No means no and yes may not mean yes.

Women in general are not held accountable for the consequences of their actions and choices like men are.

 

how are double standards concerning enforcement of rape standards in a rape thread, "off topic"

just because you don't like your ideals challenged and can't refute any of my assertions (with linked studies), doesn't mean you can just tell me to "start another thread (that I can ignore because I can't answer them in here)"

 

The topic we were discussing was the equal treatment under law of rape, not unequal sentencing, and as shown as far as the law is concerned rape is rape regardless of the gender, sentencing is not the realm of the law itself, that is up to the courts, whether those courts are giving equal sentences has nothing to do with the law concerning rape.

what ideals, I bloody well agree with you as far as sentencing is concerned . .are you so intent on making an argument where there is none that you ignore the fact I have consistently stated that no matter the gender sentences should be the same for the same crimes.

Here let me make it plain an easy to read for you;

If a man is sentenced to ten years for raping a woman then a woman should be sentenced to ten years for raping a man

I have no intention of refuting your assertions on SENTENCING, what I have proven is that legally rape is rape REGARDLESS of the gender of the rapist, which has nothing to do with the inequality of the sentences the courts give.

 

I have said, on paper, you are absolutely correct.... but blacks, on paper, had the same rights as whites. How well did that work out?

and when I said it was a nice theory, that it was equally applied, you got upset.

SHOULD BE..... exactly.... but it isn't. You can't separate arrests from the entire process simply because that's the point your argument that every thing equal falls apart.

when a black man is sentanced to 10 years and white is sentenced to 5 for the same crime, all we hear from the left is how it's unjust. Why does that stop applying now and you quit caring? Is it because you get the long end of that stick for once and feel it's payback?

 

all of the above is a problem with the courts and not with the law, so no my argument does not "fall apart", the fact remains and one you cannot dispute, that as far as the law is concerned the race or gender of the criminal has no bearing.

This topic from it's onset has been about the assumed differentiation concerning the law, not what sentences courts impose. Murder is murder whether you are black, white or any other colour just as rape is rape regardless of gender. How the courts decide on the punishment for the crime is irrelevant to what the law says that crime is .. a man who rapes a woman and gets 10 years is still a rapist, just as a woman who rapes a man and gets five years is still a rapist. The law defining what rape is does not differentiate based on gender.

there is no fault in the legal definition of rape, the fault lies in the way the courts differentiate on sentencing due to gender or race, and yes it is unjust that a black man will sentenced to 10 years while a white man will only get 5 years for the same crime, just as it would be unjust if the sentences were reversed .. that however is still irrelevant to what the law states as their crime.

so if you want to talk about sentencing it will be a very short conversation as I would tend to agree with you .. I do not agree however that the law itself is at fault, because plainly it is not.

 

A black who steals, gets 20 years, a white gets 5 years....no problem there either, huh?

 

not sure what you are implying here, but yes that is a problem, just as it would be as problem were it the other way round .. however it is not the fault of the law that defines theft, it is the fault of the courts when sentencing.

Of course not all thefts are the same, is stealing an apple equivalent to stealing $1 million.

 

I agree.... but if you stop looking where the law defines, and ignore how it's enforced, you are only looking at half the picture. Half the picture allowed blacks to be prevented from voting, despite it being equal on paper.

 

I always came on hard and stopped with the slightest resistance. (married now)

Never had any problem with that.

 

What if they were both drunk?

 

That was the whole premise of the OP, that the law somehow was different depending on gender, which it is not.

 

It isn't rape.

Being drunk is neither a defence or alibi for rape. In the instance you have cited I find the actions of the university to be wrong, as it is plain to see from the supplied evidence that both parties instigated sex, neither party IMO was "taking the lead" or attempting to coerce the other. But in the end that is only my opinion.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11

do you just base your explanations on what you think it should be..... here, a law professor says a guy can get charged and convicted of rape, even if he was drunk, too.

morally and Ethically, yes, the university was wrong in the case that you were addressing, but legally, it's rape.


girl drunk, guy drunk..... regret in the morning.... guy is a rapist..... according to the law professor I cited.

 

I suggest you read your own links more thoroughly

A guy can get convicted of rape if he's too drunk to realize a woman is saying no — even if he remembers nothing of the assault or thought the sex was consensual. (And yes, a woman could be convicted of rape in similar circumstances, though the cases are rare.)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11#ixzz3iDmHmTUU


Ergo this is not in the realms of what is being discussed, this deals with a man who is so drunk he does not realise that the female is saying no or simply does not remember the "assault" or thought that the sex was consensual, in this case the onus is on the male to ensure that consent has been given, being drunk is not a excuse or defence - where it is mentioned -

The situation gets more complicated if both parties are conscious and drunk.... The law is currently evolving to determine whether a conscious woman who's incredibly drunk is capable of giving consent, Coughlin, the UVA professor, told me. What happens if a guy says he was too intoxicated to consent to sex? For now, this is mostly a theoretical question that has yet to be answered.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/can-you-get-convicted-of-rape-if-you-were-drunk-2013-11#ixzz3iDmjwHHS


It can be seen that there has not been a case where this question can be addressed and (hopefully) answered.

 

so, if a guy is drunk, and a girl is drunk, they have sex and both regret it the next day, the woman is the victim, and the man is the rapist. got it

 

Try actually reading what people write instead of what you want to see.

You can form any assumption you wish, my comments allude to nothing like what you are asserting ie they are a misrepresentation.

 

you are representing the side that says, "on paper, it's equal, no further investigation into application of law is needed"


how well did that work out for blacks, who, on paper, were equal citizens to whites in the 20s? not very....

 

no I am supplying you with the facts of the matter, the problem is not with the law, the problem is with the people who dispense the justice ergo it is not the law that needs to be changed, it is the attitudes of those who dispense the justice that need to change. So in reality I am not, nor have I ever said that the application of the law requires no further investigation ... however, that would be off topic for this thread.

Throughout this topic and our exchanges you have gone out of your way to argue with me on things I actually agree with you on, this simply says to me that you have no real interest in the issues at all and are merely looking for a "fight".

The simply fact is that the law in itself does not discriminate based on gender, race or anything else, where there is discrimination is in sentencing and that certainly needs to be addressed, and as I have said before IF there were a topic on sentencing my exchange with you would be a very short one because I agree with you that sentencing is not equal between genders for the same crimes committed and that is wrong.

now as far as I am concerned and as this topic is concerned we are finished, if you want to start a thread on the inequality of sentencing between men and women for the same crimes, and can keep it from being nothing more than an attack on feminism as a whole then no doubt I will 'like' your comment and probably post agreeing with you.

 

you are trying to seperate the entire process when it quits working. What good is equality on paper (law) if it's not enforced?

Yes, on paper, women can get charged for rape, and go to prison for date rape...... truth is, when I was date-raped, I was told it was because I was an alcoholic and shouldn't have initiated sex with a girl I didn't like when I was sober. Of course, if someone DARES to suggest a woman not get drunk and initiate sex (because she's not capable of making a decision in that state of mind), it's victim shaming and the guy is a rapist.

 

Funny how that equality thing works

 

take it up with the courts, there is nothing wrong or discriminating in the law itself.

and who told you that, a lawyer, the police, a court or was it some people in a forum?

As I recall from the very first time you mentioned this I have consistently said you were raped . .so yet again you are just trying to force an argument.

 

already been through this so I am not going to keep going round in circles .. I believe you are now just seeking an argument for the sake of arguing.

 

no, this flies in the face of your "it's all equal, girls can rape guys, too" on paper, it is equal, but when posters like this are propagated at every university in the nation, it sort of tells a different story that when everything is equal, drunk girls are still victims and drunk guys are rapists.

 

Then address the universities that do this, along with the courts who do not uphold the letter of the law .. none of which has any bearing on the reality that the law itself is not biased or discriminating.

As already posted - "The situation gets more complicated if both parties are conscious and drunk.... The law is currently evolving to determine whether a conscious woman who's incredibly drunk is capable of giving consent, Coughlin, the UVA professor, told me. What happens if a guy says he was too intoxicated to consent to sex? For now, this is mostly a theoretical question that has yet to be answered."

 

"let someone else make sure it's enforced equally" is why blacks couldn't vote in the 20s, despite the law saying they could.


as long as it doesn't affect you, its "meh, let them figure it out"


that's a great attitude to have until your son's g/f and him go out to a bar one night with friends, they both get drunk and have consentual sex, but she gets upset the next day at him texting another girl, and she breaks up with him, and then claims "I was drunk and he had sex with me"


Now, Fugazi, Jr is a rapist and you will all of a sudden realize why it's important to make reality = what the law says.


it's the women's movement, and political correctness taking hold on universities. Florida state has been drug through the ringer because they dared to question the validity of a rape complaint by a coed. I guess due process only applies for rape victims, not those accused of rapes.