possible non-con loophole?

[Avenger314]

Non-con man-on-woman is illegal and immoral.
Non-con man-on-man is illegal and immoral.
Non-con woman-on-man is illegal and immoral.
Non-con woman-on-woman is illegal and immoral.

It is perfectly reasonable and normal for a man to not enjoy sex that's forced on him, even if it's a woman doing it. It's just as wrong for a woman to rape, harass, etc a man.

Also, physical sexual arousal or orgasm isn't a legal defense against rape: "They climaxed, so they must have enjoyed it" is horsefeathers.

 

[mass1926]

Non-con man-on-woman is illegal and immoral.
Non-con man-on-man is illegal and immoral.
Non-con woman-on-man is illegal and immoral.
Non-con woman-on-woman is illegal and immoral.

It is perfectly reasonable and normal for a man to not enjoy sex that's forced on him, even if it's a woman doing it. It's just as wrong for a woman to rape, harass, etc a man.

Also, physical sexual arousal or orgasm isn't a legal defense against rape: "They climaxed, so they must have enjoyed it" is horsefeathers.

I was joking when I said that if the guy got a boner he liked it. My friggin god, are you people in touch with the real world at all because joking is clearly not something you catch onto.

 

[Avenger314]

I was joking when I said that if the guy got a boner he liked it. My friggin god, are you people in touch with the real world at all because joking is clearly not something you catch onto.

Go jump in a lake. I am just as in touch with planet X'Barklarden-15 as anyone else 😀

 

[mass1926]

Go jump in a lake. I am just as in touch with planet X'Barklarden-15 as anyone else 😀

Okay then, just making sure. And jokes on you cuz I just took a bath in the lake outside my house not 25 minutes ago. 😀

 

[-Hari-]

As I understand it, a loophole is when you can by-pass laws and do something illegal but leagally, I fail to see how this fits the bill...

 

[mass1926]

As I understand it, a loophole is when you can by-pass laws and do something illegal but leagally, I fail to see how this fits the bill...

If that is the case then technically we are all allowed to keep guns in our homes despite state laws. Otherwise the Queen of England could just go frolic about your house and poke you in the chest and you wouldn't be able to stop her.



There's this really really obscure law in massachusett's that although is illegal to kill a man based on federal law, the state law dating back to colonial times had never been removed. It says that at midnight in one of the local town squares you can legally shoot and kill a Rhode Island man in cold blood and it is pefectly legal. This law had for some reason never been removed from the state constitution, so do I hear loop hole...lol (I an aware that federal law outweights state law, but still some nut job may try to use it as a loop hole for murder)

 

[-Hari-]

If that is the case then technically we are all allowed to keep guns in our homes despite state laws. Otherwise the Queen of England could just go frolic about your house and poke you in the chest and you wouldn't be able to stop her.

You couldnt do anything to stop her, its illegal to hurt someone even if theyre tresspassing in your house.

Did you hear about the criminal that sued the people whos house he broke into because he fell thru the window onto a kitchen knife or something?

Madness...

 

[mass1926]

You couldnt do anything to stop her, its illegal to hurt someone even if theyre tresspassing in your house.

Did you hear about the criminal that sued the people whos house he broke into because he fell thru the window onto a kitchen knife or something?

Madness...

Um, bro that was totally a joke. It was based on a simpson's quote when lisa complained about the Second Amendment (right to bare arms). Homer looks at her and goes "without guns the queen of england could just walk into your house and start pushing you around. Is that what you want, the queen of england pushing you around?"....lol The simpson's have a line for all occasions.

 

[Avenger314]

A scary thought, as I'm originally from RI. lol.

 

[Redmage]

This just hit me. So I figure I share it.
To sum it up, if a non-con tickling is a done to a female, they can press and say it was...you know, she can get everyone in trouble. But...
what if if it was a non-con of a women tickling a guy? Would a guy really go "i want to press charges - i was raped".

I just want to point out that whether he presses charges or not has nothing to do with whether or not he was, in fact, raped.

If you're saying that a woman who rapes a man is less likely to be brought to justice, then you're probably correct. If you're saying that's a useful loophole then you're wrong.

 

[-Hari-]

Um, bro that was totally a joke. It was based on a simpson's quote when lisa complained about the Second Amendment (right to bare arms). Homer looks at her and goes "without guns the queen of england could just walk into your house and start pushing you around. Is that what you want, the queen of england pushing you around?"....lol The simpson's have a line for all occasions.

yup, and like most good quotes, they have a point, not that im saying you should be able to shoot the queen, but you should be able to do SOMEthing.

 

[TangerineTicklee]

I think this is a non-gender issue. I think either gender would be inclined to attempt to get the law involved in such a circumstance, BUT if the said person was not actually raped - regardless of gender - then it stands that the person was lying. I'm sure they could press charges for assault, but then again I'm no expert on law, so I'm not too terribly sure how that would exactly go. I'm just taking a logical shot in the dark here, so to say.

I felt like commenting in this thread partially because I saw how much attention it was getting. I thought "Hey, interesting, I think I might spread a few words here. Hmm".

 

[Redmage]

I think this is a non-gender issue. I think either gender would be inclined to attempt to get the law involved in such a circumstance, BUT if the said person was not actually raped - regardless of gender - then it stands that the person was lying.

Are you saying that a man would be just as likely as a woman to report a rape (as the victim)?

 

[rhiannon]

Maybe you are just way too uptight. To me, a man should never torture a woman mainly because a man is normally much more powerful than a woman and it is wrong. I don't think women have the right to torture men, and yes it is just as illegal, but a guy will not go to the authorities on the subject for the realization that he will be humiliated. Girls are generally viewed as helpless victimes in situations like this, and guys end up getting viewed as babies. I'm sorry, but here in the U.S. something like that would ruin a guy's life if he reported it. Take it from a guy who has been punched in the face by a female, I didn't run to the cops and report her. That would look really pathetic on my behalf for reporting a girl for assaulting me. I would've been laughed outta the police station.

I'm sorry I fail to see the humor in the whole situation. Well...no, actually I am happy that I fail to see the humor! I am aware that a guy is less likely to report stuff like that, and that is exactly why the whole thing makes me so upset. Even more upset, because a guy is less likely to report an incident because there are people like you!!

 

[TangerineTicklee]

Are you saying that a man would be just as likely as a woman to report a rape (as the victim)?

No, I'm saying that they would attempt to get the law involved, but not necessarily report it specifically as rape. Some form of assault, yes, but rape? No. I don't think a man would be inclined to do something like that. Then again, that isn't to say that he would do such a thing, but I think it would be less of a chance than a female.

 

[rhiannon]

That is the thing, men probably wouldn't get anybody involved because they are too embarrassed about it. And THAT is exactly what is so fucked up about it!

 

[TangerineTicklee]

That is the thing, men probably wouldn't get anybody involved because they are too embarrassed about it. And THAT is exactly what is so fucked up about it!

You could be very right about that. I've seen some guys being bullied before and take it - not tell anyone - because it bothered them too badly.

I think non-con is wrong, no matter what.

 

[TickledToDeath]

Gender should have no bearing. Assault is assault regardless of who does it to whom and the male does have the same rights in the matter as do women regardless of how embarrassed he may be going to the authorities and filing charges that he was tied dowon and tickled against his will.
Even if he say, volunteered at first to be tied down for something else and was not expecting to be tickled and then once tied down, the women or whoever, proceeded to tickle him while he screamed and protested. Even if it was for say a video shoot and tickling was expected and a time limit was agreed upon...then he was tickled far beyond that time limit and long past his saying a safe word.... . While it may be a dream or fantasy for some....it may not be such for others.

 

[Redmage]

No, I'm saying that they would attempt to get the law involved, but not necessarily report it specifically as rape. Some form of assault, yes, but rape? No. I don't think a man would be inclined to do something like that. Then again, that isn't to say that he would do such a thing, but I think it would be less of a chance than a female.

Well, think that through.

Say he reports it as "some form of assault." He's still going to have to tell the police (and perhaps eventually a court) exactly what happened. If he makes up a story, it will have to explain how a woman who is probably smaller and weaker than he is was able to "assault" him, and it will have to be consistent, both internally and with any evidence.

Basically, he'll have to tell them that she raped him whether he calls it "rape" or not. The details will be the same, so the embarrassment level will be the same.

Bottom line: a man is much less likely to report an incident like that, no matter what he calls it.

 

[Master Baiter]

If I were raped by another man, I'd call the police and give them a description. If I were raped by a woman, I'd call all my buddies and give them her picture.

HAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha!

That just kicks all kinds of ass!

 

[Master Baiter]

OMG, you are sooooooo one of those people that has no sense of humor or sarcasm and has to have a pretentious moralistic perpective on every friggin thing. Lighten up! Yes, it's wrong for a girl to torture a guy just as much as it is for a guy to torture a girl. But most likely in the States we have an unwritten guy code where dudes don't go rat out being handled by a chick.

+10 Man Points Awarded

 

[mass1926]

I'm sorry I fail to see the humor in the whole situation. Well...no, actually I am happy that I fail to see the humor! I am aware that a guy is less likely to report stuff like that, and that is exactly why the whole thing makes me so upset. Even more upset, because a guy is less likely to report an incident because there are people like you!!

Rhiannon, why don't you not spend like 19 hours a day on here for the sake of causing arguments and disagreeing with everyone. Find a hobby or something. Oh, and fuck yea I would make fun of a guy that told on a girl for assaulting him because he is a friggin pussy if that is the case. Unless the chick cut him or tried to shoot him, he's nothing but a little bitch if he can't handle himself.

 

[TangerineTicklee]

Well, think that through.

Say he reports it as "some form of assault." He's still going to have to tell the police (and perhaps eventually a court) exactly what happened. If he makes up a story, it will have to explain how a woman who is probably smaller and weaker than he is was able to "assault" him, and it will have to be consistent, both internally and with any evidence.

Basically, he'll have to tell them that she raped him whether he calls it "rape" or not. The details will be the same, so the embarrassment level will be the same.

Bottom line: a man is much less likely to report an incident like that, no matter what he calls it.

It's obvious that he would be less likely, but ... rape? I am rather socially naive due to my ASD. I really - lol - sometimes I actually believe people would be more honest than that, but I guess I'm wrong. So if he were to be trapped and tickled by a small woman, but not truly "raped", he would say that it was rape IF he did actually tell in the first place, which again would be on a low scale of possibility?

I guess that makes sense, but from an Aspie's point of view, that kinda' goes over my head. ...Like many other things. Like ... sex.

 

[Redmage]

It's obvious that he would be less likely, but ... rape? I am rather socially naive due to my ASD. I really - lol - sometimes I actually believe people would be more honest than that, but I guess I'm wrong. So if he were to be trapped and tickled by a small woman, but not truly "raped", he would say that it was rape IF he did actually tell in the first place, which again would be on a low scale of possibility?

I don't think he'd say it was anything - he wouldn't talk about it at all.

Much like a woman who decided not to report a rape. The only difference is that he's much less likely to.

 

[rhiannon]

Rhiannon, why don't you not spend like 19 hours a day on here for the sake of causing arguments and disagreeing with everyone. Find a hobby or something. Oh, and fuck yea I would make fun of a guy that told on a girl for assaulting him because he is a friggin pussy if that is the case. Unless the chick cut him or tried to shoot him, he's nothing but a little bitch if he can't handle himself.

First of all, I am not on here 19 hours a day, second, I am not disagreeing with everyone, just with people I think are wrong! So quit whining. You don't like my opinion, ignore it!