~ archived since 2018 ~

Rape Definitions – Why no outcry about these?

BloggerT

February 3, 2011

23 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://female-offenders.com/Safehouse/2011/02/rape-definitions-what-about-this.html

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Rape Definitions – Why no outcry about these?
Author	BloggerT
Upvotes	23
Comments	17
Date	February 3, 2011 6:15 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/febzv/rape_definitions_why_no_outcry_about_these/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/rape-definitions-why-no-outcry-about-these.1043601 https://theredarchive.com/post/1043601

Comments

[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]conn1e 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroundhogExpert -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloggerT[S] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroundhogExpert 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]morinkenmar 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My dictionary says marriage is... between a man and a woman, but also a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.

But just to play devil's advocate, if it weren't defined that way, I'd say sure. I wouldn't have a problem with the two being named differently. However, because so many resources would be spent debating whether it was fair or not, for logistic reasons, I'd say call them both marriages or both civil unions. I don't think it should make a difference, though.

There's a lot longer history of gays being denied the pursuit of happiness. Our society has systematically rejected them. Men might get the short end of the stick on some issues now and then, but we've got it pretty good -- we haven't been continually fucked over by society for the past few generations. That's why the language concerning gay rights is such a key part of the issue.

/SF resident

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroundhogExpert 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroundhogExpert 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I did read the original article, and the article I read mostly talked about the language of the statutes that define rape as being a male perpetrator and a female victim, as though it's not illegal for a woman to rape a man. That's patently and demonstrably false. Did YOU read the article? Do you know jackshit about laws and how they work? Do you have any context in this matter?

If the victim of a crime feels compelled to remain silent, that's a separate issue. I think it's an issue that should be addressed. However, it's a social issue, not a statutory issue. If the courts don't tend to give equal weight, that's a legitimate legal issue, but again, not a statutory one.

I'm not arguing that there is equal weight given to men and women rapists. I'm just saying that the issue isn't a matter of statutes, that's just the way it is, brah. Deal with it. And you seem to be agreeing with all this tangential bullshit now. This crap where you're diverting attention from being blatantly wrong.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GroundhogExpert 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're an absolute joke. The sentence is saying that this isn't a statutory issue, and I'm telling you to get over being wrong. This is what quoting in context looks like: "I'm just saying that the issue isn't a matter of statutes, that's just the way it is, brah."

I'm not telling you to get over an injustice, I'm telling you to get past this idea that the injustice is contained in the statutes. It simply isn't. That article is cherry picking the law to make it looks like there's some systematic bias in the legal code. It's just not true. Go look up the fucking law in your state, why spend this much effort arguing from a position of ignorance? But I guess there's some quote in here you'd like to use to make me out to be a nazi-sympathizer.

I just don't see how anyone can expect progress if the attention is focused on the wrong area.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GroundhogExpert 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoatBased -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link