[Samseau]

Okay guys, you're now on the hook for any sexual act whatsoever.

Quote:

According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Before, you at least had to fuck a girl with your dick to get a rape sentence.


Now, you just put your finger somewhere close to her crotch, and face federal rape charges. Hope you like jail.

[Moma]

(12-08-2011 12:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Okay guys, you're now on the hook for any sexual act whatsoever.

Quote:

According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Before, you at least had to fuck a girl with your dick to get a rape sentence.


Now, you just put your finger somewhere close to her crotch, and face federal rape charges. Hope you like jail.

I hope that works in reverse to. So if a lizard's tongue passes near one's anus without consent, she should face equally severe charges.

[Basil Ransom]

Quote:

An agency panel voted on Tuesday to change the narrow definition that’s currently in use: “Carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

The new definition, which will more closely match the ones that police departments around the country already use, will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.

Are they removing "forcibly" but not "against her will?" If she says "no" while actively gesturing you to continue and advance, that's rape?

I see a couple reasons why these changes came about:

1. If you argue against them, you are defending rape. In fact, you're probably a rapist yourself.
2. Among liberals, there are so few things left that are still seen as evil, so they redouble their outrage against those few remaining evils. Murderers, robbers, drug dealers are all the object of the liberal's mercy, their offenses explained away. Only rapists and pedophiles are still identified as evil.

[Vitriol]

The feds generally only prosecute things like drug trafficking and white collar crime, so I wouldn't get too hysterical about this. Normal rape cases are almost never in federal court. If the states start following suit with this definition, then I would get worried.

Also keep in mind that federal courts are the minimum standard for procedural rights in the criminal context. All the states have at least a little bit more protection.


On a related note, the more disturbing trend is the fact that over the course of the past couple of decades, the American criminal justice system has been really big on trying to criminalize as many things as possible and create harsh mandatory minimum sentences for most offenses. It's getting to the point where you're only one screw up away from being fucked for life.

basilransom Wrote:

2. Among liberals, there are so few things left that are still seen as evil, so they redouble their outrage against those few remaining evils. Murderers, robbers, drug dealers are all the object of the liberal's mercy, their offenses explained away. Only rapists and pedophiles are still identified as evil.

I don't totally agree with this. The general trend in American politics is to be harsher on crime, regardless of where the individual is on the political spectrum. Look at the 2 most recent supreme court nominations, both of these females are "liberal" in every area except giving criminal defendants more rights.

[speakeasy]

Most rapes in America are not violent or forcible. If you look up the stats, the majority of the time they involve alcohol. If you fuck a girl while she's drunk, she can claim rape the next day.

[BackToBasics]

(12-08-2011 12:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Okay guys, you're now on the hook for any sexual act whatsoever.

Quote:

According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Before, you at least had to fuck a girl with your dick to get a rape sentence.


Now, you just put your finger somewhere close to her crotch, and face federal rape charges. Hope you like jail.

Samseau, aren't you from the Boston area? Ironically enough, this is actually a weaker form of the Massachusetts law. Anybody unwillingly putting ANY body part into ANY oriface is legally rape in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

After being counseled on this in college, we made a game out of who could rape each other the best. Usually it manifested itself as bros giving bros wet willies in public, but a few females also though it was hilarious and got in on the action. Comedically shaming the victim about how you publically disgraced them infront of all their friends, and no one came to help them, was also pretty standard.

...and so that's my story about how I led a cabal of serial sex offenders in college and got away with it.

[azulsombra]

(12-08-2011 03:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Most rapes in America are not violent or forcible. If you look up the stats, the majority of the time they involve alcohol. If you fuck a girl while she's drunk, she can claim rape the next day.

She doesn't even have to be drunk, she could've only had a glass of wine with dinner.

[Screwston]

(12-08-2011 03:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Most rapes in America are not violent or forcible. If you look up the stats, the majority of the time they involve alcohol. If you fuck a girl while she's drunk, she can claim rape the next day.

Its really scary when you think about it. I've had a few girls threaten to press charges after I hit it and quit it.

[Timoteo]

I remember some years ago as a joke a "consentual sex contract" or something of that nature was getting emailed around (I probably have a copy buried somewhere). You'd have to have a chick initial and sign off on any number of sex acts before-hand guaranteeing consent, so she couldn't charge you with any form of rape or perversion after the fact. It's not funny anymore - we might have to start carrying copies of that shit around with us and have tricks handcock it before we get busy.

[Smitty]

From the article:

Quote:

“It’s a great victory,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority Foundation, which launched the campaign.

Doesn't surprise me. I've seen firsthand the past three years the impact the feminist groups are having on government policy.

[Basil Ransom]

(12-08-2011 03:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

If you fuck a girl while she's drunk, she can claim rape the next day.

Doesn't getting drunk yourself limit your liability? I always remembered hearing in college that sex with a drunk girl is not OK, unless you're drunk too.

[Timoteo]

Women love to stand up and celebrate things like this, but all they've really done is make their own lives more miserable and complicated. It just makes men more wary of women and their motivations. All they've done is make themselves lonelier. It's more likely to make us tape our sexual encounters (for protection), and show our boys later. It's more likely to drive guys to spend their money on call-girl/hookers, instead of dinners/drinks, because a paid pro won't cry rape. Let them remember this moment, when they have to spread peanut butter on their pussies so their dog can eat them out, instead of a boyfriend.

[Samseau]

(12-08-2011 03:30 PM)BackToBasics Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 12:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Okay guys, you're now on the hook for any sexual act whatsoever.

Quote:

According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Before, you at least had to fuck a girl with your dick to get a rape sentence.


Now, you just put your finger somewhere close to her crotch, and face federal rape charges. Hope you like jail.

Samseau, aren't you from the Boston area? Ironically enough, this is actually a weaker form of the Massachusetts law. Anybody unwillingly putting ANY body part into ANY oriface is legally rape in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

After being counseled on this in college, we made a game out of who could rape each other the best. Usually it manifested itself as bros giving bros wet willies in public, but a few females also though it was hilarious and got in on the action. Comedically shaming the victim about how you publically disgraced them infront of all their friends, and no one came to help them, was also pretty standard.

...and so that's my story about how I led a cabal of serial sex offenders in college and got away with it.

At least before you could have appeal a bullshit rape case in Mass at the Federal level.

Now you're just fucked. Need to get out of America.

[MikeCF]

The problem with the definition is NOT that the FBI is going to prosecute rape cases. The only rape cases at the federal level are on Indian reservations.

The problem is with statistics gathering.

All those bullshit stats saying 25% of women have been raped will now say 50% of women have been raped.

Thus, rape can be made out to an even scarier boogey man.

Which means more funding for "rape tasks forces," and stricter and more easily obtainable punishment at the college level.

The definitions change will have huge implications for how rape is handled at every level of the criminal justice and civil-college administrative systems.

[Smitty]

(12-08-2011 07:44 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

The only rape cases at the federal level are on Indian reservations.

If a rape occurs on federal property it is subject to federal law. A rape in DC is subject to federal law. A rape on a military installation is subject to both federal and state law.

[Pusscrook]

Jesus , it's not just rape. If a whore decides to convince the authorities that you have instilled fear in her , it's still an ordeal for you. You don't have to touch the whore to be put thru the ringer. When you decide to service these whores, it"s best to record before and after events, and treat them like prostitutes on the clock.

[speakeasy]

(12-08-2011 06:48 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 03:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

If you fuck a girl while she's drunk, she can claim rape the next day.

Doesn't getting drunk yourself limit your liability? I always remembered hearing in college that sex with a drunk girl is not OK, unless you're drunk too.

Nah, doesn't look like it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

"Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. In 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes.[36]"

In almost half of rape statistics, both the male and female were drinking. Only in 1/3rd of all rapes was there no alcohol involved.

I think rape may be wildly overblown and there's a lot of fear-mongering about it. It's ridiculous that a girl and guy can get drunk together and have sex and if she regrets it the next day she can scream rape and the guy at worst goes to prison and at best has sex offender on his record. I hope that's wrong. That's insane. I would think it would only be rape if she were were resisting, but it's really not that clear. If rape is having sex with any woman that's intoxicated, then I guessed I'm a rapist too.

[MiXX]

(12-08-2011 03:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Most rapes in America are not violent or forcible. If you look up the stats, the majority of the time they involve alcohol. If you fuck a girl while she's drunk, she can claim rape the next day.

If that's the case, couldn't a man claim the same thing? It would be very one-sided fir her to yell rape after drunk sex, and you could not do the same to her by claiming I was put in the situation against my will.

Sure, it's all bullshit, but so is her rape accusation I'm certain!



Mixx

[MikeCF]

(12-08-2011 07:58 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:44 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

The only rape cases at the federal level are on Indian reservations.

If a rape occurs on federal property it is subject to federal law. A rape in DC is subject to federal law. A rape on a military installation is subject to both federal and state law.

But you forgot that rape across state lines is a federal offense, and that bringing a minor xcross state lines for sex is a Mann Act violation.

But you miss the point.

Point is, these regulations are not an issue, as a matter of federal law, for the regular guy. The FBI is not going to be knocking on a D.C. guy's house.

It's how these new guidelines will be impacted on the state and local level that matter.

[kosko]

I love bringing up how little "rape" actually occurs to feminists and Women Studies grads. They go bat shit insane but the stats don't lie.

This change just hammers in my theory more that Men are destined for the slaughter (If we don't collectively rise up). If it will soon be illegal to have sex with a woman without her signed consent, the state will be the only one needed for impregnation. Social media will fill Womens heads up with attention and false ego. Men will be lined up for the kill.

[MiXX]

More reason for me to plan my exit strategy as an ex-pat/sovereign man.

My 2nd passport is on its way!!!


Mixx

[Smitty]

(12-08-2011 09:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:58 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 07:44 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

The only rape cases at the federal level are on Indian reservations.

If a rape occurs on federal property it is subject to federal law. A rape in DC is subject to federal law. A rape on a military installation is subject to both federal and state law.

But you forgot that rape across state lines is a federal offense, and that bringing a minor xcross state lines for sex is a Mann Act violation.

But you miss the point.

Point is, these regulations are not an issue, as a matter of federal law, for the regular guy. The FBI is not going to be knocking on a D.C. guy's house.

It's how these new guidelines will be impacted on the state and local level that matter.

I think we're in agreement. Guidelines like this adopted at the federal level tend to set the tone for the state and local level.

[Deluge]

What's the actual percentage of women who have been raped? And if after some drunken encounter a girl called rape the next morning, just file charges for rape against her first, since legally you were intoxicated and therefore unable to consent. Haha act like you will with some feminist who didn't even call rape and see how she reacts, she'll probably say you couldn't have been raped by a woman because your a man. Double standards much?

[speakeasy]

(12-08-2011 11:26 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

What's the actual percentage of women who have been raped? And if after some drunken encounter a girl called rape the next morning, just file charges for rape against her first, since legally you were intoxicated and therefore unable to consent. Haha act like you will with some feminist who didn't even call rape and see how she reacts, she'll probably say you couldn't have been raped by a woman because your a man. Double standards much?

If rape is defined as "penetration" then that's obviously not going to work. Unless she rammed a broomstick up your bum.

[gringochileno]

Eh, I don't think it's too crazy actually. Fingering a girl against her will or forcing her to suck your dick is definitely something that should be illegal. I've always thought saying it's rape if the girl has been drinking is a little sketch though, considering that consensual drunk sex is probably responsible for a healthy percentage of the world's population existing.