if i remember correctly, a couple thousand years ago there were around 10 laws, some counties had up to 13
But people DO have different ideas on what is right and wrong. Frequently differences in law exist because of different opinions regarding right and wrong.
The Christians called them commandments and reduced them to 10 "important ones.
I read a story a year or so ago where a guy made the mistake of breaking and entering into a woman's apartment, either to rob her or rape her, I don't remember. But she was a black belt. She took him down, bound him to her radiator, went out shopping, got some Viagra (not sure where), forced him to take it, and had sex with him repeatedly, on her own terms.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Ermmm, no, the Ten sayings pre-date Christianity and are in the Torah (Exodus 20).
And the 613 were compiled in the Mishneh which is FAR from being 2000 years old. The Torah only says if a man entice a virgin to lie with him he shall marry her but her father can refuse the union. (This is to stop men from being Dawgs and bedding and leaving) the man would still have to pay the Bride price for a Virgin, regardless of whether he gets the Bride or not.
Mag said:I read a story a year or so ago where a guy made the mistake of breaking and entering into a woman's apartment, either to rob her or rape her, I don't remember. But she was a black belt. She took him down, bound him to her radiator, went out shopping, got some Viagra (not sure where), forced him to take it, and had sex with him repeatedly, on her own terms.
I'm not generally in favor of rape or sexual assault, but it's kind of hard not to think this guy had it com...comi...uh, coming to him. Is there another word I could use there?
Because the body heals faster than the mind....I can't even believe you wrote something so crass.
I can't believe some of the stuff you write, either. I'm sorry, I see nothing at all crass about pointing out the fact that one is more physically traumatic and destructive than the other.
it is fair, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH AROUSAL so it IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING BEING WET IS CONSENT. THAT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHITISM THAT IS BASED ON FALLACY BUT WORKS IN IVY LEAGUE PSYCHOLOGY DEBATES where facts and reality don't matter.
I am not asserting anything as ignorant as that republican comment about pregnancy and rape, that makes no sense even for an ivy league debate book. You sound like Franklin Veaux who says that educating women about situations that criminals look for in order to exploit, and that idiot calls that victim blaming,
I guess it makes sense to him, and I guessing from your assertion of what I said you can follow his line of reasoning?
But you know it's funny such a fucked up logic is subscribe too, because by that logic, I shouldn't secure my network or enable a firewall because I am blaming the user for having his computer hacked/raped. And dipshit thinks what we really should be doing is solving the actual problem which is educating men why and how it's wrong to not hack into someone's computer without consent.
but how many people would tell me I was asking for it by surfing the web with no security in place in the known area hacker pieces of shit are known to exploit?
SO thank You BD, I couldn't put my finger on how that guy's philosophy was so far fucked, and ironic thing is he might be bright enough to understand the computer incident.I hope you know my hostility is due to the subject and not directed at you. Being seeing the difference in a woman's life knowing them before the assault took place, has left me angry that we still live in a rape culture where people could be as clueless of thinking educating women that certain situations should be avoided because there are men who will exploit said situations , because it happens every day in all across America, and there are minds so gripped by denial that they can honestly call that victim blaming.
I think I am seriously going to puke
but number one, so few women are perpetrators or rape because they are not under the influence of testosterone and they haven't been taught since history was recorded that they are superior and women as subordinate.
I will agree that a woman could sexually rape a man with a stick or a strap on, or non-sexually rape a man be forcing herself into the pages of a diary without permission, or hacking his computer , however in regards to rape as the crime is most commonly known, I might have trouble labeling a women inserting a man's erect penis into her, rape.
it is the violating of private space, mostly by penetration, I wouldn't consider a man sticking a woman's fingers in himself against her will rape, harassment or molestation or assault even. But it is not the same, and it has absolutely nothing to do with proving arousal being consent. A woman could completely desire sex and refuse it because the man is an asshole and it would still be rape if she didn't consent