlighted rape?I thought so.
Your user name doesn't suggest believer, and follower of Christ.
I'm not surprised you disregard what the Bible says for Christians.
The concept of profanity is arbitrary nonsense.Using language like the 'F bomb', and other behaviors isn't considered moral, even by many non-believers.
Using language like the 'F bomb', and other behaviors isn't considered moral, even by many non-believers.
It's consistent with witch trials and then the inevitable execution of being burned to death. Because Jesus loves us. No wonder I find little of value in the Abrahamic religions.What I'm reading is that if a person says no, another person can disregard that and do whatever they please. The standard isn't morality or rights, but whether it will hold up in court.
I'm not familiar with that version of Christian morality that seems to support spousal rape and child abuse.
I don't believe that Christ would have sanctioned this.
Jesus was a Jew. He knew the law. He knows what rape is, and how it was determined.Which of Christ's beatitudes greenlighted rape?
I'm not surprised you feel that way, considering what you have shown... but...The concept of profanity is arbitrary nonsense.
Spousal rape? What's that?So using the F-bomb is immoral, but denying that spousal rape is even a thing is fine?
We all have to evaluate and choose things for ourselves. That's life.I'm glad I don't follow that kind of "morality." It seems to me focused on superficial appearances over actual substance and well-being of people.