Religion and women.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
- Status
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Still here.
Thanks for the funny video...
What does the bible say about mitochondria....what an important event.arguably the most important event in the history of the Earth for without it small rat like creatures would never have become whales and us....real science there is nothing like it is there.
I was looking at some chooks very early today, not here but where the chooks were, and to think they are little dinosaurs...I thought if you started an intensively controlled breeding program could you get them back to looking like small dinasaurs...or big ones for that matter...do you know the record flight for a chook recorded was 300 feet...they have excellent eye sight and see ultra violet apparently...a small flying dinosaur that can see in ultra violet would make an excellent pet...how do creationists explain the various mass extinctions..did not happen and fossils are made by Satan to test ones faith I think is the party line.
They did not even ring..maybe it is tomorrow...is today the day after yesterday?
Alex
Thanks for the funny video...
Could this be the reason
What does the bible say about mitochondria....what an important event.arguably the most important event in the history of the Earth for without it small rat like creatures would never have become whales and us....real science there is nothing like it is there.
I was looking at some chooks very early today, not here but where the chooks were, and to think they are little dinosaurs...I thought if you started an intensively controlled breeding program could you get them back to looking like small dinasaurs...or big ones for that matter...do you know the record flight for a chook recorded was 300 feet...they have excellent eye sight and see ultra violet apparently...a small flying dinosaur that can see in ultra violet would make an excellent pet...how do creationists explain the various mass extinctions..did not happen and fossils are made by Satan to test ones faith I think is the party line.
They did not even ring..maybe it is tomorrow...is today the day after yesterday?
Alex
Your response shows you have no intention of discussion.
It is a waste of time discussing religion with you.
It is a waste of time discussing religion with you.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Allegedly. But then the whole bible is allegedly divinely inspired, even the most brutal parts of the Old Testament. But then, whatever the inspiration, it was written by men, who were products of their culture, and it shows. Personally I find St Paul can be legalistic and hung up on sexual matters. The flavour of his writing is quite different from the gospels. The rule of thumb has to be, in cases of apparent conflict, that the teaching of Christ takes precedence of St Paul's interpretation of it.
How does a woman rape a man?
One woman, one man.
Granted, she could probably have sex with him if was asleep with an erection. Would that be classed as rape? If yes, how could it proven in a court of law?
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
The amount of times that question has been answered and you just keep asking it again and again, and asking for details, Jan.... It's pathological now..
Here are some links:
https://www.livingwell.org.au/information/unhelpful-myths-about-the-sexual-assault-and-rape-of-men/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...ing-forced-to-penetrate-cases-as-rape-div.pdf
If you are still confused, seek help.
If someone is asleep or unconscious, yes, it's rape if she does not have consent.
This has been explained to you several times. Your intentional ignorance demonstrates how dishonest you are.
Yes.
Do you recall this passage:
In Genesis 19:30–38 Lot's daughters got their father drunk, and over two consecutive nights had sex with him without his knowledge. They both got pregnant. The older daughter gave birth to Moab, while the younger daughter gave birth to Ammon.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Your response shows you have no intention of discussion.
It is a waste of time discussing religion with you.
You sound crushed.
No reply means you accept the propositions I presented which is all I wanted really.
Your obsession with rape .....there is nothing to say as you say it all...it's gone past a tactic of diversion and now it seems for what ever reason you just like talking about rape...interesting you don't want to discuss religion but you want to discuss rape.
You are particularly interested in woman raping men...I expect your next questions will be where is that likely to happen and directions as to how to get there....
Yes.
How typical of you
You still haven't worked it out?
Here's my previous response, again, with certain parts highlighted to make it easier for you.
More importantly, you ought to read through the links that Bells have provided for you.
---
As an example, let me refer you to the definition of rape in the criminal code in my own jurisdiction. Rape requires sexual penetration without consent. Here's how "sexual penetration" is defined:
(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if—
(a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or
(b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's anus; or
(c) A introduces (to any extent) their penis into B's mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or
(e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's anus, continues to keep it there; or
(f) A, having introduced their penis into B's mouth, continues to keep it there.
---(a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or
(b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's anus; or
(c) A introduces (to any extent) their penis into B's mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or
(e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's anus, continues to keep it there; or
(f) A, having introduced their penis into B's mouth, continues to keep it there.
Rape requires sexual penetration without consent. In a court of law, one would have to prove (1) sexual penetration, (2) lack of consent on the part of the victim, and (3) requisite intent on the part of the perpetrator.
In my jurisdiction, element (3) is not strictly necessary, if the perpetrator has no reasonable grounds to believe that the victim consented to the penetration.
It is very important to understand, though, that "rape" is just one crime among many different kinds of sexual offences. In my jurisdiction, there is also the (separate) crime of "Rape by compelling sexual penetration". This one is more relevant to the specifics of the scenario you are suggesting. Here's the full text of the relevant legislation:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally causes another person (B)—
(b) B does not consent to the sexual penetration; and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents to the sexual penetration.
(a) A intentionally causes another person (B)—
(i) to sexually penetrate A; or
(ii) to sexually penetrate themselves; or
(iii) to sexually penetrate another person (C) or an animal; or
(iv) to be sexually penetrated by C or by an animal; and
(ii) to sexually penetrate themselves; or
(iii) to sexually penetrate another person (C) or an animal; or
(iv) to be sexually penetrated by C or by an animal; and
(b) B does not consent to the sexual penetration; and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents to the sexual penetration.
----
Considering the specific scenario you have put, then, if a woman (A) climbed on top of a sleeping man's (B's) erect penis, with intent to cause B to penetrate her without B's consent, and moreover there are no reasonable grounds for A to believe that B was consenting to that activity, then A could be charged with rape by compelling sexual penetration.
The penalty for that, by the way, is a maximum of 25 years in prison.
Jan:
By the way, since you seem to find reading and taking in more than a paragraph or so difficult, at one time, here's an extract from one of Bell's links:
By the way, since you seem to find reading and taking in more than a paragraph or so difficult, at one time, here's an extract from one of Bell's links:
Myth: Men cannot be sexually assaulted by women.
Reality: Although the majority of sexual assaults of men are committed by men, women do sexually assault men. Sexual assault is not always enacted through overwhelming physical force: it can involve emotional manipulation whereby a man can be coerced into sexual act out of fear of potential repercussions for his relationships, work, etc. The number of men identifying sexual abuse by a woman as a boy or young man has increased over the past few years. Ideas that men should always want sex with women and that as a young man you should feel lucky if you have sex with an older woman also make it difficult for a man to publicly name sexual assault by a woman.
Reality: Although the majority of sexual assaults of men are committed by men, women do sexually assault men. Sexual assault is not always enacted through overwhelming physical force: it can involve emotional manipulation whereby a man can be coerced into sexual act out of fear of potential repercussions for his relationships, work, etc. The number of men identifying sexual abuse by a woman as a boy or young man has increased over the past few years. Ideas that men should always want sex with women and that as a young man you should feel lucky if you have sex with an older woman also make it difficult for a man to publicly name sexual assault by a woman.
This is beyond pathetic. I am fairly certain that this has been explained to Jan before--perhaps a dozen or so times, at least. The guy's not (completely) stupid, but he is most definitely an idiot (as per my definition: a willfully and dangerously stupid person). This constitutes just about the most antisocial form of trolling I've ever encountered. Not necessarily advising any sort of sanctions here, but this is pretty fucking sick.
Incidentally, while I haven't reviewed US primary and secondary school curricula in a long while, I believe "sex ed" is a standard part of health courses taught in the 8th or 9th grade--and this aspect is covered in detail. (I'm basing this assessment upon my review and editing of textbooks in decades previous.) However, I actually have absolutely no recollection of having learned such in my own schooling in the late 1980s. That said, I spent my adolescence in Phoenix, Arizona--a Red state and a very Red city. I'm curious: how many others out there did not receive sex ed in their schooling around and after this time period? And, if not, where the hell did you attend school?
Glad to see you agree that there is yet another mention of rape in the Bible.
Slightly OTT attitude methinks.
“When a man has penetrative sex with a woman without her consent, that's rape. But what if a woman makes a man have penetrative sex with her, without his consent? That's not rape under the law of England and Wales, but the author of a new study of the phenomenon says perhaps it should be.”
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/stories-49057533
Sexual assault is not classed as rape
Last edited:
A specific type.
I think what is being described as rape perpetrated by women, is classed sexual assault, unless an object is forced on the victim.
If a 13 year old boy is sexually assaulted by his female teacher in her 30's, what would you call that? Many times, female teachers will lie and claim that the boys were the ones seducing them! But, the power lies in the hand of the person in authority. While a teenage boy may have a biological response in reaction to being assaulted by his female teacher, she is still in the position of power. Same for Catholic priests and their victims. Priests have often claimed that their victims were ''willing'' and consenting. I think we know better.
What is your contention about all this, Jan?
- Status