Boy gang-raped by 10 women:

I have a strong suspicion that these women were HIV/AIDS infected for a couple of reasons.

1. If they weren't HIV/AIDS infected, the act of unprotected intercourse with a stranger of the opposite gender is a sure-fire way to get it in a country that is rife with the disease.

2. It may be one of the few ways a women with HIV/AIDS is able to get sexual intercourse if she is known within her own village to be infected.

On the bright side for this guy, if you can put it that way, it's much harder for a male to contract HIV/AIDS from a woman than it is for woman to contract it from a man. There would have to be blood involved and the male would have to have tiny scratches on his penis.

I hope this kid has nothing more than a soothing salve can fix!

IRM

As to why these women gang-raped this young man, I would simply ask myself this: Why do men gang-rape women? Ultimately, I think the answers are likely to be similar.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
We are not saying its right for men to rape women. We are saying that it is not possible for a woman to have sexual intercourse with a man and call it rape.

Physically impossible.

Are you serious ?

A man can get an erection from physical stimulation, regardless of whether he's aroused or not.

Bearing in mind that men get unwanted erections when we are not even thinking about sex. Not to mention ''morning glory'' which doesn't really have much to do with sexual arousal.


An atrocity carried out in some war-zones, is where a man is forced to rape other family members or be killed. Are you saying that these men were ''aroused'' when they were forced into this ?

Always found male rape cases intriguing. It's difficult to believe he disliked what was happening considering he was able to get aroused to engage in sexual intercourse. If I was not in the mood to get it on with some crazed knife waving chickas, I assure you, I would Not be able to get into the mood...

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Your logic is flawed.

Your logic would be correct if and only if men and women are identical. As they are not your comments cannot be followed to a logical conclusion.

Men and women are wired differently, especially when approaching sex. This is a primary issue as it appears there are a lot of women that just can't understand this simple fact.

Korg.

No, the logic is sound.

I am comparing like for like.

Your problem here is that you are treating rape as a sexual act, rather than the violent and psychological crime that it is.

Men and women may be wired differently when it comes to sex, but rape is largely about power, dominance and degrading the victim.


What if this boy is gay ? Do you think he'd enjoy being gang-raped by four women ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

No, the logic is sound.

I am comparing like for like.

No trust me.. men and women are not like for like.

I'm shocked that you cannot make the distinction.

I would agree with the last part of your statement though but shhhh we're not aloud to mention the g word....



Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
No trust me.. men and women are not like for like.

I'm shocked that you cannot make the distinction.

I can easily make the distinction.

They are like for like in terms of rape and sexual violence.


Would you say that it's not as bad for a post-pubescent boy to be a victim of child sex abuse, because he has male urges ?

After all, he's bound to enjoy it, isn't he ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
No trust me.. men and women are not like for like.

I'm shocked that you cannot make the distinction.

I can easily make the distinction.

They are like for like in terms of rape and sexual violence.


Would you say that it's not as bad for a post-pubescent boy to be a victim of child sex abuse, because he has male urges ?

After all, he's bound to enjoy it, isn't he ?

No you misunderstand; I'm not advocating rape, far from it. I think it is an evil act. Anyone that can force anyone else to do something they don't want for personal gain is Evil.

What I'm stating is that it's not possible for a man to have sexual intercourse with four women and it be considered rape. If they had violated him in any other way then it could be sexual assault granted but not rape.

There are only two ways it could be considered rape, the first one is as you mentioned about that I am not allowed to mention, the 2nd one is buggery.

See where I am coming from?

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


It's only not possible for a woman to rape a man this way in a legal sense. A rape such as this would be regarded as sexual assault.

The legal position on any subject is not necessarily correct or incorrect.

Logically, rape should be regarded as forcibly having sexual intercourse with a non-consenting person.

Originally posted by F011235813
They have a crazy word for this where I live...
Lucky. Seriously though he had to be aroused for this to happen so no pity vote here.

Women ussually get "wet" when they're raped.. no pity for them either?

, the world is completely opposite there, I have to think. Female rape man.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Women ussually get "wet" when they're raped.. no pity for them either?

The difference is that for a woman she can be physcally aroused without her minds consent. Where as men are aroused and emotionally ready at the same time, and if not ready in the mind cannot be physically aroused.

And for those that say this is not true, take stock of what your thoughts are next time you have an unwanted errection.

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The difference is that for a woman she can be physcally aroused without her minds consent. Where as men are aroused and emotionally ready at the same time, and if not ready in the mind cannot be physically aroused.

And for those that say this is not true, take stock of what your thoughts are next time you have an unwanted errection.

My one year old gets erections, so he is emotionally ready and ready in the mind for sex?

this raises questions....

firstly...can a man be raped? in the sense that a woman is raped by penetration
isnt it sexual assault for a man, as in order for a woman to have intercourse or penetrative sex then the man must be erect.

this leads to the second question, if the man is erect does it mean hes enjoying it therefor its consensual?

there is a very fine line, im not saying that what happened to the boy wasnt rape, but not rape in the sense of how a woman can be.

nor am i saying that he enjoyed it, but like i say theres a fine line between rape and sexual assault with regards to men.

i for one dont think rape is possible, but severe sexual assault is.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I already said that I get them at work all the time and I'm usually crunching numbers at the time. Hmm, not the most sexually arousing activity and doesn't leave much space for the mind to wonder, otherwise expensive mistakes occur.

You most certainly can be physically aroused without being mentally aroused.

Men in comas have been known to have been, ahem, "milked" for their semen in some cases where the wife wants a child and the the machine is about to be switched off. You telling me that's mentally aroused? The dude's brain dead, but he can still rise to the occasion, given enough physical stimulation. It's a completely physical process that can be done on a concious man against his will.

I knew people would take the stance that kid couldnt have been raped, "if he had an erection it cant possibly rape", thats so far from the truth, and like its been said before, there IS a double standard

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
this leads to the second question, if the man is erect does it mean hes enjoying it therefor its consensual?

there is a very fine line, im not saying that what happened to the boy wasnt rape, but not rape in the sense of how a woman can be.

nor am i saying that he enjoyed it, but like i say theres a fine line between rape and sexual assault with regards to men.

If a woman is "wet" and has an orgasm does it mean she's enjoying it and therefore it's consensual?

Stupid, stupid questions...

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
And for those that say this is not true, take stock of what your thoughts are next time you have an unwanted errection.

I had one this morning when I was thinking about making a tomato sandwich.

Are you going to find some Freudian connection between tomato sandwiches and sex ?


Random erections just occur, and you'll attain an erection 95% of the time with physical stimulation, whether you are aroused or not.

The stimulation may lead to arousal, but as someone else has pointed out, that also apparently can occur when a woman is raped.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The difference is that for a woman she can be physcally aroused without her minds consent. Where as men are aroused and emotionally ready at the same time, and if not ready in the mind cannot be physically aroused.

And for those that say this is not true, take stock of what your thoughts are next time you have an unwanted errection.

My one year old gets erections, so he is emotionally ready and ready in the mind for sex?

No you misunderstand.

The question of if children experience physical sexual feelings, the answer is of course yes, they are just children however so they do not know what the feelings are or how to relate them to anything and of course they are not ready for sex emotionally or any other way. Anyone whom thinks differently should be shot!

But we are not talking about child abuse here; we are talking about a 17 year old boy. Whom to all intense and purposes emotionally and legally has the right to consent.

Korg.