Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago

Redefining rape: all feminists are up in arms. Feminists re-defined rape 30 years ago, and now republicans want to re-re-redefine rape to the original definition. The definition "rape" had since the old Romans and Greek before Christ was born. 

This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.
(The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape)

And when being too young for sex were not called "rape" either, kissing a minor was not called rape either. In the old times, when language still had its own precise terminology, like "indecent act with a minor". And when the age of consent was lower, so 17 year olds enjoying sex were not "rape victims". As ‘Whoppie Goldberg called it "it was not real rape-rape".

Human-Stupidity Analysis

We are language semantics freaks: we don’t like that one word defines 2 different things. Not every killing is murder, and not every problematic sex act is rape.

Readers might disagree, if a irresponsible teen who got herself pregnant should get free abortion. Or if it is better to get an, even undeserved, abortion then the prospect of an immature poor mother traumatizing a baby. Or one might wonder why the immature teen girl that got pregnant from an immature teen boy the same age was not statutorily raped and thus does not deserve a free abortion.   But if she had a relationship with a more sensible, responsible, mature man, then she was statutorily raped and deserves a free abortion.

 

The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law. […]

Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.[…]

"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.[..]

Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago” »
Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had…
» continues here »

Share

17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition

The United Nations manipulated the definition of "child" on purpose! So child protection laws could be extended to adolescent youth without need to be voted again. Human-Stupidity.com found the smoking gun. Proof is on the United Nations web site.

Q – What does the UN mean by "youth," and
how does this definition differ from that given to children?

The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years,[…]  By that definition, therefore, children are those persons under the age of 14.
It is, however, worth noting that Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines ‘children’ as persons up to the age of 18. This was intentional, as it was hoped that the Convention would provide protection and rights to as large an age-group as possible and because there was no similar United Nations Convention on the Rights of Youth. (www.UN.org)

The United Nations web site confesses, expressis verbis, that the language confusion was created so that childhood laws could be transferred to adolescents, without undergoing scrutiny and without needing to be voted for. The United Nations, on their own website, admit that this age definition was made for manipulative purposes, and in contradiction of  their own age definitions elsewhere.

"Seduction of an adolescent" or "unlawful sex with a 17-year-old" does not sound dramatic enough. It is easier to get harsh laws against "child rapists". Equally, it is easier to convict for "child pornography" then for possession of tasteful "nude photos of a 17 year old".  Just manipulate the language to manipulate the masses! And government, press, judges, jury.

For the past 2000 years, before feminists took over the United Nations,

  • a child was a person under 12 or 14 years of age
  • pornography was depiction explicit sexual activity
  • rape was violent forceful sexual penetration against a resisting victim
  • consent was, well, consent. Saying yes. Independent of age.

Is it not strange that all these terms were diluted to create confusion?

We will focus on how the United Nations manipulated the definition of "Child" in order to force the world to ratify child protection laws for adolescent youths.

"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol"

"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol" read the sign at the supermarket checkout. For the supermarket cashier, it is "Better be safe then sorry."

Nobody goes to jail for 15 years for selling alcohol to someone slightly underage.  So to be safe,

"If S/he looks under 35 years of age, don’t propose sex, nor kissing, nor possess nude photos of her/him

Most people are unaware: Age of consent  laws and "child" porn laws don’t just scare people away from "underage" persons.

To be on the safe side, one should not possess porn with anyone that looks under 25 or 30, and not try to get involved romantically with anyone that looks under 30.

"Eschew obfuscation"  (avoid being unclear)!

Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes English 101. Science and law also try to get clear and concise definitions.

To foster the political goal of curbing adolescent sexuality and erotic depictions, the United Nations leads the world into obfuscation.

Due to United Nations influence,
our language lost the capacity to differentiate between totally different situations

,,,people assume that a person labeled with possession of CP [child p ornography] automatically is looking at pictures of 4 yr olds having sex with adults etc…when the law actually is worded to where you could have a clothed picture of a 16yr old female and have it be considered CP…  prisontalk.com

 

 
The following are all the same now.

2 year olds, 7 year olds, 11 year old children

=

15 y or 17 year old adolescent youth.

=

All above are "Children"

 

 

As a result of United Nations language manipulation, the following are the same:

Indecently fondling a 17 year old 
fully dressed long term girlfriend, with her consent

= forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of a kidnapped 4 year old
Both above are "child rape". "Non-consensual" sex.
And the depictions of both are the same. Child Pornography.

We think this is demagogic. unscientific. Purposeful misleading.  Disgusting.

You did not understand that this is the same? click on "more" below and we will show you why, step by step

Furthermore we will also use medical science and developmental psychology to scientifically define "child" and the phases of childhood.  In a subsequent post, later, we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition” »
17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses politic…
» continues here »

Share

Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?

An intelligent, fully conscious young man committed rape without knowing he was raping. He had no clue he was raping. How can you rape while thinking you are not raping? Do you know the answer?

Man unknowingly rapes girl because she deceived him.
Man deceived by girl into unknowingly raping her.

The answer is:

Man who had sex with girl, 12, admits rape but is freed after woman judge says he was ‘duped’ into thinking she was 19

A barman who admitted having sex with a 12-year-old girl walked free from court after convincing a judge she had tricked him into believing she was an adult.

Michael Graham, 25, met the girl through a social networking website on which she had posted pictures of herself and described herself as a 19-year-old student and single mother who enjoyed drinking and having sex.

The girl was inundated with offers from men, but only replied to Graham because he was the best looking, Leeds Crown Court was told.

You guessed wrong? you still haven’t gotten it: consensual sex can be rape. If a 12 or 15 year old happily hops into your bed, or if you drag her into the bushes and hold a knife to her throat, in both cases you commit the same crime “rape”.

This is a special case of “rape by deception”. The “rapist” was deceived.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?” »
Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing…
» continues here »

Share

“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  

“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography 

We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt

merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites. 

Vodoo logic

Child porn Voodoo logic

voodoo-doll-pinYou stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.
The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle.
Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt.
 

Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism

exhusband-vodoo-doll While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ”
Dude” commenting at  
Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

VoodooDoll Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless! 

Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered: 

Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?

So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:

Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.    Examining the Effects of Child Pornography 

We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP

Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment 

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.” 

Are you mad? 

Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

Hence 

one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop 

Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic 

Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt

Australian Law Makers’ logic

Analogy #1

Analogy #2

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]  Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet 
 

  • infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams
  • children suffering serious injuries in accidents
  • children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. 

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of  depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned.  It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]   

  

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

We understand your rage

We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies 

  1. confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
    You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died
  2. Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12” and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.

  

Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?

  

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws” »
“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo…
» continues here »

Share

How to Teach a New Age Class by Throwing Around Meaningless Buzzwords (Humor)

How to teach a New Age Class by Throwing Around Meaningless KeywordsMore and more stupid, directionless people are turning to the nebulous, feel-good teachings of new age “philosophy.” Get in on this multi-billion dollar industry by doing what hundreds of others are doing: Teach a New Age class! Today there’s a serious shortage of teachers to fill the increasing demand for “knowledge”! And the best part is, absolutely no experience – or knowledge is necessary!

In this intensive one-day workshop, you’ll learn such vague and/or meaningless words and phrases a “quickening process,” “mind’s eye,” and “guided imagery.”

PLUS YOU’LL LEARN HOW TO:

  • Randomly add prefixes (“meta-,” “trans-,” “inter-“) to any number of words to make them sund more meta-impresive
  • Hyphenate words to make up your own personalized drivel (“trance-channeling,” “aura-synthetisation”, “cosmic-dymensional”, “self-harmonisation”.
  • Use Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, or other exotic sounding words (“Toltec,” Mantra.” “”Tantric,” “Mandala”) to add ancient sounding wisdom and legitimacy to whatever you say

You’ll come away with the tools you need to make a fortune in one of today’s hottest industries, simply by further confusing people who are already confused to begin with! And the beauty is,they’ll think they understand every word of what you say! ]]

Dawnea Bas experienced her first transformational conscious evolution at age 26 and went on to achieve the 7 chakras of meditation before traveling to Sedona, Arizona, to become a renowned metaphysical intuitive counsellor who specializes in psycho-spiritual rhythmic crystal therapy, She is the author of Angels and Dolphins: Cosmic Balance in Altered InnerShadow Life Magnetism.

Course 946 East End
sec. A Sun. Dec. 11 10am-6pm
sec. B Sat. Dec. 17 11am-7pm

Course fee 539 I Members Course fee 534

Human-Stupidity Analysis

One should not really dissect a joke. If you don’t get it, if you don’t find this funny, then maybe you have never been exposed to New Age Psychobabble.

But if you have seen people abusing language to distort meaning, to impress, to pretend to be knowledgeable, to appear intelligent, then you might crack up like we did. Language can be a powerful tool to confuse people, be in in Barnum effect or in manipulative language.

Share

Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance

The power of feminists is awe inspiring. Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, interpol, press,United Nations. Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading »
Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance
» continues here »

The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered  and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.

The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis

Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).

More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, ……   Any more naming suggestions?

Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills

In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race.  (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks.  Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring).  In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

  • economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
  • physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

  • Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills.  They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

So the historical stone age balance of power is:
  • men have economical and physical superiority,
  • women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
    Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.
    Mass media and the internet even increased the verbal manipulative power of women beyond what they had in the evolutionary EEA, 50 000 years ago. 
    This would explain womens total win on all fronts. They started winning when they outlawed bigamy, made it a crime for consensual adults to engange in marriage with several partners, and now are curtailing the rights to have consensual sex for pay, with adolescents, take one’s own photograph and doing DNA tests on one’s own children.

Anecdotal and other Evidence

It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.

I will explain the

reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.

I was inspired by the

antifeminist blog’s feminist-trade-union-hypothesis.

Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.

I was wondering:

Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories
  • how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?
  • And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?
  • there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist  “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)
Distortion and re-definition of language

When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language shows how language got re-defined for purely manipulative purposes.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Please read on, don’t miss the rest of the Feminist Social Manipulation Superiority Hypothesis »
Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes femi…
» continues here »

Share

Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent

Change.org silences dissent

Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape.

Call it an anti-crusade. Feminists have been on a very successful crusade to re-define language and change legal due process. So a vengeful women’s lone unproven accusation can instantly get the real victim, the falsely accused, into jail. Unlike all other crimes, where proof or multiple witnesses are needed.

Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape.

Demeaning dismissals of linguistic definitions. That is how far we have gotten. Even definitions of terms can not be questioned. The essence of taboos to perpetuate witch hunts and make sure the masses are deceived by misleading perverted re-definition of terms like “rape”

Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes.

And real victims of real rape get confused with “victims” that consented to fondling!? That is demeaning. And the “perpetrator” of consensual acts then gets gang-raped in prison, because of a pervasive attitude that (falsely convicted) rapists deserve getting raped. That is pain to real victims of real prison rape.

‘Women’s rights at change.org perpetuate manipulative language distortion to foster feminist political goals

It is essential for a witch hunt that dissent gets silenced, made taboo.  Change.org’s feminist watchdogs invoke emotional terms (“cause real pain to real victims of real crimes”) in order to avoid discussing the issues and silence dissent easily.  This is the central issue of Human-Stupidity.com: how Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, “stupid”. And self deception makes the censor believe s/he is a liberal person.

Thus, of course, the real pain caused to real victims of witch hunts is totally ignored.  Guys who spend years in jail for consensual sex with an adolescent, or for a unproven false rape accusation. And who get special attention from prison rapists who like to prey on alleged rapists in order to exert cruel and usual punishment.

But my main issue here is not even sex laws. It is manipulative Abuse of Language to deceive the masses. The concerted world wide conspiracy to use the word “rape” for “seducing an adolescent” or for “indecently fondling a minor”. And the perverted inversion of due legal process. Alleged sex offenders are “guilty until proven innocent” and any accusation by a lone alleged victim is taken as proof of a crime.

Change.org dispute: full text follows here

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent” »
Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor &…
» continues here »

Share

Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language

Abused Language: When a “rape” is not a rape

“Fondling a child”, or “consensual sex with an adolescent” nowadays can be called “rape”, in press reports, even in legal code (“statutory rape”).
This purposeful confusion created by the dilusion of the word “rape” helps to whip up punishment frenzy for crimes of “adolescent seduction” or “child fondling” at the expense of banalizing real forceful violent penetrating non-consensual rape.

So the word “rape” is abusively re-defined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire World Press,  the United Nations, everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated! Amazing!

Similarly,  “adolescent nudity” no can be called “child porn”.  Defining 17 year olds as children has the collateral effect that now there is no word for real children of 12 and under, as there is no word  left for real rape.  This confusion must have a manipulative motive, as there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries.

Real meaning of the word “rape”

What do most people understand by the word “rape”? What was the meaning of “rape” for centuries? Non-consensual intercourse with penetration, usually involving violence or threats.

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl

A barman who admitted raping a 12 year old girl he met through a social networking site has walked free from court after convincing a judge he was tricked into believing she was 19. Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl (telegraph.co.uk)
Man who had sex with girl, 12, admits rape but is freed after woman judge says he was ‘duped’ into thinking she was 19

Shocking, is it not? He raped a girl and was set free because he was mistaken about her age! It is ok to rape a girl if she is 19 years old?

Well, he did not REALLY rape her. If she is 19 years old then consensual sex, initiated by the girl who brought the condoms, is not called rape.  Dear Reader, haven’t you understood that any sex with a 12 year old is rape?  Our language has changed in the last 25 years! But, of course, this is on purpose. Once you understand that rape is not rape, the intended shock effect gets lost.

So the 12 year old was eager to have sex with him, actively initiated sex and purposefully deceived the barman into thinking that she was 19.  So, miraculously, he was freed. Doesn’t sound so shocking any more.

See Why I hate statutory Rape Laws | A Public Defender

After breaking marriage vow, sex becomes rape

Having a sexual relationship with a woman with a false promise of marriage can also be termed as rape. The case was being heard in a Delhi Court and it involved a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbour. The man was found guilty of rape and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the present case, Chhotey Lal, the convict and father of six children, had eloped with his neighbour in New Delhi in September 2004, and took her to far away places like Jaipur and Chandigarh. According to the girl, the duo established sexual relations after Lal assured her that he would marry her ‘very soon’. Meanwhile, the girl’s father lodged a ‘missing’ report with the police. The police detained Lal and the girl in March 2005 at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal when they were returning to Delhi. Chhotey Lal was prosecuted for abducting the girl and having sexual relationships with her on false pretext.

“The so-called consent under a false promise to marriage is no consent,” additional sessions judge Mahavir Singhal said.

Highlighting the difference between ‘will’ and ‘consent’, the court said that a nod for sexual relations obtained by a man on the false pretext would not amount to a ‘legal or valid’ consent to save him from punishment for rape.

The Court observed that, even if the woman is assumed to be a willing partner in having a physical relationship, that the accused had no intention to marry her would make it a case where consent was given under misconception of facts, nullifying the efficacy of the nod.
Rape by promising marriage in India

Adolescent raped repeatedly?

Due to the language confusion, we really can not know if she was raped, or more likely, seduced. But most women don’t get raped repeatedly on various days.

In 1997, 15-year-old Tina Anderson became pregnant after being raped repeatedly by an older man she knew from church. Shockingly, when her pastor found out, he forced her to apologize in front of the entire congregation in Concord, New Hampshire, and then promptly helped whisk her away to live in Colorado.

According to Tina, the first time she was raped by Ernest Willis, it was in the backseat of car after he’d given her a driving lesson. She didn’t tell anyone because she was terrified that she’d be blamed. After being raped by Willis again, Tina became pregnant.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/ teenager_forced_to_apologize_to_her_church_for_being_raped

Did she get “raped” or seduced? we don’t know

What does the average reader of this article think? They guy attacked the girl in a dark alley and had sex with her under the threat of violence.  Strange, though, that he raped her repeatedly on different days.
Now it is amazing that feminists and moralists managed to put such manipulative language even into penal codes. It is easier to promote your agenda with misleading language. “Teenager forced to appologize for being seduced” does not sound so shocking.  The word manipulation must  be planned and purposeful.
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

Language confusion obfuscates facts

So no matter if you think sex with underage should be punished, I hope you agree that the truth should be said and that manipulative language should be abolished.
By the way, Ernest Willis is a child rapist. Because according to new definitions of child pornography, a child now is anyone under 18. The United Nations, the US, and Europe have adopted that definition.

Whoppi Goldberg differentiates “rape-rape” and non-violent so called “rape”

Hollywood has rallied behind Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland over the weekend, with the actor Whoopi Goldberg suggesting that whatever he was guilty of it wasn’t “rape-rape”.

As a guest on The View chatshow on US television, she said: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left.”

Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg

Age discimination: why is a 15 year old capable to consent to sex with a 16 year old but not with a 35 year old?

Then we can disagree on the last point: if a 15 year old can decide who to have sex with. Interestingly, she can decide to have sex with a 16 year old. How come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?

Mandatory psychological counselling before underage sex?

Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? what about legalizing sex with underage girls, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. And it would be a good idea even for sex between consenting teenagers. So there would be no age discrimination!

Click on “more” for the rest of the story ……..

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language” »
Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not…
» continues here »

Share