Deep thoughts

Chcr, your avatar is somewhat appropriate right about now, wouldn't you say? ;)

Yeah, it's no point arguing the distinction when the historicity of the definition says otherwise (with reference to the latin root).
 
Nixy said:
I'll letcha know Jan 5 when the grades are released
Click to expand...
Notice todays date?

BoP said:
'Cause he was the shiznit. Ring only turned pitiful weaklings invismable. The invisibility issue was only a small byproduct of the rings of power.

<edit> By pitiful weaklings, I mean those who only inhabited the physical world (eg Men), as opposed to elves, and ainur/maiar, who inhabited the spirit world as well. The theory goes that since elves etc already existed in that realm, they wouldn't go invisible in the physical realm, whereas mortals who didn't inhabit that realm naturally, would become invisible when wearing the ring, as they were 'entering' the spirit realm.
Click to expand...
Maybe you take this whole LotR things just a tad too seriously.

Altron said:
Do you really think that stealing cookies is sick and twisted? It's only delicious baked treats you're stealing, not money.
Click to expand...
Thievery is thievery.

A13 said:
by that definition, a dog could "rape" a sheep with a peanut.
Click to expand...
Theorhetically, yes. A dog has no opposing thumb however, making your point moot.
 
BeardofPants said:
Chcr, your avatar is somewhat appropriate right about now, wouldn't you say? ;)
Click to expand...

If you knew what I do for a living you'd realize just how appropriate it really is.
 
BeardofPants said:
Yeah, it's no point arguing the distinction when the historicity of the definition says otherwise (with reference to the latin root).
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. When languages borrow words, they don't do so by importing the entire and precise definition from the source language. They use a very general meaning as a basis for a new precise term - the link is visible but the word itself isn't a translation.

Rapere is what Roman repossessors would do - hardly anything to do with sexual violation, but is appropriate because "taking someone" is one way our retarded society defines the act of male-female vaginal intercourse. Over time - I'll assume primarily because of a need to feel "equivalent" - this has surely grown to apply equally to anal, both hetero- & homosexual, so I'll concede this much. You cannot, however, "rape" anything if you do not penetrate it - if a girl lies down on the bed & says "take me" it is clear that she only means one thing. You also cannot "rape" someone with an object that's not you. You couldn't even rape someone with your hand, even if it penetrated - because that it is not how you "take" a person sexually. Sexual violation, yes; rape, no.

Back to the corpse. Answer me this: if you wrap a slab of steak around your cock, are you raping the meat? Hardly. Are you raping the cow it came from? Not a chance. What if you cut the corpse's vagina out and penetrated that? Are you still raping the corpse? Are you even raping the vagina? You can't rape a vagina anyway, you rape a person - or a being. A corpse isn't a being, and therefore can't be raped.
 
:yawn3:

Keep at it, maybe you can at least get yourself to believe it. :lloyd:

Edit: Whod'uh thunk your mind would work so much like Gonz's?
 
Or so much like the English Parliament?

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in April 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person.
Click to expand...
 
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in April 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person.
Click to expand...

Are you in England or Wales????? Am I?????
Words mean what they mean regardless of what you (or parliament) want them to mean. :shrug: Tell you what, you use your definition, I'll use mine. I can't believe I've already wasted this much time on an argument this stupid anyway. Lack of self-control I guess.
 
What's your point? Evidently they earlier thought that that was obvious - you can't have intercourse without a penis. But obviously some redneck fools tried to claim you could have sex with/rape someone with a banana so they made sure the distinction was clear. Put the straws down.
 
:rolleyes: That's it, go sit in the corner dumbass. Clearly you're pokin' the monkey just to get a reaction. Do you even read what other people have been posting? Rape is rape, regardless of whether a penis is used to penetrate a vagina/anus/mouth/orifice. It is forcible, and against someone's will. A man can be raped, just as a woman can. Rape is is still rape. It is a sex act committed on someone who did not give consent. Eesh.
 
Next you'll be telling us you get raped if someone flashes you. Stop being ridiculous. Rape is defined by mechanics, not feelings. Yes a person can feel violated by all sorts of unwanted sex acts, that's not in any doubt. But to call it RAPE it has to involve a penis, and penetration of something, end of story. A woman cannot legally rape a man. She can violate him with a dildo, or force him to penetrate her, but the court doesn't call that rape either. So stop being a lazy ass and get the word right.
 
Gonz said:
Analytical, fact based & able to work with specifics?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it. :lol:

Actually, BOP is right. Parliament's definition
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in April 2004, rape in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person.
Click to expand...
pretty much matches mine with the caveat that it's not necessarily simply penile penetration. It's a13's definition
a13antichrist said:
You can't rape anything that isn't a female and that doesn't have a vagina.
Click to expand...
that it doesn't agree with. Sorry, please go on about your business...
 
chcr said:
Actually, BOP is right. Parliament's definition

pretty much matches mine with the caveat that it's not necessarily simply penile penetration.
Click to expand...


That was my definition - I conceded earlier about the anus thing. And you can't "have your own definition" - rape is a legal term to describe a certain type of sexual violation. That's why "rape" does have to be penile penetration because no-one can ever get charged with rape if that doesn't occur. Stop pretending you have to call everything under the sun rape in order to acknowledge the feelings of someone who has suffered a sexual attack. That's what the term sexual violation is for, duh. You don't need to call it rape to show that you think it's outrageous that it happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top