>> Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing.
Penal code begs to differ. But it is refreshing to see actual rape apologist in the wild.
>> If a woman "raped" me, didn't get pregnant by it, didn't give me any skanky diseases, and didn't publicly accuse me of being the rapist, then I'd probably enjoy it. At worst, it might be a slight inconvenience for me.
You seems to know little about such cases and their psychological consequences. Difference in reaction of victims of different gender is minuscule. Shattered self evaluation, acute stress disorder, PTSD etc.
>>> that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing.
>> Penal code begs to differ.
> It's well known on the Internet (at least) that legal and illegal aren't the definitions of good and bad.
Its well known among lawyers that things that are in Penal Code are Bad as in "whole society think that such behavior is unacceptable and should be punished". This is the main defining characteristic that separates material in Penal Code from stuff in Civil Code. And since its HN, I assume that you know set theory and I don't have to explain what does follows and what does not.
>> Shattered self evaluation, acute stress disorder, PTSD etc.
> Of course if you only ask people who found it bad enough that they had to talk to someone about it...
You know that some percentage of violent rape women victims actually reach orgasm?
>> That's not how child abuse works.
> I thought we were talking about a horny male 14 year old.
So if I'll find a horny female 14 year old I can totally "sex her up"?
You should probably read once again your posts. Your views on subject are already known, now why don't you think of potential social consequences of this fact.
> Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing.
Yes, it does.
> If a woman "raped" me, didn't get pregnant by it, didn't give me any skanky diseases, and didn't publicly accuse me of being the rapist, then I'd probably enjoy it.
Having the same name as an often-violent crime doesn't automatically mean something is that bad.
Squashing an insect and setting a mouse trap are technically killing, but there's nothing wrong with them.
I think you first need to admit that it's at least conceivably possible that your emotion overreaction is compromising your objectivity on this subject.
Unless she's bending it, squeezing them, or using a strap-on, the woman thing is a complete non-issue in terms of actual consequences. If men and women are different, I just can't see how a woman raping is supposed to be equally as bad as a man raping.
Acting shocked at something doesn't make you right.
What can I say, I just can't see how there's much difference between 1) a woman being very forward with you and 2) a woman being very, very forward with you. There is a difference, but it's a difference in degree. If one is a good thing it's pretty unlikely that the other is a heinous, horrible thing.
I don't see how it would very traumatic any more than a woman hitting would be very painful: possible, but not the most likely outcome.
There is a bias there. The reporting is often disgusting - "hot teachers fuck their students".
A small part of the problem is that rape is defined as penetration by a penis. See for example the UK sexual offence act which jas several very serious criminal offences that carry the same penalty.
> The reporting is often disgusting - "hot teachers fuck their students".
I have never seen that sort of wording in mainstream news outlets. Tabloids like the Daily Mail -- possibly. But one thing in common is that they almost never call it rape when the perpetrator is female, which it is in the case I linked (look up CA law on the subject). On the other hand, even when it is an unproven accusation against a male, they freely use the word without even bothering to add "alleged".
> A small part of the problem is that rape is defined as penetration by a penis.
Apart from the fact that your linked laws are UK ones, and the case I was referring to was CA in the US -- how is this a "small part of the problem"? It is a huge problem if laws literally say that only men can rape.
I think some part of this disconnect might be due to the differences between US and UK reporting. I'm guessing UK tabloids sensationalize stuff more but are also more careful about actual allegations due to stricter libel laws, whereas US media is more directly anti-male in its reporting.
Why do you think I recommend prison? I don't. I advocate a change in society so that people with destructive paraphilias can get support to live with those paraphilias without raping children -- and yes, teenagers are children. That's why we don't let them fight wars or run for office or do a bunch of other stuff.
