(October 17, 2016 at 4:15 pm)Drich Wrote: People want Rape to be all instances of forced sex. I get that. Problem is.. It's not. Rape is only illegal sexual activity that is prosecuitable.

According to the United States attorney general rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

So...you're wrong. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-...ition-rape

I think at this point you guys are just arguing semantics.

Not me, I'm just arguing about rape.

He's changing the definition of a word and not explaining why he thinks it's something else. He's never going to.

It's the mote vision. It prevents him from seeing what he is doing.

(October 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think at this point you guys are just arguing semantics.

Welcome to every argument with Drich.

(October 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think at this point you guys are just arguing semantics.

Sort of. But Drich has an incorrect definition for what he himself is calling a legal term. There's no matter of opinion on legal definitions. They are what they are regardless of what he says or thinks. This isn't a kind of thing where people can be using the word differently based on a loose definition. Legal terms cannot have loose definitions.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 2:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: No, the crime still occurred.  It isn't that the act wasn't unlawful, it's that the law recognizes that after such and such period of time, it's not prosecutable.  Lack of prosecution, or inability to prosecute, is not what defines an act as lawful or not, it is the act itself.

To me, that sort of semantic handwaving is the opposite of what should be happening here.  It robs the victims of their voice.

But here's the thing with that...

The Law and the definition of the terms set by the law, are what determins actionable recourse by society of one who is ACCUSED of Rape or Murder...

In other words it is YOU who is the one playing a semantical game. When you decide to call people not prosecuted of rape for what ever reason rapists... or when you equate a killer with a murderer.

This is very dangerous boarder line insane behavior because it throws the presumed innocents clause (what this country's laws were founded upon) out the window and it assigns guilt where one must prove innocence. For what? the preservation of a victim culture???

No.. That is not right. If we are to remain innocent until proven guilty we must compel each other to know what the law says and operate with in it. Which includes knowing and identify with it's definitions and when society breaks away, to be able to identify with the law and come down on the side of the law.

Otherwise you will have a blurring of the line between justice and vengeance. (rioters) This is a perfect example when the pop culture rewrites morality/the law.

The problem with your rebuttal is that we were never discussing the accused when all this nastiness went down, were we? We were talking about the trauma, and how victims process it.

That trauma is what you objected to so crudely. I honestly don't believe that you were talking about legal implications for the accused at all, otherwise you wouldn't have alluded to alleged victims having ulterior motives for reporting rapes late after the fact. You were asserting the motivations of victims.

I think you know it was a nasty thing to say, even for you, and now you're trying to wiggle out of your implications with legal definitions and semantics. Of course...this is nothing more than my opinion based on how I've interpreted your posts.

Look at it this way: If someone steals my car and I don't report it, then perhaps you can argue that that the "crime of car theft" never technically, legally occurred. But, someone STILL stole my car. I still suffer the consequences of my car having been stolen.

If a man breaks into a woman's house and forcibly, vaginally penetrates her...then...he forcibly, vaginally penetrated her. It is an intimate, violent action against another human being, and that human being is going to suffer the psychological/emotional consequences of such an assault, regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized as a "crime of rape" in the eyes of the law. You jerking-off in response to that trauma is the issue here.

Tibs and I were talking about this, and even the legal term is a moot point. Rape is rape even if it's legal, so . . .

(October 17, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I think at this point you guys are just arguing semantics.

No, we're arguing definitions. There's a difference!