Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IronJack
I would start that argument by saying both raped the other, but for us guys, we are the ones who cross into their bodies and leave a product that only proves we did what we did.

Sadly, we are also typically physically stronger.

The case would end with the man being guilty and the woman's guilt “not proven.”

It is kind of difficult for us to say we didn't at least have battery proven against us, if not rape.

In the end, we need to keep our privates, private and keep ourselves sober enough to be beyond reproach.

23 posted on 09/08/2014 10:32:40 AM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: ConservativeMind

Let’s stipulate that

1) Sexual congress did take place;
2) No force was used by either party;
3) The act was mutually consensual at the time.

The contradiction I’m struggling with is the fact that a woman can claim she was raped if she consents to sexual congress while in an impaired state, under the legal claim that she hadn’t sufficient presence of mind to rationally evaluate her decision. However, a man who has sex with a woman while he is in an impaired state cannot claim the same defense. He is held to be criminally liable for his actions. If the same standard were applied, either the man could defend on the grounds of inability to form criminal intent, or the woman would be held equally liable for the act, since she consented. In either case, a charge of rape would not survive the defense.


24 posted on 09/08/2014 11:12:37 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson