[Grapes]

I still refuse to equate rape from your husband and rape from a stranger. If you have been sexually intimate with someone for years then what you guyz call rape would be forced sex. When you are walking down the street and a guy you do not know comes and forced you to have sex with him, that is rape! Rape is a strong word and act.

[MissK]

Grapes, rape ususally doesn't occur between strangers but acquaintances. Forced sex= violence =rape

Rape has nothing to do with fulfilling marital vows, it's violence plain and simple and should be recognised by the law as such!!! Unfortunately our law turns a blind eye to violence in the home. On the other hand it's very difficult to establish whether rape really occured when it's between sexual partners unless there's evidence like scars or a record of abuse.
I'm curious why it's only females who are said to use sex as a weapon!

[kuLick_kuma_ni_Raha]

lol ati"Iam curious why its only females said to use sex as a weapon" duhhhh. are you serious!!!!jameni ebu checki falah.lol

[ghali]

>I still refuse to equate rape from your
>husband and rape from a stranger. If you
>have been sexually intimate with someone
>for years then what you guyz call rape
>would be forced sex. When you are
>walking down the street and a guy you do
>not know comes and forced you to have
>sex with him, that is rape! Rape is a
>strong word and act.
Your last sentence proves that you recognize the agony and atrocity in rape. . .your problem is calling a spade a spoon. Rape by any other person would hurt just as bad. . .Infact-we have all forms of fornication and adultery-whether it's incest or spouse swapping is purely circumstantial. If I beat you over the head with a rungu and your mother does the same-when your skull cracks-it won't really matter( apart from emotional reasons) who I was- I committed a crime-have I knocked that into your head. . .BTW-you must be male-because many men have a hard time identifying with rape and its victims unless they've been sodomized. . .try telling the same thing to a victim of sodomy(which is equally traumatic) The poor victims will actually have an ejaculation despite trying to resist the attack! Do you think he's enjoying it? HArdly. Men are built in such a way that it is possible to stimulate the prostate and cause ejaculation without the intellectual consent of the person!!!

Who do you think you are to discredit the level of victimization experienced through rape!!! or "forced sex"-which is it???? oh great adjudicator! PUN INTENDED-I speak for the people

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think" Adolf Hitler

[Gikuyu]

>Grapes , kairetu ,playette.. let me
>educate you abit on the status quo of
>todays kenyan agro ati westernized
>society..Accaully before that let me
>give my pongezi to the man who tadikad
>his wife the VP OF UGANDA for this same
>ujinga..
>1:Like i said before, what makes you
>think that this thing belong to
>yourselves , using it as a weapon on
>us.It is ours both of us..Tell me ? what
>would you do with it if we were not
>arround..huh.get it , god intended it be
>ours.Now when you start expoliting its
>purpose, which is to bring solace to we
>as humans , eroctically how are we to
>respond.You forget we are bigger and
>stronger and when confronted with
>irationality from geting what is our
>god given right ,then we too become
>irrational and counter that with
>force..As i mentioned before , why do
>you females think we marry you..Ask any
>guy and and he will admit , ITS TO
>SECURE A CONSTANT REALIABLE LIFE TIME
>LAY, and to a lesser extent
>offsprings.Now when a jammaa invests in
>this, inexchange for your craved
>commitment,protection, security crap
>etc, why should he get a raw deal or get
>subjected to intimidation or rather
>blackmail from his given right(kuma).You
>have joked.We are africans , never
>forget that.Your kumas belong to us ,
>that deal was sealed when we paid bride
>price.By the way we pay bride price paka
>waleo be it rural or tao areas.Dont use
>that silly argument that maybe she is
>tierd or has a headache..please we are
>not stupid we have empathy and can tell
>when its genuine.
>BOTTOM LINE WHEN A MAN'S WIFE REFUSES
>WITH THE KUMA..HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO
>TAKE IT(AGIAN WE ARE NOT STUPID WE CAN
>TELL IF SHE IS GENUINLY SICK OR USING IT
>FOR HER OWN pycological explotitional
>GAIN WHICH IS UN-ACCEPTABLE)..HE HAS
>AREADY PAID FOR IT AND AGIAN HE IS THE
>ONE WHO MAINTIANS IT.
>mwanaichi , zinzi shiro74 grapes
>kairetu playette sweet9 and the twisted
>idiot mark thuo stop being unreal,
>cannot change our african hakiriz this
>generation.African for life,,, kumbufff

This is crap of the highest order.

[Sadik]

*Yes, marital rape is rape, as many have already said. And again it is true that most rapist are known to their victims.


There is one SERIOUS fallacy in your post.

Only, women can be raped. Men cannot be raped by women.

By definition, rape is

' sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it.'


Originally, at common law, rape was defined as sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, by force, fear or fraud. The emphasis used to be on whether the sex was 'against the woman's will'. This caused a number of problems (not least being that rape was hard to prove if the woman was not injured or did not physically resist the sex - a requirement that would frequently not be met because it would endanger the woman in question).

The emphasis changed in the 19th century from 'was the sex against her will?' to 'was the sex without her consent?'. Rape may still be difficult to prove where there is no injury or resistance, but at least this change of emphasis means that the scope of rape is broader than it once was.

I hope we have learnt a little bit about rape, and that a woman cannot rape a man.

Disclaimer: The law stated is as it applies to England and Wales, and the interpretation is a personal view. No liability, directly or undirectly, consciuosly or unconsciuosly, in any form, shape or size, resulting from any usage of this infromation shall be entertained!

[Wakili]

Sadik

You mention that according to English Law only a woman can be raped and a man cannot.

I think you should look up the Sexual Offences Act 1956. S 1 clearly states that:

"It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man..."

Male rape is an offence.

Also the test is not merely about whether the victim consented. It has to be proven that the defendant knew the victim did nit consent, or that the defendant was reckless as to whether the victim consented or not.

I am too blessed to be stressed

[Sadik]

Wakili, the rape I was talking about is the man raping a woman. Yes man can rape another man, BUT a woman cannot rape a man!. Rape, as you know is defined as sexual act, which encompasses " sexual intercourse".

'sexual intercourse' which is defined as penile penetration per vaginum.

Since the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the definition of rape has been extended to cover both vaginal and anal intercourse.

Indecent assault is not limited to any form of penetration and may be committed by many differing types of sexual activity. Therefore it may be satisfied by proof of any of the three types of intercourse (as well as non-penetrative conduct).

Buggery committed by males generally requires proof of penile penetration per anum. However, it is also buggery for a man or woman to have intercourse with an animal and this may take the form of anal or vaginal intercourse.

But, a woman cannot rape a man!


I have taken time to find the given act. No where is it mentioned that a woman can rape a man!

s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (as amended by s142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) makes rape an offence. s142 also provides (in the new s1(3) of the 1956 Act) that 'a man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband '.

The definition of rape is also found in s142 which substitutes the following for s1(2) of the 1956 Act.:
'(2) A man commits rape if -
(a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and
(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether that person consents to it; ...........

s1(2) Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) further provides that:
' .......if......the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman or man was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.'

s2 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 goes on to provide for the admissibility of sexual history evidence.

[Wakili]

Sadik

I hit the back key over and over and found the post...soma hapo b4 you made your changes...

You said men can not be raped...


LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-02 AT 05:36 PM (CST)

*Yes, marital rape is rape, as many have already said. And again it is true that most rapist are known to their victims.

There is one SERIOUS fallacy in your post.

Only, women can be raped. Men cannot be raped.

By definition, rape is

' sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it.'


Originally, at common law, rape was defined as sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, by force, fear or fraud. The emphasis used to be on whether the sex was 'against the woman's will'. This caused a number of problems (not least being that rape was hard to prove if the woman was not injured or did not physically resist the sex - a requirement that would frequently not be met because it would endanger the woman in question).

The emphasis changed in the 19th century from 'was the sex against her will?' to 'was the sex without her consent?'. Rape may still be difficult to prove where there is no injury or resistance, but at least this change of emphasis means that the scope of rape is broader than it once was.

I hope we have learnt a little bit about rape, and that a woman cannot rape a man.

Disclaimer: The law stated is as it applies to England and Wales, and the interpretation is a personal view. No liability, directly or undirectly, consciuosly or unconsciuosly, in any form, shape or size, resulting from any usage of this infromation shall be entertained!

[Sadik]

{{{stands up, and faces the Judge}}}

My Lord, my Learned friend, Ms. Wakili has raised a question of procedure.

From her 'esteemed' submission, the simple response is, I never did write that. Whoever who did, the burden of proof lies on the Counsel, Ms. Wakili, as the claimant. Your Lordship will agree that mine is only to refute the Counsel's allegations, and my defence stands firm.

I am sure, your Lordship is familar with the following authority, R v Hunt, in endorsing DPP v Woolmington. - where the House of Lords held : -That the claimant of an presumptious allegation is bound to prove, to the satisfaction of the fact-finder {the Judge, or the jury}, that the presumed allegation have "satisfactory" evidence with "adequate" probative value, to the given level of standard of proof required, hereby presumed to be "balance of probability".

My Lord, I henceforth, apply for a discontinuation of this action for lack of evidence and as vexatious and malicious.