It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Oh my goodness goodness.

Your link



"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.


So the government is on the march to remove women's rights in the US, starting with assault with a male member. I would normally say let the bill pass because they will change it as soon as it happens to one of their daughters, but what about older women, the mentally ill - people with diminished capacity? All anyone has to do is con them into having sex and then they have no responsiblity. NONE. This bill should read any woman having any sex period! Boy would that get them.

This is past the point of insanity. How dare anyone tell me I have to have sex with someone just because they want it and its not rape unless I'm beaten unconscious?!!!!
This bill must go down hard and fast. Because if it doesn't, you are going to have tons of Aileen Wuornos' roaming around, me included. Then men will need a new rape bill.
Off w/their heads!!!!!!




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
GHB is the date rape drug, which technically does not involve force, but it is still obviously rape. So for them to say rape only involves force is ignoring forced drugging or sleight of hand drugging where a ghb tablet is dropped into someone's drink. This is why girls (and guys) should not take a drink offered to them and always keep an eye on their drinks because anyone can slip it in unnnoticed.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Update:

www.canadianbusiness.com...

Apparently Arkansas has already approved the bill.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by SaturnFX
In a move to curve abortion rights, the GOP decided to redefine rape as being only a product of force. This will effectively make date rape and other such non physical forced rape no longer rape verses...meh...just sex


It doesn't limit "abortion rights" or change the legal definition of rape, it simply limits the circumstances in which someone can force me to help pay for their abortion.



Not true, as soon as this is passed it leads to what is called precidence so any rape case where someone was convicted on, let's say, circumstancial evidence - and dna evidence will now be considered circumstancial - it will just all boil down to this:
Was the victim maimed or disfigured in any way. If yes, rape. If no, not rape.

And it says in the bill, please read the article, that if your pregnancy was due to rape or incest, you cannot have a state sponsored abortion. So yes it does affect the contitions in which the POOR can obtain an abortion.
Oh and want something else to be mad at:
Now you are forcing women on welfare!
Think about that one!
Abortion $300 one time - Forcing woman on Welfare $16k yrly for 18 yrs. Men who think this topic is kewl? PRICELESS!


edit on 28-1-2011 by DaWhiz because: funding info


edit on 28-1-2011 by DaWhiz because: kewl edit



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I haven't read the bill yet, so I won't comment on that part.

However, it is my understanding that the use of drugs is considered force in the legal sense, as it removes the victims capacity to resist.

So this bill wouldn't affect those who have been raped via drugs.

Edit to add (x2):

You will have to excuse my ignorance if this is incorrect. In Canada, it is considered 'forced' as soon as one party says "no". Or if one party is too incapacitated (drunk, drugs, etc.) to have made a decision on the consenual part.


edit on 28-1-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Here's the bill, in its entirety.


HR 3 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3

To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 20, 2011

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. AKIN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. COLE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CRAVAACK, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CRITZ, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOWDY, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HALL, Mr. HARPER, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HURT, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. KELLY, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. KLINE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LANDRY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LONG, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MARINO, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. OLSON, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROSS of Arkansas, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SCHILLING, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHULER, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BOREN, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL

To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.

Title 1 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

‘CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS

‘SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.

‘No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.

‘SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS THAT COVER ABORTION.

‘None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

‘SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.

‘For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section--

‘(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,

‘(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and

‘(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.

‘SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FACILITIES AND EMPLOYEES.

‘No health care service furnished--

‘(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or

‘(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment,

may include abortion.

‘SEC. 305. CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO SEPARATE COVERAGE.

‘Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

‘SEC. 306. CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO THE USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR HEALTH COVERAGE.

‘Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

‘SEC. 307. NON-PREEMPTION OF OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.

‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.

‘SEC. 308. CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO STATE OR LOCAL LAWS.

‘Nothing in this chapter or any other Federal law shall be construed to require any State or local government to provide or pay for any abortion or any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of any abortion.

‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

‘SEC. 310. APPLICATION TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

‘In this chapter:

‘(1) Any reference to funds appropriated by Federal law shall be treated as including any amounts within the budget of the District of Columbia that have been approved by Act of Congress pursuant to section 446 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (or any applicable successor Federal law).

‘(2) The term ‘Federal Government’ includes the government of the District of Columbia.

‘SEC. 311. NO GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN HEALTH CARE ENTITIES.

‘(a) Nondiscrimination- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance (either directly or indirectly), may not subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

‘(b) Health Care Entity Defined- For purposes of this section, the term ‘health care entity’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

‘(c) Remedies-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this section by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including--

‘(A) injunctions prohibiting conduct that violates this section; and

‘(B) orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of Federal financial assistance to a State or local government, or to a specific offending agency or program of a State or local government, until such time as the conduct prohibited by this section has ceased.

‘(2) COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION- An action under this subsection may be instituted by--

‘(A) any health care entity that has standing to complain of an actual or threatened violation of this section; or

‘(B) the Attorney General of the United States.

‘(d) Administration- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services--

‘(1) to receive complaints alleging a violation of this section;

‘(2) subject to paragraph (3), to pursue the investigation of such complaints in coordination with the Attorney General; and

‘(3) in the case of a complaint related to a Federal agency (other than with respect to the Department of Health and Human Services) or program administered through such other agency or any State or local government receiving Federal financial assistance through such other agency, to refer the complaint to the appropriate office of such other agency.

‘SEC. 312. HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE DEFINED.

‘In this chapter the term ‘health benefits coverage’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.’.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
couldn't find anything that would allude to the GOP allowing date rape as acceptable. But I'm not a liberal (Mother Jones) site, or a liberal lawyer either.


If someone could point it out to me where the bill states that the GOP states that date rape is no longer rape, I'd appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I deplore rape in all its forms.

However I am firmly of the opinion that if two adults meet up, have a few drinks and get drunk, end up in the sack and have sex. In no way can the woman decide she regrets her actions, maybe has cheated and then CRY RAPE.

I'm sorry.

I just don't agree with it. A woman just can't retrospectively decide she was too drunk to consent so it's rape. That's ludicrous.

Now if the man drugs her, or she says no from an early stage of the date and continues to say no, then by all means throw the book at him.

I just hear too many stories of men's lives ruined by young foolish girls who got tipsy and decided to have a bit of fun, only to face the music (boyfriend, family, work colleagues etc) with shame and guilt, feeling the only way to save face is to "cry rape!"

it's a tricky one to legislate for, but to green light everything is a bit of a step too far.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
I deplore rape in all its forms.

However I am firmly of the opinion that if two adults meet up, have a few drinks and get drunk, end up in the sack and have sex. In no way can the woman decide she regrets her actions, maybe has cheated and then CRY RAPE.

I'm sorry.

I just don't agree with it. A woman just can't retrospectively decide she was too drunk to consent so it's rape. That's ludicrous.

Now if the man drugs her, or she says no from an early stage of the date and continues to say no, then by all means throw the book at him.

I just hear too many stories of men's lives ruined by young foolish girls who got tipsy and decided to have a bit of fun, only to face the music (boyfriend, family, work colleagues etc) with shame and guilt, feeling the only way to save face is to "cry rape!"

it's a tricky one to legislate for, but to green light everything is a bit of a step too far.


Are you suggesting that only cuts and bruises show rape and that the woman's (or young girl's) testimony should never count? How about witnesses? Alcohol levels? A drug in her drink?

Guys who gang rape would likely plead innocent to protect themselves, obviously. So by the same logic, should their side be discounted? Of course that would not be sound judgement; discounting a person’s story without investigating is illogical.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz
Love to see how this argument falls apart if it were your daughter who some man convinced to have sex.
If you have to persuade someone then that means they didn't want to do it in the first place.


How would my argument fall apart? You make no sense.


Originally posted by DaWhiz
You know what? I got an idea. How about every time a man wants sex, he's gotta take it up the butt first? No matter what - whether he's married or trying to convince someone to have sex with them.
Your thoughts?


Yeah, that's brillant...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Neurolanis
 


Er, noooo. I didn't say anything of the sort.

I just said that a law that is so easy for a woman to abuse, verges on abuse itself.

I don't doubt that date rape occurs, and it's terrible. But a law that allows any woman the ability to say "I had a drink I couldn't have agreed, it's rape" is damn nonsense.

I think the laws regarding this were well intentioned, but frankly too open to abuse. just my honest opinion of course.

I think you're also confusing gang rape with date rape.

edit on 28-1-2011 by kiwifoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I was responding to your comment about girls raped in dorms, where you suggested that many times the girls wanted it and changed their minds later. I was referring to that.

What would you suggest then? A girl says she was raped by five guys. They deny it. She has only her word to support her side; her credibility and the logic of her side versus theirs. Do you feel this warrants an investigation?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Neurolanis
 


And also, any situation involving drugging (even including alcohol) without the consent or knowledge of the woman is obviously wrong and should be illegal.

I'm talking about women who sleep with men after having a few drinks and then blame the man. That too is wrong IMO.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
www.lifesitenews.com...



Should the Arkansas House pass the bill, Arkansas will join Arizona, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, and Louisianna, in approving such legislation


Sigh..



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
I deplore rape in all its forms.

However I am firmly of the opinion that if two adults meet up, have a few drinks and get drunk, end up in the sack and have sex. In no way can the woman decide she regrets her actions, maybe has cheated and then CRY RAPE.

I'm sorry.

I just don't agree with it. A woman just can't retrospectively decide she was too drunk to consent so it's rape. That's ludicrous.

Now if the man drugs her, or she says no from an early stage of the date and continues to say no, then by all means throw the book at him.

I just hear too many stories of men's lives ruined by young foolish girls who got tipsy and decided to have a bit of fun, only to face the music (boyfriend, family, work colleagues etc) with shame and guilt, feeling the only way to save face is to "cry rape!"

it's a tricky one to legislate for, but to green light everything is a bit of a step too far.


Then for everyone's safety, men included, they should make a law stating that anyone having sex drunk broke the law and should go to jail. Then both of them can have all the fun they want and pay for it as well. Will that make you feel better? After all, isn't it a time honored tradition to take a woman out get her drunk and "see what happens?" Give me a break!
OK sometimes people do stupid things when drunk, but be honest - did the drunk diliberately murder the pedestrian while driving? Murder is intent, being drunk and driving and hitting someone an accident right? Well the law says no, when he put that drink in his body and in knowing he put it in his body, drove a car, he unwittingly caused a death - punishible.
Seems to me that most of you guys are of the opinion that sex is something you have a right to, like driving. If you weren't born with that body part, how do you suppose you have a right to it? Just because you have an urge? Drunks have urges too.....



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neurolanis
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I was responding to your comment about girls raped in dorms, where you suggested that many times the girls wanted it and changed their minds later. I was referring to that.

What would you suggest then? A girl says she was raped by five guys. They deny it. She has only her word to support her side; her credibility and the logic of her side versus theirs. Do you feel this warrants an investigation?


Mate you've got me confused with someone else, I've never mentioned dorms or anything like that.

Check my posts please!!!

But taking your example, I think it would be naive to say that there aren't women, men and god knows what who get off on sex with multiple partners. But any report of rape needs to be investigated. I'm sure there are many ways to determine if the woman was a willing participant or not.

I'm not saying rape isn't serious, I'm not saying at all it shouldn't be investigated (read my posts man!) but I am saying it's too open to abuse.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaWhiz


Then for everyone's safety, men included, they should make a law stating that anyone having sex drunk broke the law and should go to jail. Then both of them can have all the fun they want and pay for it as well. Will that make you feel better? After all, isn't it a time honored tradition to take a woman out get her drunk and "see what happens?" Give me a break!
OK sometimes people do stupid things when drunk, but be honest - did the drunk diliberately murder the pedestrian while driving? Murder is intent, being drunk and driving and hitting someone an accident right? Well the law says no, when he put that drink in his body and in knowing he put it in his body, drove a car, he unwittingly caused a death - punishible.
Seems to me that most of you guys are of the opinion that sex is something you have a right to, like driving. If you weren't born with that body part, how do you suppose you have a right to it? Just because you have an urge? Drunks have urges too.....


Are you drunk now???

You're comparing a drunk drive who kills someone with a man who shares a bottle of wine over dinner with a date then gets accused of rape???

Seriously, I can't argue cordially with logic that flawed, sorry.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by DaWhiz
Love to see how this argument falls apart if it were your daughter who some man convinced to have sex.
If you have to persuade someone then that means they didn't want to do it in the first place.


How would my argument fall apart? You make no sense.


Originally posted by DaWhiz
You know what? I got an idea. How about every time a man wants sex, he's gotta take it up the butt first? No matter what - whether he's married or trying to convince someone to have sex with them.
Your thoughts?


Yeah, that's brillant...


It does make sense when you take your head out your pants. If it were a woman you cared about, one that you feel you have to protect, and some guy came along and talked her out of her pants - what would you say then? That is the point. Trust me, I have this discussion all the time and you ask any man if he would condone it for himself and he says "oh yes, get it anyway you can!" but when its his daughter, there is a very different response. So it makes very good sense. Probably not to a rapist, but it makes good sense.
As for the second comment - of course it is brilliant. You just proved you won't do it didn't you? But then again you just proved that sex isn't all that important if the unpleasantness falls in your lap.
Thank you!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join