How the fuck is there a statute of limitations for rape in New York?

[Excited Penguin]

You don't decide what's relevant to the topic, I'm sorry to say.

You're right. I don't. The staff does via the rules:

Trolling
Trolling is not allowed. We consider trolling to be repeatedly doing any of the following:

• Making provocative posts.
  
• Making posts that are unrelated / irrelevant to the thread or conversation subject.
  
• Disrupting normal discussion.
  

Bolding mine.

So explain to me again, how what you're asking drippy, is anywhere near the topic of the SOL on rape in New York.

I was trying to understand his position on the matter so I could then continue with the main discussion.

How is your explaining the rules to me and telling me what to do any different than what I'm doing? I'll tell you how. You're looking to make this conversation harder to have and even end it and I'm looking to do my best to help it get on track and be interesting for all the parties involved.

[LadyForCamus]

You said in your post that fantasy is different from reality.  Drich isn't talking about the fantasy of forced sex, he's talking about the reality of it being okay.

Well, let's ask him.

Drich, do you think actual rape is okay, or are you rather talking about fantasy rape being okay, that is, consensual roleplay about rape, and that this too could potentially wrongly put people behind bars given certain sets of circumstances?


Please restate your actual position on this as clear and concise as possible. I'm not interested in a long debate about smth else, only in your position on this. Thank you.

Again EP...Drich is not arguing that non-consensual sex is morally okay, he just doesn't seem to actually know what it is (or isn't) when expected to properly
describe it, lol. Also, no one here is disputing the notion that a "forced" role play scenario could potentially lead to false accusations of rape. You really should go back and read through the thread, as painful as that sounds.

[Joods]

The difference though is that killing isn't always immoral. If you kill someone out of self defense, that's not immoral. If you kill someone by a freak accident that wasn't your fault, that's not immoral. Forced sex, on the other hand, is ALWAYS immoral. 

...That's why people are freaking out over what you are saying. You're making it sound like you don't think forced sex is always immoral and always horrible.

Like I said to other's. 60% of the world population is asian.

 
Got a verified and reliable source for that, sport?

Traditionally speaking a Wife/Mother is not supposed to enjoy sex. It is considered dishonorable to want to have sex if one is not a "pleasure girl"/whore. To have sex outside a plan to have a child often involves consensual 'cohersive' behavior/forced sex.

Traditionally speaking for whom, exactly? Christians? The whole world? Jews? Asians only? I mean, seriously, if you're going to toss out a phrase like that, at least appear intelligent about it. Again... verified and reliable source? Your buybull doesn't count as verified and reliable either. Otherwise, that's just your opinion.

In this 'game' it is a man's responsibility to be so good at what he does, that he incites so much passion in the woman she is overcome with it, to the detriment of her position/title, social obligations and honor.

lol wut?

With consent forced sex is how most asian people are here, and who are any of us to say that is wrong.

bold mine.

Really? You know this how? Were you in the bedrooms (or other areas fucking took place) of all of the millions and millions of "asians" when they were having sex? No? If not, Can you back this up with some serious, reliable, data? Oh wait... I don't really fucking care because none of that has anything to do with the SOL in the state of NY. And it's just your poor attempt to try and create a strawman to get you away from the logical beatdown you just got served.

You have spawned off the original topic and landed so far out in left field that you remind me of LR in a desperate attempt to look smart. Stahp. You really are making it worse for yourself, you know.

[Drich]

it is because you assume all forced sex is without consent, and you are not willing to examine sexual encounters outside of your societal norms. By doing so you condemned 60% of the world's population for not having what you would personally consider to be "normal sex". This is a biggoted way of thinking. to assume all sex must stringently conform to your norms.

If sex is forced, then lack of consent is implied.  Otherwise it wouldn't be forced.

Rough sex =/= forced sex.

And if you think I'm into 'normal' sex, then hoo boy.

Forced= physical resistance.

Which CAN be apart of a mating dance/game.

Again consent being the only measure of rape.

Keep it clean chicken man.

[Losty]

The women in your asian example (which has jack shit to do with US law, btw) would be willing participants in a cultural drama, or so you'd have us believe.  Obviously, a willing participant has not been raped.   She has not been forced.  

Something tells me that even in asia, the state can secure a conviction of rape from time to time.  You're wrong about SOLs, you're wrong about rape, and your own silly fucking examples argue against you.

EXACTLY

I am simply providing a narritive of forced sex Not being an example of rape.

The Difference between rape and forced sex is consent.

The asian women who Consent to forced sex EVEN HERE IN THE US, are not being raped even though they may endure a similar physical act. Which is how the law applies.

I said that to refute the idea there forced sex is always rape/ There can not be an example of forced sex without it being considered rape.

Go back a few pages and look at all the self righteous condemnation you were just apart of or have you already forgotten?

Wait what? If there is consent, the sex is not forced. You can't force someone to do something they're already doing willingly that makes no sense.

[Joods]

You're right. I don't. The staff does via the rules:

Trolling
Trolling is not allowed. We consider trolling to be repeatedly doing any of the following:

• Making provocative posts.
  
• Making posts that are unrelated / irrelevant to the thread or conversation subject.
  
• Disrupting normal discussion.
  

Bolding mine.

So explain to me again, how what you're asking drippy, is anywhere near the topic of the SOL on rape in New York.

I was trying to understand his position on the matter so I could then continue with the main discussion.

How is your explaining the rules to me and telling me what to do any different than what I'm doing? I'll tell you how. You're looking to make this conversation harder to have and even end it and I'm looking to do my best to help it get on track and be interesting for all the parties involved.

Um no. Asking drippy whether or not he likes rape (or however you phrased it), is most certainly not trying to get the subject back on track. But whatever dude. You want to argue and I don't. You can't even be bothered to read the thread in its entirety and you just jump in the end of it. Don't be so smug in thinking that you can try to word salad your way out of that. And no... I wasn't telling you what to do. I can't tell you what to do any more than I can reach through my laptop screen and force you to type something that I want you to.

We're done here. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

[Losty]

If sex is forced, then lack of consent is implied.  Otherwise it wouldn't be forced.

Rough sex =/= forced sex.

And if you think I'm into 'normal' sex, then hoo boy.

Forced= physical resistance.

Which CAN be apart of a mating dance/game.

Again consent being the only measure of rape.

Keep it clean chicken man.

This isn't actually true. Feigning resistance isn't the same as actually resisting. If there is consent the sex is not forced no matter what the game. I don't know why the fuck you're bringing sex games into this. Seems like a desperate attempt to get people to forget that you said rape is legally defined as "unlawful sexual activity" which is of course horse shit.

[Drich]

as above. you wrongly assume all forced sex is not consensual sex and therefore rape. you wrongfully judged me and those who would find 'forced sex normal' for most of the world as rapists. your judgement is based off you own version of right and wrong and because you could not see a legit form of forced sex you assumed it was all wrong.. Hence my usage of the term self righteous when describing you and your failed judgement.

Is that a big enough 'miss' for ya?

How would you describe forced sex?

see above sex in the presence of physical resistance or obstructive measures.

However this does not mean one can not consent to the sex even if that person is putting up a fight. Watch old American movies, a very tame version of this is played out in any movie before 1960.

This is not just some weird Asian thing. It was normal to a degree. Asians (Can be Christians) and still morally have forced (consensual sex) with one another.

[Excited Penguin]

EXACTLY

I am simply providing a narritive of forced sex Not being an example of rape.

The Difference between rape and forced sex is consent.

The asian women who Consent to forced sex EVEN HERE IN THE US, are not being raped even though they may endure a similar physical act. Which is how the law applies.

I said that to refute the idea there forced sex is always rape/ There can not be an example of forced sex without it being considered rape.

Go back a few pages and look at all the self righteous condemnation you were just apart of or have you already forgotten?

Wait what? If there is consent, the sex is not forced. You can't force someone to do something they're already doing willingly that makes no sense.

Consent and force are not exclusive in that context, they can actually go hand in hand. You consent to it before the actual act takes place, but then you get in character and you don't. You resist and the other party resorts to force. That's the whole point of it and is what Drich is talking about, I believe. Everyone is purposefully misunderstanding him. I wonder if it has anything to do with him being a theist.

[Catholic_Lady]

No, you;re not.  Forced sex is rape in those countries as well.  You provided a narrative of -consensual- sex that was different than whatever you think the narrative is here.  Though why you would think that is beyond me.  Chalk it up to cultural and legal ignorance.

-again, incoherent by reference to itself.  If consent is the difference, then forced sex is rape.

Incoherent by reference to itself.  No one consents to being forced.  The words are diametrically opposed.  You're imagining that people consent to rough sex...and buddy let me tell you, they do...those girls are my bread and butter.  I get all the sex you fantasize about.  But so what?  

Because it is, by definition.  You want to argue that rough sex is not rape, and it isn't...so that hardly needs to be argued.  

Your tears sustain me.  At what point, do you think, that reminding me how I called you out for what you are will affect me negatively, or make some non-point you've been arguing against with your own examples?

I'll say it again..you're an ignorant rape apologist....if the lady says no..put your dick back in your pants.  You can take that advice with you alllllll the way back to asia, where it's equally applicable.

Again you are not allowing for a cultural divide when you say all forced sex must be against the will.

Forced sex or rough sex Many would argue is apart of a mating dance some cultures take part in. It can be brutal and physically indistinguishable from a rape, but isn't a rape because both side consent to the roles they play.

Which is what makes consent the key to separate forced sex from rape.

If you don't agree then what allowance/how do you explain the sexual culture  that I am explaining?

When there is consent involved, it isn't forced. Rough, yes. Forced, no. 

Again, this just seems like a counterproductive play on words.