It's May 13, 2024, 12:54:15 AM
"I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."'
Quote from: Ant on May 12, 2005, 06:58:06 AM "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."'LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
was he ever convicted of these crimes?then he's not a rapist.an easy one - two that shuts down this whole thread
It's clear that in your mind you will always be right, unfortuntely the world exists outside your mind and that is why you have so much trouble in life. Just to quickly point out the error of your judgment (altho I don't have a lot of hope that you are intelligent enough to even comprehend what follows, but I could be wrong)The notion that a person can't be a rapist, a murderer, a robber, or any type of deviant without a conviction is obviously a dumb one. If you kill someone and no one presses charges you are still a murderer. This woman didn't press charges, therefore there can be no conviction, of course his actions easily can be described as rape... if you think forcing a woman to have anal sex against her will isn't rape, that is a matter of personal opinion... most people would prolly say its fair to call it such, if you prefer the term sodomy which is more specific then that is fine. Either way the guy either sodomized his wife, or raped his wife. But to argue that lack of a conviction voids this argument is to once again demonstrate your own stupidity. Most women who are raped do not press charges... those of us who can add 2 + 2 realize the men who raped these woman are still rapists... morons like you apparently disagree.
Quote from: Needles Kane on May 12, 2005, 07:26:05 AMwas he ever convicted of these crimes?then he's not a rapist.an easy one - two that shuts down this whole threadIt's clear that in your mind you will always be right, unfortuntely the world exists outside your mind and that is why you have so much trouble in life. Just to quickly point out the error of your judgment (altho I don't have a lot of hope that you are intelligent enough to even comprehend what follows, but I could be wrong)The notion that a person can't be a rapist, a murderer, a robber, or any type of deviant without a conviction is obviously a dumb one. If you kill someone and no one presses charges you are still a murderer. This woman didn't press charges, therefore there can be no conviction, of course his actions easily can be described as rape... if you think forcing a woman to have anal sex against her will isn't rape, that is a matter of personal opinion... most people would prolly say its fair to call it such, if you prefer the term sodomy which is more specific then that is fine. Either way the guy either sodomized his wife, or raped his wife. But to argue that lack of a conviction voids this argument is to once again demonstrate your own stupidity. Most women who are raped do not press charges... those of us who can add 2 + 2 realize the men who raped these woman are still rapists... morons like you apparently disagree.