(December 27, 2016 at 8:22 am)abaris Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 6:59 am)pool the great Wrote: I'm surprised you didn't know about the issue.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

It means that (legally) the male rape victims are disregarded and female rapists are protected. This is a law that is actually in practice which is heavily supported and defended by extreme leftists.

And I'm surprised you take me for a UK resident.

Rape is any kind of forced sexual act according to our legislation. No penis required.

Still, you'd think a first world nation would not stoop so low as to legally protect rapists.

Also, the definition of rape in the US is:

Quote:Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "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.

You should see the number of stories from men that opened their eyes to a girl riding them after getting shit drunk at parties. By common sense this of course is considered rape but legally this is not rape. Men that report these instances to the authorities are of course belittled and made fun of by peers and family equally, have their sexuality questioned etc. There are also scenarios of men opening their eyes to a woman unsolicitedly giving them a Handjob or blowjob.

Can you imagine this scenario with the genders reversed? A woman opening her eyes to a guy plowing her and him walking away from the courts, no, imagine the authorities refusing to even file a complaint. Imagine the outrage. Now imagine the injustice when male rape victims are laughed at and female rapists are legally protected, by first world nations to say the least.

Look, I don't want to drift off our subject here, my answer to your question is that extreme leftist ideas are insanely more mainstream compared to extreme rightist ideas, not that it's a bad thing but extreme leftist ideas should be viewed just as bad as extreme rightist ideas.

(December 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm)pool the great Wrote: Even your laws are extreme leftist one's like the one that legally disregards male rape victims.

Can you link to this law, please?

ETA: Just saw your link.

(December 27, 2016 at 6:59 am)pool the great Wrote: Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, a rape can only be committed by a male as the penetration can only be done with his penis. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Sexual Assault by Penetration".


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

It means that (legally) the male rape victims are disregarded and female rapists are protected.

No, what that means is they are charged with a different crime.

(December 27, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Can you link to this law, please?

He already did. For some reason the UK legislation, as if this was a global law. And even there I doubt that the law was inspired by leftists. The UK didn't have something like a commune in power at some time.

ITT:

"Donald Trump is a racist misogynist."

"Prove it. Show me where he said anything racist or misogynist."

*Multiple people show examples*

"HILLARY'S LAUGHED AT A GIRL WHO WAS RAPED!"

Dude, Hillary is irfuckingrelevant. Also, she didn't laugh at a girl who was raped or get a guy off for raping a girl. Seriously. There are accessible records regarding these incidents. Stop getting your news from fucking memes and pretending promoting sexual assault is bragging about your sex life. I'm pretty fucking sick of the apologetics regarding Trump's anti-women rhetoric. If you think he's okay and the shit he says is okay, you can go right on and fuck yourself. Women should carry pepper spray and knives when around you and your buddies. You may have never grabbed a woman against her will, but you think it's a joke, so you're a risk to women.

If you're following the news, there may be another bomb-shell here soon:

Quote:Tom Arnold Also Remains Front and Center
It is rare that a C-list celebrity makes as many headlines as Tom Arnold has recently. Last week, he declared that he has access to the rumored "Apprentice" footage of Donald Trump, wherein the President-elect is documented saying all manner of impolitic things, including liberal use of racial slurs. On Christmas, Arnold was back at it, with a lengthy and hard-to-parse series of tweets. In them, Arnold seems to imply that the footage will soon see the light of day; he concluded his tweet storm with the declaration that, "Watergate-level journalists are on top of this."
Ostensibly, the reason that the footage has not already been released is that it could harm the lives and careers of the producers/editors who put it together on a lark long before Trump was a politician. However, in his tweets, Arnold provided a justification for releasing the footage that could give him (or anyone else who has it) cover: The fear that a foreign government might acquire the clip(s) and use them to blackmail The Donald. Trump is clearly a bit nervous; his team reportedly already contacted Arnold and threatened a lawsuit. By all evidences, Trump has good reason to feel that way. (Z)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pr...ml/#item-7

Why would that be a bombshell?

The KKK and David Duke would be overjoyed and the electorate has already proven that it doesn't mind. It won't prevent Trump from parking his ass in the Oval Office.

Talk about a fly farting.

(December 27, 2016 at 12:56 pm)abaris Wrote: Why would that be a bombshell?

The KKK and David Duke would be overjoyed and the electorate has already proven that it doesn't mind. It won't prevent Trump from parking his ass in the Oval Office.

Talk about a fly farting.

If the tapes reveal him saying the N-word, all hell could break loose.

(December 27, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If the tapes reveal him saying the N-word, all hell could break loose.

Legal consequences? None. Popularity? Who cares? Certainly not Trump.

(December 27, 2016 at 9:59 am)pool the great Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 8:22 am)abaris Wrote: And I'm surprised you take me for a UK resident.

Rape is any kind of forced sexual act according to our legislation. No penis required.

Still, you'd think a first world nation would not stoop so low as to legally protect rapists.

Also, the definition of rape in the US is:

Quote:Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "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.

You should see the number of stories from men that opened their eyes to a girl riding them after getting shit drunk at parties. By common sense this of course is considered rape but legally this is not rape. Men that report these instances to the authorities are of course belittled and made fun of by peers and family equally, have their sexuality questioned etc. There are also scenarios of men opening their eyes to a woman unsolicitedly giving them a Handjob or blowjob.

Can you imagine this scenario with the genders reversed? A woman opening her eyes to a guy plowing her and him walking away from the courts, no, imagine the authorities refusing to even file a complaint. Imagine the outrage. Now imagine the injustice when male rape victims are laughed at and female rapists are legally protected, by first world nations to say the least.

Look, I don't want to drift off our subject here, my answer to your question is that extreme leftist ideas are insanely more mainstream compared to extreme rightist ideas, not that it's a bad thing but extreme leftist ideas should be viewed just as bad as extreme rightist ideas.

First of all, you are making it seem like even if the law about rape excludes females from being charged with specifically rape, that they would just walk off free without being charged with any crime. Also, your lack of knowledge about how the law works is pretty obvious. In the US, the federal government doesn't charge individuals with crimes unless the government has jurisdiction or special interest. That doesn't happen too often. Citizens are charged by local jurisdictions, usually county or city. Those laws are what matters. So quoting some site who doesn't even quote the DOJ correctly or fully means you found something that fit your narrative and rolled with it. Here is the actual definition of rape from the Bureau of Justice Statistics itself (this is the statistics arm of the US Dept. of Justice.)

BJS.gov Wrote:Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender (s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and same sex rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

So male victims are entirely included in the law on the federal scale. I am sure you can find some county in Mississippi where the law on the books reads that males are the only ones that can be charged with rape, but there are still laws on the books in many states that are unconstitutional or way out of date. I mean in my own state, it is illegal for an atheist to run for political office. The law still exists as written, but it is unconstitutional as hell, and if ever challenged would be changed. (Article IX, Section 2.) The point is that you can find old, outdated laws almost anywhere that simply need a precedent to change them.

Now, male rape victim reporting is a real issue, mainly due to male victims either not feeling like they were raped, perceived societal response, or something else, but that's not an issue of encoded law.

I still do not see how this is a 'left' or 'right' issue.

(December 27, 2016 at 1:24 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I still do not see how this is a 'left' or 'right' issue.

Because it isn't.