Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou use the word "force" here and insist that there is no link to the word "consent",
not a single iota which states that consent has been given to use force, no not a single one.
But look at this question: ""If a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape."
And now look at your answer to THAT question about "force":
robbie: "If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape"
"Force" & "Consent".
Originally posted by FMFIt should be a simple matter for you to produce a statement where i have stated that consent to use force has been given FMF. Why can't you do that? shall i tell you why? because i have not stated it, but you have, why? Shall I tell you why? because thats what you do, you simply make up values and attribute them to other people because you are a very assuming man.
You use the word "force" here and insist that there is no link to the word "consent",
But look at this question: [b]""If a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape."
And now look at your answer to THAT question about "force":
robbie: "If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape"
"Force" & "Consent".[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis was put to you: "If a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape."
It should be a simple matter for you to produce a statement where i have stated that consent to use force has been given FMF. Why can't you do that? shall i tell you why? because i have not stated it, but you have, why? Shall I tell you why? because thats what you do, you simply make up values and attribute them to other people because you are a very assuming man.
Do you now regret the response you gave?
Originally posted by FMFI regret that you cannot find a single iota where i have stated that consent to use force has been given. I regret that you lyingly and dishonestly attribute values to people who have not explicitly asserted those values. I regret that you are allowed to transgress the terms of service of this site with impunity by misrepresenting what people have stated. These are the things I regret.
You were asked this question: [b]"If a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape."
Do you now regret the answer you gave?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut I am not misrepresenting what your argument was, which was that if a woman has already given her "consent" then you don't see how a man forcibly having sex with her against her will can be construed as rape.
I regret that you are allowed to transgress the terms of service of this site with impunity by misrepresenting what people have stated.
Originally posted by FMFSo you have nothing as expected. NO statement where Robbie has stated that consent to use force has been given, oh dear, perhaps if you and Proper Tantrum were not so assuming, but nooooooooooo.
This was put to you: "If a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape."
What was your response?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExplain how someone can be made to have sex, against their will, without the use of force.
So you have nothing as expected. NO statement where Robbie has stated that consent to use force has been given, oh dear, perhaps if you and Proper Tantrum were not so assuming, but nooooooooooo.
Originally posted by yoctobytethat's not a christian marriage. that is a normal state of relations between two individuals regardless of whether they are married, christian or straight.
You obfuscate and put words in my mouth. What I said is, in true Christian marriage there is no rape. Why is there no rape? Because in true Christian marriage the husband would respect his wife on such a level he would not ever force himself upon her, against her will, in a sexual way so as to "rape" her.
And as to your example, I would most certainly help the woman... Only I would take her to the hospital first.
Here is my position, I will state it simply and clearly so that there
can be no ambiguity and no room for rattlesnakes like FMF and
Jeester to misconstrue, misinterpret and falsely make claims and
arguments that I myself have not proffered.
At first i was puzzled because there seemed to me to be some
problem with the logic. Rape by definition is coercing someone
against their will to engage in sexual activity, if they have already
consented how could it be construed as rape, logically and by
definition. This was purely an intellectual position made on the
definition of rape. It was fiendishly seized upon by our resident
zombie apocalypse with terms like disgusting, unbelievable, you
moron and bell end, slobber, drool etc etc
After further debate and thought amidst tantrum throwing and
further nefarious attempts to misrepresent my position it became
apparent to me that even if someone has consented to yield
authority over their own body it can no way be construed as
consent to be forced or coerced to engage in sexual activity
against their own will. Thus the term yield authority over their
own body must be a relative one. relative to what? relative to the
wishes and desires of the person who has consented and
relative to nature and the natural physiology of the human body.
It can in no way be construed as a carte blanche for any type of
deviant behavior contrary to nature and contrary to the will of the
persons who have acquiesced to yield authority over their own
bodies. The conclusion of the matter is thus settled in my mind
mind, marital rape can and does occur even if someone has
consented to yield authority over their own bodies.
I must also add that attempts by the resident zombie apocalypse
of FMF, divesjeester and Proper tantrum to make the issue the
morality of rape were nothing more than vain and insidious
attempts to extract some kind of personal concession as is their
modus operandi. The morality of rape was never an issue, but
they attempted to make it one because it suits their own ends.