Someone please define rape to me

i really love it when people have such a ridiculous view of "feminazis" that they try and get them to say absurd things in order to conform to their preconceptions by taking any logical argument they make to ridiculous extremes (seriously, you're new here?, okay.)

while lying to get somebody into bed is morally repugnant, fucked up, sick and just generally makes you a **** (i'm assuming we're in agreement on that) it is still legally permissable on the grounds that, although information was withheld, the nature of the information being withheld does not endanger the person physically, or in a way which justifies state interference.

 

To most people it's basic ethics and a sickening crime, not rape. To moron feminists, it for some reason is rape.

Throughout this thread, you're IQ has been dropping quit steadily. The quotes above rest my case^. "because a court said it, it must be true!" Sqeualed the pig.

 

lol Oh, the irony.

 

A woman who lies and says she was raped is a bitch, a psycho, a ****. Not a feminist.

No one who wants to be taken seriously is going to agree that someone can change their mind after consentual sex and relabel it rape. I feel like you're pulling the entire premise out of your ass. No offense.

 

Has anyone here remotely suggested that was acceptable? I must've missed that (aside from perhaps the Hoze Whipper's mention of it as an example of his twisted logic earlier)

 

Did you just say that incidents where girls have consentual sex and for example regret it later due to peer pressure etc and claim rape doesn't happen? Did you seriously just say that some girls don't use false rape claims to their advantage? Dman, that post gave me cancer.

Never said it was acceptable, however lot's of feminists believe thats the case, as mentioned in the video I posted earlier. I posted this thread to see if that was true.

 

if i might offer a viewpoint here...

I think the reason (or one of the reasons) GB is becoming frustrated is because you keep flitting backwards and forwards in terms of what the definition of "rape" you want people to provide you is, for example, you write:

implying that you reject the notion of the/a legal definition of rape, and want one which does not necessarily conform to the state's idea (which is a perfectly valid desire, after all, the laws of the state often- and in this case especially- have their hands tied by practical, economic or societal concerns) and that really what you want is more of a subjective, personal definition. and yet when one appears to be on the horizon, you write things like:

which implies that you REJECT subjective, personal definitions of rape if they fail to meet the standards set by the state. (standards whose validity you have previously denied.)

the thing is, i don't think you want a definition of rape at all (you've rejected all offers so far)

i suspect that, in reality, your intention is to flit back and forth between these two positions until people that disagree with you become incredibly frustrated. it would certainly be the inference i draw from this line:

and their frustrations will be claimed as being evidence for your pre-existing views on how feminists all behave, much like poking a dog with a stick and then claiming that as evidence that all dogs are therefore angry and violent, whereas all that it really proves is that some dogs don't react well to being poked with sticks. but this dull excersize is useful for shoring up your preconceptions of feminism and what it stands for:

which only betrays your innocence, firstly becuase this man-hating feminist stereotype is pretty alien to anybody whose ever met/been involved in feminist activism or read any of the literature and theory behind it, secondly because feminism is such a broad church, spanning over a hundred years and several waves, each containing a huge variety of theories and schools, many of which disagree with each other profoundly. essentially, you appear to have an (incorrect) concrete definition of what feminism is, when in fact feminism is more of an umbrella term which encompasses a lot of critical debate. much like marxism, or anarchism, there's a lot of complexity, so, question your cartoon. you may disagree with some schools of feminism, so do i. you may also find you agree with a few of them.

but maybe i'm just being cynical and unfair, the thing is, there's been a recent spate of users turning up, offering ridiculous straw men of "what feminists think" trying to piss people off (succesfully) then leaving or getting banned, no doubt to go off to some other corner of the net with their "haw haw, look what all feminists think" etc. it gets tiresome. forgive my impatience.

 

Uh.

That seems to be the entire premise of the thread. The op suggested that these elusive feminists seem to think it's acceptable. I was replying to the first post in the thread.

I never said this doesn't happen. I said it happens to psychotic women. You want to turn this into an argument against feminism and I don't really see how the two are related.

 

no, they didn't say that. re read the post.

 

Which, of course, is impossible, because "rape" itself is a legal term defined by the state. That's why he's not going to get anything other than a definition for it as it's applied in courts and the legal system, because the very term itself is a product of legislation that lays out the boundaries of what is or is not rape.

Given that, he's not free to ignore or eschew the meaning of the word as it exists in the legal system in favor of his own definition of it. This is why it's pointless to "debate" the issue with him, and I've put him on my ignore list. As I said as soon as he began posting, he's nothing more than a common troll.

 

yEA, WELL IT HAS GONE OFF TOPIC. I think we can agree on that though...

I just wanted to hear the feminist opinion on rape.

 

lol. I will reply to this post tomorrow. I'm going to bed now (night shift).

And rest assured, I ain't a troll. Seems blondie couldn't handle it and ignored me lol. I will be here for a long time.

 

zacktly, we've given the legal definition, we've provided the logical/ethical underpinning to the legal definition which already exists. not much more to say, really.

 

So if a legal jurisdiction had no provisions on rape, is forcing myself on a girl still rape? Miss blonde seems to follow the state like a sheep