Egyptian women protesters forced to take 'virginity tests'

Egyptian women protesters forced to take ‘virginity tests’

Middle East • April 2011 • Views: 1,816

Amnesty International has today called on the Egyptian authorities to investigate serious allegations of torture, including forced ‘virginity tests’, inflicted by the army on women protesters arrested in Tahrir Square earlier this month.

After army officers violently cleared the square of protesters on 9 March, at least 18 women were held in military detention. Amnesty International has been told by women protesters that they were beaten, given electric shocks, subjected to strip searches while being photographed by male soldiers, then forced to submit to ‘virginity checks’ and threatened with prostitution charges.

‘Virginity tests’ are a form of torture when they are forced or coerced.

“Forcing women to have ‘virginity tests’ is utterly unacceptable. Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women,” said Amnesty International. “All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called ‘tests’.”

20-year-old Salwa Hosseini told Amnesty International that after she was arrested and taken to a military prison in Heikstep, she was made, with the other women, to take off all her clothes to be searched by a female prison guard, in a room with two open doors and a window. During the strip search, Salwa Hosseini said male soldiers were looking into the room and taking pictures of the naked women.

The women were then subjected to ‘virginity tests’ in a different room by a man in a white coat. They were threatened that “those not found to be virgins” would be charged with prostitution.

According to information received by Amnesty International, one woman who said she was a virgin but whose test supposedly proved otherwise was beaten and given electric shocks.

“Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured, or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment,” said Amnesty International.

“The army officers tried to further humiliate the women by allowing men to watch and photograph what was happening, with the implicit threat that the women could be at further risk of harm if the photographs were made public.”

More at Amnesty International for those with strong stomachs.

Recent Pages by iceweasel:
Witches, Satanism, and an Exorcism: A Tour Through the Rightwing Psyche Gateway Pundit Doesn't Understand What Words Mean Monday Morning Lockdown Literature Schadenfreude: One Trump Moment--Watch Ted Cruz Issues Statement, Blames the Bitches

Jump to bottom

116 comments

theheat Wed, Apr 6, 2011 6:51:47am

Did the Egyptians collaborate with the GOP on this? Seems awfully well organized and suitability horrifying and demeaning. Or, maybe the GOP is sitting this one out to see the best way to iron the kinks out of the program.

Absolutely disgusting.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 8:02:20am

I think it is disgusting to paint the GOP with this.

Absolutely disgusting.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 8:42:12am

re: #2 Buck

I think it is disgusting to paint the GOP with this.

Absolutely disgusting.

If they could, they would. The GOP has done a fine job of degrading women by trying to take away their rights to their own bodies.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 8:49:29am

re: #3 marjoriemoon

If they could, they would. The GOP has done a fine job of degrading women by trying to take away their rights to their own bodies.

You just know this…. right…. You can say it because well you just think it is true.

Honestly, I have no idea why you think you have the right to say shit like that.

It is so disgusting that you would assert that the Republican Party would have the police force innocent women to submit to virginity tests IF THEY COULD.

Basically you are saying that if Republicans could RAPE women and get away with it, they would.

That is clearly dehumanizing a group of people, only because they disagree with you.

Romantic Heretic Wed, Apr 6, 2011 9:50:02am

You don’t spend much time here, do you, Buck? If you had you would have noticed all the legislation started by the Republicans from defunding Planned Parenthood to ‘redefining’ rape that has been posted here at LGF.

Also, since when did you care about dehumanizing opponents? It seems to be your modus operandi here.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:03:35am

re: #4 Buck

The GOP already, in some states, is mandating that women must have a vaginal wand inserted before they get an abortion.

What do you call inserting something into a woman’s vagina when she doesn’t want you to, Buck?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:04:14am

re: #5 Romantic Heretic

Buck defended the GOP’s attempt to redefine rape, claiming that they were just using the word ‘violent’ in order to emphasize how bad rape was.

Seriously.

webevintage Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:06:13am

re: #6 Obdicut

The GOP already, in some states, is mandating that women must have a vaginal wand inserted before they get an abortion.

What do you call inserting something into a woman’s vagina when she doesn’t want you to, Buck?

I would consider it a form of rape.
Legal rape brought to you by the new TEAGop party….

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:07:29am

re: #5 Romantic Heretic

You don’t spend much time here, do you, Buck? If you had you would have noticed all the legislation started by the Republicans from defunding Planned Parenthood to ‘redefining’ rape that has been posted here at LGF.

Also, since when did you care about dehumanizing opponents? It seems to be your modus operandi here.

You cannot make the jump from defunding Planned Parenthood to wanting to rape women who just happen to be protesting. Not in a million years. I also maintain that there was no redefine of rape. That was a perfect example of a outrageous outrage if I ever saw one.

AND isn’t your (absolutly false) accusation of me dehumanizing opponents just an example of “tu quoque”?

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:11:28am

re: #6 Obdicut

The GOP already, in some states, is mandating that women must have a vaginal wand inserted before they get an abortion.

What do you call inserting something into a woman’s vagina when she doesn’t want you to, Buck?

We can go around on this again and again. HOWEVER, you place the blame on the GOP on state legislation that you don’t like, as if they are in power illegally and are some kind of state dictators.

Laws you don’t like get passed. You weaken your case against them when you simply blame “the others”.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:16:28am

re: #7 Obdicut

Buck defended the GOP’s attempt to redefine rape, claiming that they were just using the word ‘violent’ in order to emphasize how bad rape was.

Seriously.

Yes, I said the word was placed in the budget item that was written to discuss when an abortion would be paid for with public funds.

It was not to define the matter criminally.

I also pointed out that ALL RAPE IS VIOLENT not only by the definition of the word, but by the act itself. I said there was no non-violent rape. Which you seem to disagree with. You seem to think that there are cases of rape that a woman would not think is a violent assault on her body. You seem to think that there are ways to have non-consensual sex with a woman that is not violent.

You never did come up with an example of non-violent rape

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:19:54am

re: #11 Buck

For fuck’s sake, Buck. Non-violent rape: Rape where it’s not a violent physical assault, but instead due to coercion, or simple lack of consent. Like date rape. Or statutory rape.

I know that you took a position that allowed you to defend the GOP, even though that position defies all common sense. That’s what you do.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:20:55am

And just so you are on the record, do you think that the Republican Party would have the police force innocent women to submit to virginity tests IF THEY COULD?

Which, BTW is the actual subject at hand, before you hijack it and make it about a bill that was changed to accommodate your baseless fears.

Interesting Times Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:23:01am

Can the resident shill defend every GOP-sponsored item on this list?

Excerpt the first:

The Texas State House of Representatives has passed the Sonogram Bill (HB 15), a measure requiring women to get a sonogram before ending a pregnancy, forcing even victims of rape to have an ultrasound probe inserted into their uteruses at least 24 hours before the procedure. Georgia State Representative Bobby Franklin has introduced a bill that would not only make abortion illegal but would make miscarriages illegal.

Excerpt the second:

In Iowa a pregnant woman was arrested for falling down a flight of stairs. Yes, for falling down a flight of stairs. You see, following a fight on the phone with her husband, Christine Taylor fell down a flight of stairs. Like any responsible pregnant woman would, she went to the hospital to check on the fetus – and was arrested thanks to one of the many state laws that grant fetuses rights separate from the mother.

Excerpt the third:

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” (HR 3) that would limit the rape exemption for abortion to “forcible rape” which would have defined many rapes, for example, statutory rape of a minor, as non-forcible and therefore not covered by federal assistance. Mother Jones has reported another aspect of this legislation, that the IRS would be turned into abortion-cops: “Were this to become law, people could end up in an audit, the subject of which could be abortion, rape, and incest,” says Christopher Bergin, the head of Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit tax policy group. “If you pass the law like this, the IRS would be required to enforce it.”

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:23:14am

re: #12 Obdicut

For fuck’s sake, Buck. Non-violent rape: Rape where it’s not a violent physical assault, but instead due to coercion, or simple lack of consent. Like date rape. Or statutory rape.

I know that you took a position that allowed you to defend the GOP, even though that position defies all common sense. That’s what you do.

OK, you are on record that you don’t think that date rape is a violence.

Good job… I personally think that is offensive, but hey… if you are supported in that here, great. Just to be clear, you think that an adult forcing themselves on a child is not violent.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:27:41am

re: #15 Buck

No, Buck. Apparently you don’t understand what statutory rape is.

Statutory rape is any sex between a minor and an adult, even when the minor is consenting. This is because we don’t believe children have the capacity to truly give consent.

It is really, really shitty of you to attempt to make this a smear about me not thinking that rape is ‘a violence’. I think rape, be it done through violence, coercion, or simply taking advantage of a minor or a person in an altered state, is a terrible fucking thing.

Given that there are many GOP members who openly state that they are against abortions even in the case of rape, I have no idea why you’ve constructed this elaborate fantasy whereby those stalwart GOP fellows— in the bill restricting abortion access— were just trying to make sure that everyone knew they thought rape was violent. It makes no sense on any level, but it allows you to defend the GOP. So that’s the position you’ll take.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:37:07am

ANY act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person is by definition a violent act. At least it is for the victim, and that is what we are talking about. That is simple and easy to understand.

I think it is YOU who are redefining Rape when you say there is more than one way to force intercourse on a person.

I don’t see multiple definitions of forced intercourse, where you do.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:39:46am

re: #17 Buck

Buck, do you understand that statutory rape includes consensual sex between the not-of-age person and the older person?

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:40:40am

re: #16 Obdicut

Statutory rape is any sex between a minor and an adult, even when the minor is consenting. This is because we don’t believe children have the capacity to truly give consent.

AND no your definition of Statutory rape is wrong, and offensive. Just the sentence “even when the minor is consenting”, is offensive.

It isn’t “because we don’t believe children have the capacity to truly give consent” it is because children don’t have the capacity to give consent.

If you don’t see the difference then it is YOU who is redefining rape.

CuriousLurker Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:42:30am

re: #4 Buck

You just know this… right… You can say it because well you just think it is true.

Honestly, I have no idea why you think you have the right to say shit like that.

It is so disgusting that you would assert that the Republican Party would have the police force innocent women to submit to virginity tests IF THEY COULD.

Basically you are saying that if Republicans could RAPE women and get away with it, they would.

That is clearly dehumanizing a group of people, only because they disagree with you.

Not the innocent ones, just the guilty ones. Remember this? Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee

If a woman was unmarried, how do you suppose this guy would propose that it be determined whether or not a woman had had illicit sex? Keep in mind that this guy was the Republican governor’s appointee for a panel that nominates state judges in Alaska.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:42:42am

re: #18 Obdicut

Buck, do you understand that statutory rape includes consensual sex between the not-of-age person and the older person?

Nope. A child cannot give consent.

Only in your mind is there is CONSENSUAL statutory rape.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:44:24am

re: #20 CuriousLurker

Not the innocent ones, just the guilty ones. Remember this? Sex outside marriage should be illegal, says Parnell nominee

If a woman was unmarried, how do you suppose this guy would propose that it be determined whether or not a woman had had illicit sex? Keep in mind that this guy was the Republican governor’s appointee for a panel that nominates state judges in Alaska.

That is NOT the GOP, but thanks for weighing in. You can generalize with these people that a wackjob with a voter registration card defines the entire party, BUT if you do it, then other can about your party.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:45:24am

re: #21 Buck

Holy shit, I never thought you’d stoop this low. How can you rationalize this to yourself? You’re seriously trying to accuse someone who was raped as a child of not understanding the concept of consent as it applies to children.

A child can say “Yes, I want to have sex.” They can even attempt to seduce an adult. And if that adult still has sex with them, even if the child was the initiator, it is 100% the fault of the adult, because a child’s consent isn’t valid, since they don’t have the capacity to understand what they’re doing. Nor does, say, a mentally impaired person who gives consent, or a drunken person.

But that doesn’t make it ‘violent’— which you obviously know, which is why you’re being such an enormous asshole about this and attempting to paint me in such a terrible light.

How can you believe this is the right thing to do, Buck?

CuriousLurker Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:49:33am

re: #22 Buck

That is NOT the GOP, but thanks for weighing in. You can generalize with these people that a wackjob with a voter registration card defines the entire party, BUT if you do it, then other can about your party.

He was a GOP appointee. And I’ll thank you not to put put words in my mouth.

re: #21 Buck

Nope. A child cannot give consent.

Only in your mind is there is CONSENSUAL statutory rape.

You’ve sunk to a new low with that one. I’m not giving you any more of the attention you so crave. Later.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:50:39am

Well, that takes the cake. It is clearly YOU who are saying to a person who was raped as a child that they might have consented and therefore their rape was non-violent.

I am saying to that person JUST THE OPPOSITE, that the adult who raped them did so violently when they forced them to have intercourse.

You have this so reversed. IT IS YOU who is defending some rape as non violent.

Buck, do you understand that statutory rape includes consensual sex between the not-of-age person and the older person?

You said it, you wrote it. Now you can say that you didn’t mean it, or you can say you mistyped, but there you are for all to see saying that ” statutory rape includes consensual sex “.

I am saying it doesn’t.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:52:38am

re: #25 Buck

Buck. Do you understand that I was raped as a child?

I want to see if you really understand how much of an amazing asshole you’re being.

Spocomptonite Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:54:46am

Wow Buck, just wow.

You do know that statutory rape is this huge legal/ethical gray area, right? A 16 y.o. and 18 y.o. is statutory rape. I don’t think consensual sex in high school is automatically a violent act, nor is it on the same level as other statutory rapes, much less actual forcible rape without consent regardless of age.

Obdicut gets it. You, sir, do not.

And while the whole GOP party isn’t doing what Egypt is doing, they are going down the road in that direction in regards to women’s rights, which is absolutely appalling given that the US prides itself on being the model of democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:55:49am

re: #25 Buck

Buck, you are so wrong. I don’t even need a legal dictionary to show you. Wikipedia will show what’s common knowledge:

The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe sexual activities where one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term “statutory rape” in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as “sexual assault,” “rape of a child,” “corruption of a minor,” “carnal knowledge of a minor,” “unlawful carnal knowledge”, or simply “carnal knowledge.” Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Emphasis added, to no avail probably.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 10:56:28am

re: #25 Buck

And yes. Some rape is non-violent. That isn’t me ‘defending’ it, which is your vicious, insane smear. That’s me saying that there is, as well as violent rape, non-violent rape. Because there is. Like a guy getting a girl very drunk until she consents to have sex with him. Because impaired forms of consent aren’t valid. And we consider— rightly— children to be impaired in terms of giving consent.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:07:56am

re: #4 Buck

You just know this… right… You can say it because well you just think it is true.

Honestly, I have no idea why you think you have the right to say shit like that.

It is so disgusting that you would assert that the Republican Party would have the police force innocent women to submit to virginity tests IF THEY COULD.

Basically you are saying that if Republicans could RAPE women and get away with it, they would.

That is clearly dehumanizing a group of people, only because they disagree with you.

Couldn’t have said it better, Buck :)

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:17:47am

re: #28 wrenchwench

Buck, you are so wrong. I don’t even need a legal dictionary to show you. Wikipedia will show what’s common knowledge:

Emphasis added, to no avail probably.

Your emphasis is missing both parts:

Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Need not be present but is presumed. Coercion is presumed.

Now which word do you need to look up? “Coercion” or “presumed”.

Coercion: The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Presume: take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof

SO, your quote backs me up and says that there is no statutory rape that includes consensual sex because the coercion is assumed.

And as to you confession, I did not know, and I am very sorry to hear about that, BUT I am quite sure you would not say it was consensual or non violent.

You can try and paint me as a villain, but I am stating three things that I believe to be completely true:

Number one: Saying that “the GOP would rape women if they thought they could” is a horrible generalization. In the case of the story there is are muslim men and women sexually assaulting women. It would be wrong to generalize and say that, muslim men and women would sexually assault women if they could.

Number two: There is NO NON-VIOLENT way to force intercourse on a person. All Rape is by definition violent.

Number three: There is no such thing as consensual statutory rape.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:19:54am

Here is a sampling of the GOP’s War on Women and children because some folks seem to have a selective memory.

War on Breast Pumps tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

War on Sesame Street coloradoindependent.com

War on Family Planning politicsdaily.com

War on Abortion. msmagazine.com

War on Contraception angryblacklady.com

Please note these are not “individuals” but representative of entire swaths of Republicans.

Spocomptonite Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:23:37am

re: #30 marjoriemoon

Ha ha, I just now picked up on the irony. Said no better, indeed.

calochortus Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:25:48am

Buck, I’m sorry you’re bored. Perhaps you need to find a hobby other than being obtuse in online discussions?

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:26:40am

re: #31 Buck

If my quotation backed you up, it would have the word “violent” in it.

You are still wrong.

Please address your “I am very sorry to hear about that” to Obdicut.

Spocomptonite Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:29:34am

re: #31 Buck

Number two: There is NO NON-VIOLENT way to force intercourse on a person. All Rape is by definition violent.

Ways that are violent to Buck:
1) drugs
2) alcohol
3) peer pressure
4) authority
5) persuasion
6) etc etc etc

Also, I assume that all robberies are violent since there is no non-violent way to force money out of a person, amirite?

Shades of grey, Buck. The world isn’t as black and white as you’d like it to be.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:31:25am

re: #33 Spocomptonite

Ha ha, I just now picked up on the irony. Said no better, indeed.

It’s insane to me that anyone would argue with the statement that if the GOP could put women back in a box, scrubbing the dishes, prohibit them from education and made to pump out chillins, they wouldn’t jump at the chance. All legislation drafted by the GOP in regards to women is against them, not to empower them.

We started out with a few racist teabaggers, but “regular” conservatives (I thought Newt was one) quickly got on the bandwagon. Even if they don’t agree, we’ll never know because they don’t have the balls to stand against the base, i.e. pushing the birther nonsense.

Well, I suppose you know all of that. hehe

Buck said, “Basically you are saying that if Republicans could RAPE women and get away with it, they would.”

And yea, he said that really well :) They are already doing it.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:36:17am

Where is Anita Hill when you need her :(

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:37:29am

re: #31 Buck

A) I didn’t confess to anything, since I didn’t do anything wrong. I have no idea why you’d phrase it in such a manner— especially while you’re attempting to win a semantic victory.

B) It was definitely non-violent. There was absolutely no violence, whatsoever. It was a non-violent rape. That is the reality of it. I consented— but i was just a child. So my consent was as meaningless as that of a drunken girl, or a mentally handicapped adult.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:40:11am

re: #31 Buck

Number one: Saying that “the GOP would rape women if they thought they could” is a horrible generalization. In the case of the story there is are muslim men and women sexually assaulting women. It would be wrong to generalize and say that, muslim men and women would sexually assault women if they could.

In Islamic countries where women have no say at all, rape is NOT a crime. You do know that, don’t you? In fact, a woman who is raped by a married man who is not her husband and ends up pregnant is put to death for having “sex” with him.

Come back when you can talk with the grownups.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:51:00am

re: #40 marjoriemoon

In Islamic countries where women have no say at all, rape is NOT a crime. You do know that, don’t you? In fact, a woman who is raped by a married man who is not her husband and ends up pregnant is put to death for having “sex” with him.

Come back when you can talk with the grownups.

OK, so with that knowledge you would be comfortable to say:

“muslim men and women would sexually assault women if they could.”

Of course you wouldn’t, that would be a banning offence.

Yes, there are SOME muslim countries with horrible laws on the books, and there are SOME muslim men and women who do horrible thing. BUT we do not generalize.

APox Wed, Apr 6, 2011 11:57:21am

Buck you are just on a roll. Before long you’ll be negative 10,000 points! Keep it going!

APox Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:00:11pm

“Yes, there are SOME muslim countries with horrible laws on the books, and there are SOME muslim men and women who do horrible thing. BUT we do not generalize.”

I just almost spit my drink! Your side doesn’t generalize about Muslims? Now I’m in total awe of your head in the sand approach to logic.

The Mosque protest in NY was just great, wasn’t it Buck? Or how about this great video in California:

Youtube Video

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:00:45pm

re: #39 Obdicut

A) I didn’t confess to anything, since I didn’t do anything wrong. I have no idea why you’d phrase it in such a manner— especially while you’re attempting to win a semantic victory.

B) It was definitely non-violent. There was absolutely no violence, whatsoever. It was a non-violent rape. That is the reality of it. I consented— but i was just a child. So my consent was as meaningless as that of a drunken girl, or a mentally handicapped adult.

OK this is something you need to work out. However in my opinion and in the opinion of the law, even if you think you otherwise, the act of forced intercourse on a child is both violent and non-consensual. As I showed you coercion is assumed, and coercion is using force or threats. Both acts are violent (using using force or threats). As it would be on a drunken person or a mentally challenged person of whom the court decided does not have the mental capacity to consent.

My use of the word confession might have been clumsy. I didn’t mean you had done anything wrong, in fact my entire argument is otherwise.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:01:37pm

re: #41 Buck

OK, so with that knowledge you would be comfortable to say:

“muslim men and women would sexually assault women if they could.”

Of course you wouldn’t, that would be a banning offence.

Yes, there are SOME muslim countries with horrible laws on the books, and there are SOME muslim men and women who do horrible thing. BUT we do not generalize.

There are plenty in the GOP itching to keep women barefoot and pregnant. And those that want to do so are IN power, even if it set civil rights back 60 years. So my statement “if they could they would” is 100% accurate.

Btw, in my anger, I could have said it better. The majority of Islamic scholars to NOT blame a woman for rape, but many still do and that’s a big problem.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:01:55pm

re: #43 APox

“Yes, there are SOME muslim countries with horrible laws on the books, and there are SOME muslim men and women who do horrible thing. BUT we do not generalize.”

I just almost spit my drink! Your side doesn’t generalize about Muslims? Now I’m in total awe of your head in the sand approach to logic.

The Mosque protest in NY was just great, wasn’t it Buck? Or how about this great video in California:

[Video]

that wasn’t me.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:23:25pm

re: #44 Buck

OK this is something you need to work out.

What is something I need to work out, Buck?

However in my opinion and in the opinion of the law, even if you think you otherwise, the act of forced intercourse on a child is both violent and non-consensual.

No, it’s not. There is nothing in the law saying that it’s violent. And the law says that a child cannot lawfully consent. It doesn’t mean children don’t consent. It means that in the eye of the law, just as consent granted by an impaired individual, it does not stand.

A child could consent to have sex with an adult out of pure love— as, sadly, is the case in many cases of incest, and it wouldn’t matter.

You have twisted your way through this entire argument solely to defend those on the GOP who wished to deny abortion access to a certain number of women who were raped. What makes it more baffling is that there are plenty of people in the GOP who want to deny all women who were raped access to abortion. There are others who have stated that they don’t believe a woman can conceive if it was during rape.

Think about what you’re doing to yourself by making these sorts of arguments. Why throw away your humanity for the sake of those bastards?

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:26:06pm

re: #45 marjoriemoon

There are plenty in the GOP itching to keep women barefoot and pregnant. And those that want to do so are IN power, even if it set civil rights back 60 years. So my statement “if they could they would” is 100% accurate.

Btw, in my anger, I could have said it better. The majority of Islamic scholars to NOT blame a woman for rape, but many still do and that’s a big problem.

I don’t really care about you and your anger issues. I don’t know if you accept that excuse in others or not. I certainly was offended by #1 and then your copy of it in #3. All the rest of this is a hijacking of my being offended by those generalizations.

Maybe it isn’t you, but there are many on this site that like to characterize the way this site was in 2001 - 2008 as a fertile place for anti-muslim hate. I disagree with that, but I don’t think it is ok to swap one form of hateful generalizations just to replace them with another.

APox Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:30:36pm

re: #41 Buck

BUT we do not generalize.

Then don’t say “we” say “I”, Buck.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:31:31pm

re: #48 Buck

I don’t really care about you and your anger issues. I don’t know if you accept that excuse in others or not. I certainly was offended by #1 and then your copy of it in #3. All the rest of this is a hijacking of my being offended by those generalizations.

Maybe it isn’t you, but there are many on this site that like to characterize the way this site was in 2001 - 2008 as a fertile place for anti-muslim hate. I disagree with that, but I don’t think it is ok to swap one form of hateful generalizations just to replace them with another.

Please name for me some GOP politicians who are fighting for the rights of women and children. Who do not want to overturn Roe v Wade. Who do not want to defund or straight out get-rid-of NPR, PBS and Planned Parenthood. I need their names because if they’re out there, they ain’t speaking.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:31:34pm

re: #47 Obdicut

You have twisted your way through this entire argument solely to defend those on the GOP who wished to deny abortion access to a certain number of women who were raped.

That is completely not true. I have done nothing of the sort. I have stated what I think is true, and have been perfectly clear that I think the “deny abortion access to a certain number of women who were raped” is simply untrue.

To characterize what I have said in any other way is to simply make up what YOU THINK I am saying, and present it as my words.

I will again state what I am saying in easy to understand language:

Number one: Saying that “the GOP would rape women if they thought they could” is a horrible generalization. In the case of the story there is are muslim men and women sexually assaulting women. It would be wrong to generalize and say that, muslim men and women would sexually assault women if they could.
Number two: There is NO NON-VIOLENT way to force intercourse on a person. All Rape is by definition violent.

Number three: There is no such thing as consensual statutory rape.

Nothing more. Do not add to this list without actual proof.

Interesting Times Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:34:10pm

Thick-headed and thin-skinned is no way to go through life, son.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:37:53pm

re: #51 Buck

You’re taking the position you are solely to defend them. You’re interpreting their inclusion of ‘violent rape’ as being a completely cosmetic flourish so that you can defend them. That intepretation is at odds not only with common sense, but with many GOP officials who openly state that they want women who were raped to not be able to receive abortions.

I have no interest in whether you’re taking this position out of conscious malignancy, or self-delusion. The output is the same. You’re still defending them.

Can you please explain what you meant by this?

OK this is something you need to work out.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:39:29pm

re: #47 Obdicut

A child could consent to have sex with an adult out of pure love— as, sadly, is the case in many cases of incest, and it wouldn’t matter.

Sorry, I cannot agree with that statement at all. Nope, not in anyway. You can downding me for it all day long. I will not accept that any child can consent to have sex with any adult. Never.

Think about what you’re doing to yourself by making these sorts of arguments. Why throw away your humanity for the sake of those bastards?

I think it is you who ask himself that.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:48:00pm

re: #53 Obdicut

OK this is something you need to work out.

Very simply that is a personal discussion for you to deal without me.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 12:48:39pm

re: #54 Buck

are you purposefully misunderstanding me now?

Children can, and do, consent to having sex with adults. That consent is meaningless in the eyes of the law, and the eyes of ethics, because they are not competent to give consent.

Furthermore, the word that the GOP used was actually ‘forcible’, and not violent. I made a mistake when I said ‘violent’ above. Forcible involves, well, force. There are many more rapes that don’t involve any sort of force whatsoever, or even the threat of force. So, you were more wrong than I even remembered.

You have come up with no credible reason why the GOP would call rape ‘forcible rape’ Your contention that they did so to show how much they hated rape makes no sense whatsoever. They were modifying the existing language of a bill, and chose to replace ‘rape’ with ‘forcible rape’. The very, very obvious reason is that they were defining it further, to limit it— this is borne out by the many GOP attempts to outlaw or limit access to abortions even for women who have been raped.

I think it is you who ask himself that.

Tortured grammar aside, what ‘bastards’ am I arguing in favor of, Buck?

Very simply that is a personal discussion for you to deal without me.

What are you talking about? What is a personal discussion for me to deal with?

Try being clear instead of craven.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:13:37pm

re: #50 marjoriemoon

Please name for me some GOP politicians who are fighting for the rights of women and children. Who do not want to overturn Roe v Wade. Who do not want to defund or straight out get-rid-of NPR, PBS and Planned Parenthood. I need their names because if they’re out there, they ain’t speaking.

I’m waiting!!

Sionainn Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:16:42pm

Can we all chip in and buy Buck a frickin’ dictionary, or maybe teach him how to google definitions?

Sionainn Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:29:45pm

re: #54 Buck

Sorry, I cannot agree with that statement at all. Nope, not in anyway. You can downding me for it all day long. I will not accept that any child can consent to have sex with any adult. Never.

I think it is you who ask himself that.

Oh, c’mon, Buck. Let me draw you a picture. Me in high school having consensual sex with my older-by-two-and-a-half-years boyfriend met the statutory rape definition, but was most certainly consensual and not in any way violent.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:39:03pm

re: #56 Obdicut

There are many more rapes that don’t involve any sort of force whatsoever

And I don’t agree with that at all.

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:41:49pm

re: #60 Buck

And I don’t agree with that at all.

You are disagreeing with reality. What Obdicut wrote is a fact. It is not a matter for interpretation.

re: #58 Sionainn

Can we all chip in and buy Buck a frickin’ dictionary, or maybe teach him how to google definitions?

A dictionary won’t help. There’s a problem with his brain or with his personality. He refuses to learn.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:44:35pm

re: #59 Sionainn

Oh, c’mon, Buck. Let me draw you a picture. Me in high school having consensual sex with my older-by-two-and-a-half-years boyfriend met the statutory rape definition, but was most certainly consensual and not in any way violent.

OK, let me draw YOU a picture. If you had become pregnant (I don’t know if you are male or female, but let’s for the sake of the discussion say female), and you chose to have an abortion. Do you think under the circumstances you outlined, the state should pay for it? Would you, in order to get the state to pay for your abortion say that you were raped? That you in fact consented to be raped.

If you don’t want to say you were raped, you don’t have to. This was a BUDGET bill, not a criminal law.

Get the picture?

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:46:33pm

re: #57 marjoriemoon

I’m waiting!!

Yes, I know you are. I am not participating in your generalization to demonize all conservatives.

Enjoy.

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:47:22pm

re: #62 Buck

That you in fact consented to be raped.

Pull your head out of your nether regions.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:51:34pm

re: #60 Buck

And I don’t agree with that at all.

It’s not a matter you can agree or disagree with. It’s reality.

Sionainn Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:53:58pm

re: #62 Buck

OK, let me draw YOU a picture. If you had become pregnant (I don’t know if you are male or female, but let’s for the sake of the discussion say female), and you chose to have an abortion. Do you think under the circumstances you outlined, the state should pay for it? Would you, in order to get the state to pay for your abortion say that you were raped? That you in fact consented to be raped.

If you don’t want to say you were raped, you don’t have to. This was a BUDGET bill, not a criminal law.

Get the picture?

Like hell it was. It was the GOP doing everything in their fucking power to restrict abortion in any way they could. They don’t care about women and this was just one more way to prove it.

By the way, I’m female. I paid for my own birth control in high school and had I gotten pregnant and chose to have an abortion, I’d have paid for it myself because I had a job. That probably doesn’t fit with your expectations of a liberal, but there you go. ;-)

Sionainn Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:55:32pm

re: #63 Buck

Yes, I know you are. I am not participating in your generalization to demonize all conservatives.

Enjoy.

In other words, you’ve got nothing. I’m with marjoriemoon…I can’t think of a single Republican either.

Buck Wed, Apr 6, 2011 1:59:19pm

re: #66 Sionainn

It was a bill to define who the state should pay for abortions.

AND THAT FITS EXACTLY. I knew you would say that. So, do you understand that this discussion has nothing to do with you and your boyfriend.

Bottom line, people are trying to say that if a woman came in to get an abortion, and says she was raped… this bill would then for the health care provider to ask if it was a forced rape or not.

I am saying that there is NO such thing as an non-forced rape. If a woman is raped, that is forced to have intercourse against her will, it is always forced.

Simply Sarah Wed, Apr 6, 2011 2:01:10pm

At the risk of sounding like I’m defending Buck, I’m going to state that I feel that all rape is, in a way, violence against the victim. That being said, however, I’m using violence in a way that probably isn’t how most people would use it in normal use and, most certainly, not the way it was being used in the GOP bill.

It may shock people like Buck, but laws generally avoid having superfluous words if at all possible, so no, it was not saying “violent rape” in the sense that all rape was violent. It was very, very clearly there as a means of restricting “types” of rape that would be covered to those involving some other, more strict definition of violence. Trying to claim otherwise is semantic nonsense and ignores the clear message the wording was intended to send.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Apr 6, 2011 2:01:11pm

re: #68 Buck

AND THAT FITS EXACTLY. I knew you would say that. So, do you understand that this discussion has nothing to do with you and your boyfriend.

So you don’t think that statutory rape actually counts as rape, then?

Simply Sarah Wed, Apr 6, 2011 2:06:46pm

re: #56 Obdicut

are you purposefully misunderstanding me now?

Children can, and do, consent to having sex with adults. That consent is meaningless in the eyes of the law, and the eyes of ethics, because they are not competent to give consent.

Furthermore, the word that the GOP used was actually ‘forcible’, and not violent. I made a mistake when I said ‘violent’ above. Forcible involves, well, force. There are many more rapes that don’t involve any sort of force whatsoever, or even the threat of force. So, you were more wrong than I even remembered.

You have come up with no credible reason why the GOP would call rape ‘forcible rape’ Your contention that they did so to show how much they hated rape makes no sense whatsoever. They were modifying the existing language of a bill, and chose to replace ‘rape’ with ‘forcible rape’. The very, very obvious reason is that they were defining it further, to limit it— this is borne out by the many GOP attempts to outlaw or limit access to abortions even for women who have been raped.

Tortured grammar aside, what ‘bastards’ am I arguing in favor of, Buck?

What are you talking about? What is a personal discussion for me to deal with?

Try being clear instead of craven.

Oh bah! That’s what I get for only reading half the thread before commenting. Whatever. Most of my points still stand.

Sionainn Wed, Apr 6, 2011 2:11:03pm

re: #68 Buck

It was a bill to define who the state should pay for abortions.

AND THAT FITS EXACTLY. I knew you would say that. So, do you understand that this discussion has nothing to do with you and your boyfriend.

Bottom line, people are trying to say that if a woman came in to get an abortion, and says she was raped… this bill would then for the health care provider to ask if it was a forced rape or not.

I am saying that there is NO such thing as an non-forced rape. If a woman is raped, that is forced to have intercourse against her will, it is always forced.

Buck, is English your first language? The discussion was about definitions, definitions that you kept claiming weren’t in fact the definitions. Definitions that you claimed you didn’t agree with. You were claiming that a child couldn’t ever consent to sex with an adult and I proved you wrong, that it was entirely possible to have consensual sex, though it could be legally defined as statutory rape….in order words a “non-forced rape” as you put it.

Spocomptonite Wed, Apr 6, 2011 3:13:29pm

re: #37 marjoriemoon

Actually, the part I found most subtly ironic was Buck saying, “That is clearly dehumanizing a group of people, only because they disagree with you.”

He said that as a defense, intending the GOP to be the victims. But to me, it can also apply to the GOP dehumanizing a group (in this case, women who don’t adhere to their strict, religion-based ethics), only because they disagree with the choices many women make for themselves.

Dancing along the light of day Wed, Apr 6, 2011 3:20:07pm

re: #39 Obdicut

Thank you for taking on this battle with Buck!

Dark_Falcon Wed, Apr 6, 2011 5:49:41pm

re: #2 Buck

I think it is disgusting to paint the GOP with this.

Absolutely disgusting.

Quite Concur. To compare this digusting action by the Egyptian army to any actions of the Uninted States Republican Party is a vile slander.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 5:51:14pm

re: #73 Spocomptonite

Actually, the part I found most subtly ironic was Buck saying, “That is clearly dehumanizing a group of people, only because they disagree with you.”

He said that as a defense, intending the GOP to be the victims. But to me, it can also apply to the GOP dehumanizing a group (in this case, women who don’t adhere to their strict, religion-based ethics), only because they disagree with the choices many women make for themselves.

Good catch. Besides, I was just stating facts about what the GOP intends to do with legislation regarding women’s rights. The GOP is doing their own degrading. They need no help from me..

Afraid of getting caught eating crow (I’ve down that before!) I’ve been trying to think of at least one example of a Republican who supports women and children’s rights and I’m blank. I guess no one else can either. The “generalization” then would seem accurate.

What, me worry? Wed, Apr 6, 2011 5:59:32pm

re: #75 Dark_Falcon

Quite Concur. To compare this digusting action by the Egyptian army to any actions of the Uninted States Republican Party is a vile slander.

Actually, it’s more of a slander to the Egyptian army!

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:35:17am

OK, I am not going to change my mind. You have to live with wht you say, and what you support. I am comfortable with what I am saying.

We are talking about a Bill about what abortions would be paid for by the state. So this bill would not have had anything to do with simple child molestation. It is about pregnant girls and women, and how they became pregnant. It is not about defining the criminality of sex.

Personally I think there is a problem with the basic part of your position which is that there are cases of rape (non-consenting forced intercourse) that do NOT involve force. Again, if a woman or girl says she was raped, you are saying that someone could say that it wasn’t a forced rape. I just cannot get my head around that. I cannot accept that any woman or girl could be raped, and they say they were raped, but no force was used.

I remind you of the lines that, in this context I cannot agree with.

There are many more rapes that don’t involve any sort of force whatsoever, or even the threat of force.

My position: Simply put, if a woman says she was raped, then she was forced to have sex against her will. Calling it a rape, or a forced rape is the exact same thing.
=================

A child could consent to have sex with an adult out of pure love— as, sadly, is the case in many cases of incest, and it wouldn’t matter.

No child, who says she was raped can be said to have consented. Coercion which is force IS naturally assumed.

===============================

statutory rape includes consensual sex between the not-of-age person and the older person

A pregnant girl wants an abortion, she says she was raped. It is NOT me who say’s she might have consented.

If the girl says she was raped, which is again what this bill was about, then it is clear to me that she was forced. The bill was about the state paying for the abortion. It is not about the charge of rape. It was to set out the circumstances where the state would pay for the abortion. In that context, there is NO such thing as a rape that was not forced.

=========================================
Statutory rape is any sex between a minor and an adult, even when the minor is consenting.

I bristle everytime I hear you say that a minor can consent. I suppose that this can be somehow true between at 17 year old girl and a 18 y/o boy. BUT in that case the girl is not saying she was raped. So this is so far out of context. It is watered down so far that it is not relevant to the discussion. The start of this was about the bill that used the word forced in front of the word rape. In a budget bill.

Somehow that gets forgotten and someone thinks this is about two teen aged kids dating. It might have become that to someone, but it never was that for me. I din’t think I had to start each post with the context. It never shifted for me.

To try and bring it back to the OP, it is like someone saying that virginity tests are not always forced, and that women CAN consent to a virginity test, so the Egyptian soldiers might not have been doing this by force.

Complete nonsense.

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:10:18am

Now, to the other subject. Republicans who are Pro Choice.

First of all, there are pro-choice republicans, and pro-life democrats.

I was not going to participate in your generalization because it was nonsense. I mean you define pro NPR as a womans issue for goodness sake.

Despite the slander otherwise, Republicans have ever attempted to repeal Roe v Wade. I know that every time there is an election, there is a huge cry that republicans WILL repeal Roe v Wade. The facts do not support this. The law of the land is choice. They may not like it, and they may wish that a woman would choose not to have an abortion, BUT 38 years later there has never been an attempt to repeal that decision.

However, you want names. I suspect that you will not be satisfied, and that you will find an issue with the list, but here goes right off the top of my head:

Colin Powell, Eric Dondero, Rudy Giuliani, Kevin McCarthy, Michael Steele, Mary Bono, Deborah Pryce, Susan Molinari, Olympia Snow, Fred Thompson, Condoleeza Rice, and Pete Wilson.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:33:39am

re: #79 Buck

Congrats. One of those is an elected official.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:36:46am

re: #78 Buck

I just cannot get my head around that. I cannot accept that any woman or girl could be raped, and they say they were raped, but no force was used.

What about a small boy? I was an eight year old boy, and I was raped. As I told you already. And there was no force involved.

What is hard to grasp about that?

I bristle everytime I hear you say that a minor can consent.

I bristle everytime you purposefully avoid reading the parts where I say that consent is meaningless in the eyes of ethics and the law. I know you have to ignore me saying that in order to smear me the way you want to, but it’s rather obviously shitty of you.

BUT in that case the girl is not saying she was raped.

Ah. So as long as the minor doesn’t say that it was rape, it wasn’t rape, for you? So any fifteen year old girl who says that she really wanted to have sex, in that case it’s not rape?

Think about what you’re saying, Buck. Think long and hard.

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:53:07am

re: #81 Obdicut

What about a small boy? I was an eight year old boy, and I was raped. As I told you already. And there was no force involved.

What is hard to grasp about that?

I really don’t want to discuss this using what happened to you as an example. BUT I have explained that this discussion is supposed to be about the word forced in a bill that lays out the rules for when the state pays for an abortion. It was not a bill that laid out the rules for when rape was criminal or not.

You say you were raped, and no force was used. I am not going to argue that with you, BUT I simply think we obviously have different definitions of rape.

Ah. So as long as the minor doesn’t say that it was rape, it wasn’t rape, for you? So any fifteen year old girl who says that she really wanted to have sex, in that case it’s not rape?

That is NOT at all what I am saying. It is exactly the opposite of what I have been saying.
How can you say that I said that?

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 10:09:38am

Maybe I misunderstand you, and if so, then I am sorry to be reading what you wrote, and then quoting you with it.

“A child could consent to have sex with an adult out of pure love— as, sadly, is the case in many cases of incest, and it wouldn’t matter.”

My understanding of what you wrote here is that:

1. A child could consent to have sex with an adult.
2. That you are sad that this consent (that comes from pure love) is the case in many cases of incest.
3. That the consent (you think is there) would not matter to the law.

Do I really have this so wrong? It really seems awfully clear to me.

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 10:49:18am

I am re-reading what you wrote, and I am really hoping that this is just a misunderstanding.

I think (hope really) that you and I have very different definitions of “Rape” and “Sex with an adult”.

I just think (hope really) you use those terms differently than me.

maybe you could share you definitions of those terms as it applies to your #25, and #81 ?

Maybe I am using the words “forced” and “violent” interchangeably. let me be very clear, yes, I think that in the context of RAPE, coercion IS always force, and that all forms of force (again as it applies to the rape of a child) is by it’s very nature, violent.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 1:45:06pm

re: #82 Buck

I really don’t want to discuss this using what happened to you as an example.

Tough. Deal with it. Rape involves real people. I’m one of them.

That is NOT at all what I am saying. It is exactly the opposite of what I have been saying.
How can you say that I said that?

Because of your conversation with Sionann, who had sex that was statutory rape.

My understanding of what you wrote here is that:
1. A child could consent to have sex with an adult.
2. That you are sad that this consent (that comes from pure love) is the case in many cases of incest.
3. That the consent (you think is there) would not matter to the law.

Do I really have this so wrong? It really seems awfully clear to me.

And you ignore the part where I say ethics just so you can smear me, right? I mean, why else do you leave out that I say the consent doesn’t matter to ethics?

Maybe I am using the words “forced” and “violent” interchangeably. let me be very clear, yes, I think that in the context of RAPE, coercion IS always force, and that all forms of force (again as it applies to the rape of a child) is by it’s very nature, violent.

What about Sionnan, above? Do you think she was forced to have sex and violently raped?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 3:39:38pm

Heh. Appropriately timed:

littlegreenfootballs.com

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 4:50:25pm

re: #85 Obdicut

Because of your conversation with Sionann, who had sex that was statutory rape.

Well, here you go again making stuff up. I certainly did not say that “as long as the minor doesn’t say that it was rape, it wasn’t rape”. What I said was “If you don’t want to say you were raped, you don’t have to. This was a BUDGET bill, not a criminal law.”

However I will add this now, IF SHE DID DECIDE SHE WAS RAPED, would you tell her that it wasn’t a bad rape because she consented?

And you ignore the part where I say ethics just so you can smear me, right? I mean, why else do you leave out that I say the consent doesn’t matter to ethics?

I don’t ignore it. You didn’t say it. I am quoting from your #47 and you do not refer to ethics at all. I actually don’t know what you think it would mean that was different.

I certainly don’t smear you with out your help.

But are you saying you own the rest of it?

You are saying that:
1. A child could consent to have sex with an adult.
2. That you are sad that this consent (that comes from pure love) is the case in many cases of incest.
3. That the consent (you think is there) would not matter to the law.

What about Sionnan, above? Do you think she was forced to have sex and violently raped?

If she came forward and said she was raped, I would believe her and I would have no problem characterizing it as forced.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:04:07pm

re: #87 Buck

However I will add this now, IF SHE DID DECIDE SHE WAS RAPED, would you tell her that it wasn’t a bad rape because she consented?

What the fuck are you talking about? A ‘bad rape’?

But are you saying you own the rest of it?

You are saying that:

1. A child could consent to have sex with an adult.

Children do consent to sex with adults, yes. This consent is meaningless to laws, ethics, and any sense of justice or reason, because children are not capable of real consent. Please try not to ignore me saying that.

2. That you are sad that this consent (that comes from pure love) is the case in many cases of incest.

Yes. In many cases parents take advantage of the child’s desire for love and to please their parent.

3. That the consent (you think is there) would not matter to the law

Of course it doesn’t matter to the law.

If she came forward and said she was raped, I would believe her and I would have no problem characterizing it as forced.

You’re dodging, Buck. Pathetically.

She had sex, consensually. It is classified as statutory rape. She was a minor, and had sex with an adult.

Was that rape or not?

It’s a yes or no answer.

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:10:02pm

I answered you. It was not the answer you hoped to hear, but it was my answer.

She had sex, consensually. It is classified as statutory rape. She was a minor, and had sex with an adult.
Was that rape or not?
It’s a yes or no answer.

Actually, we don’t know how old she was, or how old he was, or even what state she was living in. So it is not a yes or no answer.

My answer is perfectly fine.

If she came forward and said she was raped, I would believe her and I would have no problem characterizing it as forced.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:23:01pm

re: #89 Buck

She states clearly that it was statutory rape, Buck.

Me in high school having consensual sex with my older-by-two-and-a-half-years boyfriend met the statutory rape definition, but was most certainly consensual and not in any way violent.

If she came forward and said she was raped, I would believe her and I would have no problem characterizing it as forced.

She’s saying that she had sex that fits the definition of statutory rape.

So, Buck, was she raped?

This entire long rigamarole is because you are trying to insist that these Republicans weren’t opposed to abortions for rape victims— while right now, there are GOP members openly saying that they’re opposed to abortions for rape victims. So why on earth, why the fuck, why the hell are you torturing yourself and language like this? Why have you let yourself get to this state?

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:42:57pm

re: #90 Obdicut

This entire long rigamarole is because you are trying to insist that these Republicans weren’t opposed to abortions for rape victims— while right now, there are GOP members openly saying that they’re opposed to abortions for rape victims. So why on earth, why the fuck, why the hell are you torturing yourself and language like this? Why have you let yourself get to this state?

That is false. Actually another bald faced lie. I have said over and over that this is about the word forced. It is about characterizing the addition of that word as an attempt to redefine rape.

I have been perfectly clear that for the purpose of the budget bill, the word did not make any difference. You are lying if you do not admit that I have said this to you multiple times. Rape is ALWAYS forced by definition.

Forced rape == rape

You have failed to give me your definition of Rape. I will go first.

Noun:
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

Verb:
to force to have sexual intercourse.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:51:26pm

re: #91 Buck

That is false. Actually another bald faced lie. I have said over and over that this is about the word forced. It is about characterizing the addition of that word as an attempt to redefine rape.

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. You’re claiming that the Republicans inserted the word ‘forcible’ into the language not to deny abortions to women who were raped without forced, but just because they wanted to show how extra-bad they feel rape is.

Which is nuts.

I have been perfectly clear that for the purpose of the budget bill, the word did not make any difference. You are lying if you do not admit that I have said this to you multiple times. Rape is ALWAYS forced by definition.

Yes, Buck, I know that’s your dumbass argument. The problem is that it’s not true. Rape is not always forced. Where there is an impairment of judgement, a minor, or some form of fraud, rape is not forcible.

You have failed to give me your definition of Rape. I will go first.

Great. I’ll go second:

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to to have sexual intercourse.

For something a bit meatier, chew on this:

law.jrank.org

Apart from the three categories of unconsciousness, mental incompetence, and fraud in the factum—and consensual sex with a minor (“statutory rape,” discussed below)—a rape conviction requires proof that submission was compelled by force.

I notice you pathetically dodged the question again. I normally let you weasel away, but i’m not going to this time:

She’s saying that she had sex that fits the definition of statutory rape.

So, Buck, was she raped?

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:56:53pm

In California the two and a half year difference meant it was not statutory rape it is just a misdemeanor.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:05:24pm

re: #93 Buck

Where are you getting “California” from, Buck?

She has said it fit the definition of statutory rape.

And again:

Apart from the three categories of unconsciousness, mental incompetence, and fraud in the factum—and consensual sex with a minor (“statutory rape,” discussed below)—a rape conviction requires proof that submission was compelled by force.

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:06:41pm

Well I really don’t think I like your definition. But now I understand why we are at odds here.

“other action” brought to bear on someone to have sexual intercourse?

Our definitions are the same except for that “Other action” part.

“He bought me dinner so I thought I had to sleep with him.”

Well dinner was an other action, so I guess it was rape.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:10:40pm

re: #95 Buck

No, Buck. I don’t mean buying someone dinner. It’s really interesting that you’d trivialize non-forcible rape in that manner.

I meant what was said in the definition above:

mental incompetence, and fraud in the factum—and consensual sex with a minor

So, in other words, taking advantage of a girl who is too drunk to make rational decisions, while not forcible, is indeed rape.

And so is having sex with a child, whether or not that child voluntarily agreed to the sex.

Can you explain where you got the ‘dinner buying’ scenario, please?

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:13:32pm

re: #94 Obdicut

Where are you getting “California” from, Buck?

She has said it fit the definition of statutory rape.

And again:

That quote is from an article. How hard is it to find an article that agrees with you.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:16:33pm

re: #97 Buck

You dodged the question again, Buck:

Where are you getting “California” from, Buck?

She has said it fit the definition of statutory rape.

And yes, that is from an article discussing, at length, the issues surrounding various legal approaches to rape. I’m not sure why you think ‘that’s from an article’ is a valid reason to reject something.

Is what you’re really trying to say that you don’t consider occasions where force isn’t present to be rape?

What about a girl who is way too drunk to make rational decisions, and a sober guy knowledgeably taking advantage of that? He knows she’s not in a fit state to decide, but still asks her to have sex, and she drunkenly consents, even though she doesn’t know who he is.

Is that rape, to you, or not?

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:17:52pm

This is the definition for rape that you gave me to work with:

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to to have sexual intercourse.

First of all it is so narrow to only include women, and you write “or other action”, and that could be anything that is brought to bear on someone to have sexual intercourse. Anything, including buying someone dinner.

I tell you what, i don’t think you took this seriously. Try again? What is your real definition of rape?

100

Dancing along the light of day Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:19:19pm

OK, serious question for Obdi & Buck…
At what point is either of you going to realize you’re NOT going to change the others mind? Maybe agree to disagree? Or, if you’re having fun, fighting, keep it up folks!

101

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:19:33pm

re: #99 Buck

This is the definition for rape that you gave me to work with:

That was the definition you used, Buck.

littlegreenfootballs.com

Seriously, dude. Pathetic. Attacking me for the definition you introduced? What the fuck?

102

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:21:34pm

re: #100 Floral Giraffe

OK, serious question for Obdi & Buck…
At what point is either of you going to realize you’re NOT going to change the others mind? Maybe agree to disagree? Or, if you’re having fun, fighting, keep it up folks!

I’m not having any fun whatsoever. This isn’t fun. Talking about how I was raped isn’t fun. Having Buck squirm pathetically in order to defend asshole GOP members who want to punish women for being raped isn’t fun.

I do believe that it is necessary. I do think that somewhere in the back of Buck’s mind, some shred of objectivity, self-respect, or dignity might be lurking. And if not, someone else may read this and see the incredibly contorted lengths those who defend the GOP go to in order to do it.

103

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:21:48pm

re: #98 Obdicut

Is that rape, to you, or not?

Of course it is.

104

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:22:33pm

re: #103 Buck

Of course it is.

Where is the force in that scenario, Buck? What makes it forcible rape?

105

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:24:05pm

Oh, and you dodged the question again, Buck.

106

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:24:07pm

OK I see it now that was a typo on my part.

Noun:
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or threats, violence, constraints brought to bear on someone to to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

Verb:
to force to have sexual intercourse.

107

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:25:03pm

I never dodged any question,

I answered you (twice). You just didn’t get the answer you wanted.

108

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:27:14pm

re: #106 Buck

Oh I see. A typo. You inserted the phrase “or other action” and it was ‘a typo’.

Wow. That’s ballsy.

re: #107 Buck

I never dodged any question,

Yes, you did. Your only answer was about California, which was rather baffling.

You never gave a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not she was raped.

Will you man up and do so now?

109

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:28:31pm

re: #100 Floral Giraffe

OK, serious question for Obdi & Buck…
At what point is either of you going to realize you’re NOT going to change the others mind? Maybe agree to disagree? Or, if you’re having fun, fighting, keep it up folks!

I am trying to land this.

110

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:31:36pm

re: #108 Obdicut

Oh I see. A typo. You inserted the phrase “or other action” and it was ‘a typo’.

Wow. That’s ballsy.

re: #107 Buck

Yes, you did. Your only answer was about California, which was rather baffling.

You never gave a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not she was raped.

Will you man up and do so now?

I answered you twice:

If she came forward and said she was raped, I would believe her and I would have no problem characterizing it as forced.

third time.

111

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:35:03pm

re: #110 Buck

I answered you twice:

If she came forward and said she was raped, I would believe her and I would have no problem characterizing it as forced.

third time.

That’s not an answer, Buck. She has said that, under the law of the land, she was statutorily raped.

So, do you think she was raped, or not?

And, to add to your dodged questions, in the case of the drunken girl:

Where is the force in that scenario, Buck? What makes it forcible rape?

And:

Why are you claiming you made ‘a typo’ in your definition? Did you just add the words “or other action”? How is that a typo?

112

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:35:24pm

yes I copied and pasted the definition from Dictionary.com and decided to copy over the definition for “duress” so that it was less confusing.

I made a typo/ cut and paste error. No big deal. PIMF

113

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:39:18pm

I really think I have covered that. You are making me repeat myself over. After this I am done.

Sex with someone who cannot consent is to force yourself on them. You can agree or disagree with that, I no longer care.

114

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:39:53pm

re: #112 Buck

Ah. So you changed the definition, and then attacked me for using the definition that you’d provided.

That makes perfect fucking sense.

115

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Thu, Apr 7, 2011 6:46:50pm

re: #113 Buck

I really think I have covered that. You are making me repeat myself over. After this I am done.

Sex with someone who cannot consent is to force yourself on them. You can agree or disagree with that, I no longer care.

Yeah, you are done. Pathetically so.

You can’t show where there is force in that scenario because there is none. There is no force involved. There is only taking advantage of someone who is mentally impaired.

Again:

You defended the interposition of the word ‘forcible’ in an amendment that was designed, in its other aspects, to limit the funding of abortions. Your fatuous explanation for this is that the GOP was just trying to emphasize that they saw all rape as forcible. That this makes no sense— why would they add that language, since your claim is its tautological?— doesn’t deter you. That the obvious aim of the rest of the bill was to deny abortion access to women doesn’t deter you. That actual rape victims have told you that there can be rape without force doesn’t deter you. You are bound and determined to defend those poor, poor GOP members.

You ignore completely that the GOP is now openly attempting to prevent abortions even for those who have been raped under any circumstances.

littlegreenfootballs.com

Your argument has no merit. Your motive for the argument is obvious, and terrible. The extent to which you’ve attempted to smear me, someone who was actually raped as a child, as somehow thinking that children can meaningfully consent to sex, is monstrous.

That is what you’ve done today.

Congratulations.

116

Buck Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:08:05pm

re: #115 Obdicut

First of all, you are telling people what I am thinking and doing, and you are getting it all wrong. I am being very clear. My position is very simple.

I really think you should stop embellishing.

The extent to which you’ve attempted to smear me, someone who was actually raped as a child, as somehow thinking that children can meaningfully consent to sex, is monstrous.

That is all in your head. I did nothing of the sort. I have tried to understand your position. I have been clear that I do not think children can consent to sex with an adult, and you have said otherwise over and over and over.
AND clearly a lot of people agree with you, based on the updings.

I am shocked by it, I can’t figure it out for the life of me. I never thought I would see the day where that position would be defended. I think your position is completely fucked up. Not just a little bit, but completely. I think it is really twisted. I am really sorry that when you were 8, some adult took advantage of you, and raped you. However it does not make me suddenly think that any child, much less an 8 year old can consent to sex with an adult. You have said you do (I understand, not in the eyes of the law or ethics). I also understand, you have defended it multiple times, and a lot of full time lizards have agreed with you. maybe it is a liberal position? maybe it is progressive? I don’t know. It makes me physically ill.

I am surprised that now in your last post you seem to be backtracking on it. I don’t think you have to. Again the crowd agrees with your position.

I have been consistent on this, and no I will not change my mind.

Number two: There is NO NON-VIOLENT way to force intercourse on a person. All Rape is by definition violent.

Number three: There is no such thing as consensual statutory rape.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!