Man cleared of attempting rape of woman - after female 'victim' turned out to be male

reply to post by Sablicious


That really has nothing to do with the thread, but since you brought it up, I will correct you.

Assange didn't rape or attempt to rape anyone. He had consensual sex with a woman, then, waking up in bed with her the next morning tried to initial further sex. NOT FORCE IT, initiate it. Something a lot of people probably take for granted, most people expect there is some kind of romantic attraction rather than the woman turning it on and off.

There was no rape.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The problem is with the term "attempted." You can't attempt to do something that is impossible to complete.

There are more ways to have sex than missionary position, pastor.

Originally posted by Gauss
That's rather offensive to us Swedes, dude. Try not to offend an entire population with moronic comments in your future posts, yes?

Grow some thicker skin or take it up with history, bub.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Demonizing a whole country for the decisions of one judge

In a democratic society, extant laws reflect the views and mores of the larger populace.

Originally posted by Nightchild
How do you know what the rapist actually attempted? What if he intended to sodomise her before he discovered her biological Sex? Female rape victims now and then gets sodomised, too

It seems some here have signed a prenuptial agreement with the obligatory 'separate beds' stipulation or have browsers that cannot open certain web pages -- e.g., dictionary.reference.com...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
That really has nothing to do with the thread, but since you brought it up, I will correct you.¹

Assange didn't rape or attempt to rape anyone. He had consensual sex with a woman, then, waking up in bed with her the next morning tried to initial further sex. NOT FORCE IT, initiate it. ²

¹ See: dictionary.reference.com...
² Further buttresses my point

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The problem is with the term "attempted." You can't attempt to do something that is impossible to complete. The article gives the example of attempting to murder a dead person.

So... because the cretin may have wanted vaginal sex - nay anal - he gets dispensation for his vile act on grounds of retardation, to go with his sexual inadequacy? Indeed, I guess, as should a paedophile who forces a 5-year-old to perform oral sex be given a pass; for the poor fellow had no idea how similar male and female prepubescent kids can oftentimes look. ...Right?

Intelligence becomes thee.

BTW, nice to meet you. Please add me to your Facebook -

reply to post by Sablicious


..the only thing I got from the article was that someone got beaten up with a shoehorn. A shoehorn. I can't say I've ever heard "assaulted with a Shoehorn" before..

Three guys and a shoehorn.
Too bad the T and C are so strict.
I'm really suprised this post hasn't gotten out of hand.

reply to post by Sablicious


Well, you don't sarcasm well.
and
I don't see how, but I am sure you will be very articulate and obnoxious in explaining.



wlcm to ats.

reply to post by Sablicious


I know the history of my country. That is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about you blatantly insulting my country's people. If you cannot understand the difference between the two, then there is no point in me trying to explain it to you any further.

Edit to add: In fact, you might want to tone down your hostile tone in general. ATS isn't the place for insults and aggressive behavior like what I've seen in your posts so far.

Originally posted by Gauss
isn't the place for insults and aggressive behavior like what I've seen in your posts so far.

An 'insult' lies in the eye / ear of the beholder. If ones takes insult from a throw-away comment, they need to look inward for the answers to their insecurity.

reply to post by Sablicious


Or perhaps you need to figure out what kind of insecurities lie behind your need to insult an entire country in your posts. Trying to shift the blame to me by calling me insecure isn't going to change the fact your post was borderline racist. Either way you're not worth my time, and if the IGNORE function was still working in this forum, I would've used it on you already.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
WTF Rape is rape! The intention is to rape. The fact that the pervert mistook a man as a woman is neither here nor there.

Rape is rape. I do not care if the target is a HE or SHE or TRANSGENDER or TRANSSEXUAL or an IT (non-classifiable). The charge of rape still stands.

www.rapecrisis.org.uk... (note that these definitions are NOT universal. Note that the definition of rape applies only someone with a penis. Otherwise it probably categorizes as sexual assault/indecent assault.)

I believe this is an error on the part of the judge.

nder section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:

_ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;

_ B does not consent to the penetration; and,

_ A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The new offence of rape in section 1(1) SOA 2003 includes oral and anal penetration with a penis. This is a change from the previous law which was only concerned with vaginal penetration and used other offences to criminalise these forms of sexual violence (such as indecent assault). The person who commits the offence of rape must be a man (as the penetration has to be with a penis). However, both women and men may experience rape. If the penetration is with something other than a penis then the offence is assault by penetration.

Attempted Rape in the UK.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, the expression "a rape offence" included:[18]
attempted rape aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring attempted rape

In either case I believe that the judge is in error. By this definition, the fact that the victim is a male has no bearing. Only that the offender is a male matters to the definition, and since the offender intended to penetrate an unwilling person, it qualifies as attempted rape.

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


It matters, because his intentions were to rape a female, and he could never have done that, so he could never have "attempted" that. It is only the "attempted" part that the judge keyed in on. If he would have completed the rape, then it would have been rape, but since he could not have possibly completed his intentions, then it is impossible to have attempted them.

I agree with you though, maybe he would have just finished the job with another orifice? Just because he says he wouldn't have raped a man, are we to just take his word for it? At the very least it is assault and battery, so hopefully the prosecutor comes back at him with something, either that or the tranny community shows up at his door with 1000 shoe horns and chases him out of town.