U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Rinsaikeru, Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Re: U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape

Postby Роберт » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Well, some acts may be worse than others, again depending whom you ask, when it comes to rape. But the doesn't mean that one is rape and the other isn't.

You have to draw a line somewhere. Is an unwanted hug rape? What about a kiss? What if the person
Spoiler:
had just been masturbating and does the unwanted hug and kiss, fully clothed, mid orgasm?
The forced penetration definition seems best (so long is it allows the victim to be the one forced to penetrate).
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3821
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

Or you could go the extreme and say 'anything unwanted having to do with sex', and include wierd smiles from accross the room. Yeah, lines do need to be drawn, but it's a question of where and why.

Spoiler:
Re: Netcrusher88

Fine, "gomorral"? Just something referencing "Gomorra".
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. broadens archaic definition of rape

Postby lucrezaborgia » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:29 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:You have to draw a line somewhere. Is an unwanted hug rape? What about a kiss?


That would probably be covered under assault.
User avatar
lucrezaborgia
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:20 am UTC
Location: Green Bay, WI

Previous

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Iulus Cofield, Silknor and 10 guests