It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: CharlestonChew
possibly, then good old Roosh tells them it's ok, I done it, you should do it too
been reading this too, but really, he has been all over twitter lately shouting satire ! satire !
I have looked at his forum, and it is full of these "satirists"
He is being hounded out of countless towns, and his response is ......only joking, didn't mean it !
not buying it
ehm...yes they are
and to argue that rape can be made legal in a private residence sends out what message exactly to predatory rapists ?
Without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn’t know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him. Consent is now achieved when she passes underneath the room’s door frame, because she knows that that man can legally do anything he wants to her when it comes to sex. Bad encounters are sure to occur, but these can be learning experiences for the poorly trained woman so she can better identify in the future the type of good man who will treat her like the delicate flower that she believes she is. After only one such sour experience, she will actually want to get fully acquainted with a man for longer than two hours—perhaps even demanding to meet his parents—instead of letting a beer chug prevent her from making the correct decisions to protect her body.
The benefits of eradicating rape laws would extend to honest men who unfortunately now live in fear over imprisonment in the case the girl they had sex with had a blood alcohol level of 0.04 instead of 0.05 or some other arbitrary, untested, and made-up value that may imply consent was not fully achieved. There is no more having to guess the interpretation of a woman’s mixed signals or to artificially amp up her base emotions with clownish banter. Because women will never enter a man’s apartment without accepting that sex will happen, he can escort her to his bedroom and romantically consummate a relationship after it was certain he proved himself to be a good and decent man the woman fully trusted. My proposal eliminates anxiety and unfair persecution for men while empowering women to make adult decisions about their bodies.
He isn't advocating rape. He is advocating to end rape laws. His reasoning does make some sense.
Well yes, I imagine he would prefer UK or European law.
But there again, a rich tycoon from Saudi Arabia was recently cleared of rape here, successfully using the old "I fell over with my bits hanging out, that must have been how the unconsenting and repeated penetration, WHICH WOKE THE VICTIM FROM HER DRINK INDUCED SLUMBER, actually occurred!" defence.
The law is a moron, but it is not a moron because it convicts too many rapists. It is an ass and a moron because it fails to do so, far too often, and especially when money is involved.
Remarkably few assailants are punished: with estimated U.S. state conviction rates of two to nine percent of total rapes (Kim 2012, 264), “ninety-four to ninety-eight percent of total rapists and approximately eighty-four percent of reported rapists go free” (Kim 2012, 272).
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CharlestonChew
The issue is not separate in the least.
If that can happen at any level, something has gone horribly wrong with the law, and it must be strengthened.
The "benefits" of "eradicating rape law" are non-existent. Eradicating rape law would mean that there would be no law of any kind on the subject. That is what it means. It does not mean altering, changing, or improving the rape laws, it means removing them and destroying them entirely, all of them, everywhere. He is a moron.
Not only would eradicating the rape laws leave vulnerable people exposed to serious and repeated harm,
but altering them to include his ridiculous "My lair, my rules" amendment would be giving carte Blanche to some seriously damaged individuals, to do some utterly reprehensible and psychologically scarring things to women.
Frankly, the slightest appeasement of this woman haters prattle
is sign of nothing more than the collapse of manhood, the destruction of the concept of gentlemanly conduct, not by militant feminism, but by the hand of biological males, who do not understand what being a man means, what it looks like, or what it feels like to be one.
The issue I was attempting to highlight by citing that report is how there are many shades of grey and many layers involved in the crime of rape. It can never be as simple as ...well she came up to my apartment, she knew how the evening was going to end, it doesn't matter that I beat her around a little bit, she showed me consent as she kissed me earlier that night and she likes it rough.
originally posted by: CharlestonChew
Unless the laws cause more harm than they attempt to solve, as is the case with many laws.
The law does not protect "vulnerable people" from harm. Quite the contrary, a law is a statement proclaiming "AFTER you do X, Y will happen."
A law is intended to be remedial after the fact.
It's interesting how so many people fall prey to criminals even with all those laws in place protecting them.
I would simply not go to the lair of people that I did not trust.
Are you claiming that you would do "some utterly reprehensible and psychologically scarring things to women"? No? Because you can build relationships on trust, correct?
That shady guy that you meet at a bar...don't go to his lair.
What does being male or female have to do with it? I thought that there is no difference between the brains of men and women?