Triggering (Abuse): Legitimate Rape - Akin and Galloway

[Snufkin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...?newsfeed=true

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

So we have a Republican who thinks a rape contraceptive is a woman's own body, and an MP who thinks that it's fairly acceptable to have sex with someone who's asleep and therefore unable to give consent.

Since this is TeenHelp and there is a wide spectrum of opinion here, can anyone defend either of these comments?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Akin and other politicians tried in the past to change the legal definition of rape. I think his statement of legitimate rape is an example of how the legal definition can change or the typologies of rape can change. I cant defend his comments though because he claims to have evidence from doctors yet has failed to even paraphrase it, so I am left wondering whether he misunderstood.

Galloway is in a bit of a different position. I'm not sure if he's trying to make his views seem less extreme and appeal to the masses, if he's trying to accept a redefinition of rape more subtly than Akin, or couldn't word his argument in a clearer manner. At first he condemned Mr. Assange's personal sex behaviour, which probably is where the masses might sit. He then did a 180 degree turn by stating he's understanding of the actions and may go as far as supporting them. I cant defend him because his argument that Mr. Assange was "set up" is completely circumstantial. Additionally, there's a massive leap in logic he seems unaware of. It's akin to paying for gum at a store once but not paying when you visit a second time because of the thought that it's legally allowed.

[dr2005]

Nope, and I'm not even going to try. Biologically speaking Akin just seems to be making it up as he goes along and not even realising how far off piste he's gone, while legally speaking Galloway is so completely and utterly wrong it's almost bordering on car-crash territory. Showing complete ignorance of fairly straightforward biology and/or domestic criminal law (in Galloway's case, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which the UK Supreme Court actually referred to in judging the acts would be offences under English law) really achieves nothing else other than to suggest you should be kept as far from the legislature as possible in my book.

[TheQuietGirl]

Politicians are full of drivel, aren't they?
Honestly, they drive me absolutely mad. I try to keep a sensible head about these things, and listen to everyone's opinion. But they have reached a point where their opinions are just too stupid to listen to.

Rape is rape. It is when someone has sex with another *without* consent. In my opinion, there is no "well sometimes it's okay". No. It is never okay. If you're that horny, there are other ways to deal with that that won't harm another person in so many ways.

But they seem to just be *way* too interested in laws against women. I mean, seriously? Get out of my uterus. It's mine, so I get the make choices on what I think is good for it.

Oh wait, I just read I was suppose to defend them... LOL sorry, I can't do that.

[JohnCoop]

Rape is Rape, plain and simple. Frankly, I think that the punishments for rape across the world are too lenient. If a man decides to victimize and rape an innocent woman for whatever reason he needs to go to jail for a VERY long time. We don't need those sorts of people on the streets. So no I cannot agree with their stances on any level.

Despite being against abortion in most cases, excluding rape, incest or medical complications I am not in support of completely banning abortions. Its her decision, her body and her life to live and it is not my place to tell them that they CANNOT do or not do something.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by JohnCoop

Rape is Rape, plain and simple.

Rape is far from simple when it comes to the justice system. I'm glad that it's not simple because I really don't want to live in a country that has a justice system that basically allows a woman to pull out the rape card when, in fact, it wasn't. If I have consensual sex with a woman and, for some reason has a desire to take me to court and accuse me of rape, then I don't have much to go by. Married couples get raped, couples get raped, strangers get raped, so it's not like I can just say "she was my girlfriend...so by default...she consents to everything."

If I were single and I went to a party, met a woman, decide to go back to her place, and she passes out on the bed...do I have consent even if she never mentions consent? I'd probably be intoxicated and probably wouldn't care too much if she was passed out. In fact, it's actually one of my fetishes to engage in sexual activity with my girlfriend while she's asleep (but I've never done it because she's a light sleeper). And since we went back to her place, I'd automatically assume that her intent was to have sex with me, and would therefore not hold myself back. But what if I was sober? Would it make any difference if I had sex with her or not? I say it doesn't make much of a difference. If I had a female friend come over and she, for some reason, decides to sleep with me since there isn't any other beds and decides to take her clothes off, is it rape if I touch her while she's asleep? If she was a nudist, I would understand why she would sleep naked...but if this she never takes her clothes off when sleeping but does so with me, then I feel that you're inviting me. However, if you're in the other room and you're naked, then it's a little bit different if I touched her. It could be an invitation, but she didn't sleep next to me and there was no clear indication that she wanted me to touch her. It's complicated as hell stuff. If a woman says no, then that is clear un consensual sex, but there's a huge gray area. It's not so clear-cut.

Their comments would have been amusing if they weren't so ignorant, arrogant and sad. These are the people trying to make our health care decisions, folks. People with no concept of how simple human reproduction works, or how to treat the topic of rape and sexual assault. Essentially it was insinuated that it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant, and she wouldn't if it were "legitimate rape" or "rape or incest."

From the political aspect, I'd say we're in a very sad state when political leaders, or those who want to be political leaders, make statements like these. I've always said if I wanted the government involved in my sexuality I'd sleep with a senator.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Rape is far from simple when it comes to the justice system. I'm glad that it's not simple because I really don't want to live in a country that has a justice system that basically allows a woman to pull out the rape card when, in fact, it wasn't. If I have consensual sex with a woman and, for some reason has a desire to take me to court and accuse me of rape, then I don't have much to go by.

Such instances of false accusations of rape are generally quite rare (estimated at 2% of reported rapes), and those that do reach trial stage are often discovered under cross-examination. The fear of being falsely convicted of rape is generally greater than the likelihood of it actually happening.

Originally Posted by Brandon

If I were single and I went to a party, met a woman, decide to go back to her place, and she passes out on the bed...do I have consent even if she never mentions consent? I'd probably be intoxicated and probably wouldn't care too much if she was passed out. In fact, it's actually one of my fetishes to engage in sexual activity with my girlfriend while she's asleep (but I've never done it because she's a light sleeper). And since we went back to her place, I'd automatically assume that her intent was to have sex with me, and would therefore not hold myself back.

I put those bits in bold because I think this is where the crux of the problem is - you are assuming consent where none has been given, and indeed displaying a degree of apathy as to whether it has been given at all. US law, like English law and a number of other European jurisdiction, holds that if a person is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, they are incapable of giving consent. No ifs, buts or maybes. At best, your theoretical conduct would be utterly reckless insofar as consent is concerned, and that in itself can be evidence that consent was not given. Ergo, rape. It's not as if it takes much to wake someone up and ask them - or indeed, to leave them be if they're unconscious and keep your fly zipped (if you'll pardon the bluntness). I have been intoxicated in the past - very intoxicated on some occasions - but it has never put my brain into autopilot. Choosing to pursue sexual intercourse is precisely that - a choice. Hence why the law holds people to account over it when their choices violate the bodily integrity of another person.

Originally Posted by Brandon

But what if I was sober? Would it make any difference if I had sex with her or not? I say it doesn't make much of a difference. If I had a female friend come over and she, for some reason, decides to sleep with me since there isn't any other beds and decides to take her clothes off, is it rape if I touch her while she's asleep?

Rape requires penetration in most jurisdictions, usually with the penis (although some differ on this point), so no. It would most likely be classed as a form of sexual/indecent assault though.

Originally Posted by Brandon

If she was a nudist, I would understand why she would sleep naked...but if this she never takes her clothes off when sleeping but does so with me, then I feel that you're inviting me.

Problem is, you're saying you feel this is an invitation without providing any rational explanation as to why it should be viewed as an invitation. Nothing you have stated above, as far as I can see, would substantiate such a claim - no pre-existing sexual relationship, no engaging in foreplay or other intimacy, no expressed desire for sex - not even a kiss. The circumstances could just as easily be explained by higher ambient temperatures and a lack of suitable attire. Incidentally, you also haven't explained how you would ascertain your friend's nocturnal clothing habits. There is merely a series of assumptions - assumptions which, incidentally, are all in your favour rather than favouring caution - of which none provide any grounds for a rational assumption of consent for sex. It's no more convincing than if you were to go onto an Internet retailer, put an item in your basket, fall asleep at your keyboard and the retailer just decides to complete the transaction anyway using card details you'd used on a previous transaction. That would be unlawful, and the same rationale applies here.

[Grey Wind]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Such instances of false accusations of rape are generally quite rare (estimated at 2% of reported rapes), and those that do reach trial stage are often discovered under cross-examination. The fear of being falsely convicted of rape is generally greater than the likelihood of it actually happening.

Source for the 2%? I know by 1996 numbers they said it was potentially 25% just for those convicted, logically it seem accusations would be even higher. I find it hard to take a position on this because both men and women pad their sides.

[Guile]

That was another terribly biased article by the Guardian.

I support abortion even being a conservative Republican. Some people shouldn't reproduce, and some children should never be born, I don't care if someone wants to abort a kid they don't want, it's not like the parents are going to take to it if it's born, it'd be a burden.

As a side note, being accused of rape is often enough to ruin someone, court records being public record and all. It drags a person's name through the mud. On a side note, just raising an issue here, why is rape illegal? I'm just saying, the people that exist today are all a product of rape (a thread on this coming to a city near you soon!)

[Coffee.]

Originally Posted by Guile

On a side note, just raising an issue here, why is rape illegal? I'm just saying, the people that exist today are all a product of rape (a thread on this coming to a city near you soon!)

...I'm looking forward to this thread, only because I really have no idea where you're going to go with this. This will be a hard issue to bring up, be ready with a nice red trigger warning, and Traci not approving of this message.

For the rest of this thread, here's my opinion: The guy is an idiot. There is no scientific basis for anything he's saying, period. End of story. Against abortion for women of rape? As much as I disagree with you so strongly, fine, but don't use this false science behind it. Your body will not automatically abort rape children, 5% of female rape victims become pregnant.

And what's legitimate rape, you ask? Sex without consent. Period.

Sorry to not be very insightful, but the hell?

[Someone PM me to sum up what the infamous NN said? Can't be bothered to read his post. ]

[Daivia]

A quick pic from one of my favorite religious friends on this subject:

[DemonQueen]

Something I saw on Facebook.



Except the whole "with a fox" thing, because you cannot get impregnated by a fox obviously..

[joeblow9999]

These comments coming to you from the same guy who rejects Darwinian evolution and believes that his imaginary friend spoke everything into existence around 6,000 years ago. I wouldn't expect him to have any expertise in the area of human physiology.

[Lorelei]

^^ This. Too angry to say much else.