IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Rape
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
Randall wrote:
You've erred slightly in your reasoning, dear host.
K2006 wrote:
...or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
So oral penetration with a cotton bud wouldn't count.
However, you've reminded me of a post you made some time ago, suggesting that defendants accuse trial or prosecution officials of historically abusing them. Then there was that incident of two drunken barristers having it off in public somewhere in London. When arrested, the woman claimed to have been too drunk to consent and was therefore a victim and entitled to anonymity.
Then I remembered the definition of "sexual" given in the SOA2003. I'm paraphrasing but it's anything that is by its nature intrinsically sexual or anything that, given the context, purpose and circumstances, a reasonable person would consider sexual. Not a very good definition because it's almost purely tautological. But anyway, one of the purposes of swabbing for DNA is to determine the subject's sex. If the swab is done in connection with a so-called sexual crime, then the context is also sexual. So on both parts of the definition - such as it is - it's sexual. And if it's done without your consent, it's a sexual assault.
I once dated a cotton bud and she / he was a superman /woman in bed.
So you are wrong.
I think it was a cotton bud. Memory getting quite bad now.
Maybe just a very thin person with white hair.
Anyway I was found Not Guilty. |
|
JK2006 |
And I have to say these days, at my age, a cotton bud is about as sexual an object as I could ever hope to expect! |
|
Randall |
You've erred slightly in your reasoning, dear host.
K2006 wrote:
...or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
So oral penetration with a cotton bud wouldn't count.
However, you've reminded me of a post you made some time ago, suggesting that defendants accuse trial or prosecution officials of historically abusing them. Then there was that incident of two drunken barristers having it off in public somewhere in London. When arrested, the woman claimed to have been too drunk to consent and was therefore a victim and entitled to anonymity.
Then I remembered the definition of "sexual" given in the SOA2003. I'm paraphrasing but it's anything that is by its nature intrinsically sexual or anything that, given the context, purpose and circumstances, a reasonable person would consider sexual. Not a very good definition because it's almost purely tautological. But anyway, one of the purposes of swabbing for DNA is to determine the subject's sex. If the swab is done in connection with a so-called sexual crime, then the context is also sexual. So on both parts of the definition - such as it is - it's sexual. And if it's done without your consent, it's a sexual assault. |
|
JK2006 |
I do prefer the Collins English dictionary definition which is abuse - not necessarily sexual - Abuse of someone is cruel and violent treatment of them. |
|
andrew |
JK2006 wrote:
I would also point out that if, God forbid, someone accuses you of giving them a "blow job" you are quite entitled to say no, it was without your consent, you were pushed into doing it and you have been raped.
Only prudes refuse blow jobs. |
|
|
|
|
