On Sep 18, 1:49 am, "g...@
rock.com"
rock.com> wrote:> On Sep 14, 11:56 pm, panamfl...@
hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Sep 15, 12:11 am, "J"
live.com> wrote:>
>>> Tell them Eric, your wife wasn't in a coma. That's just the way she is in
>>> bed.
>
>> Once again, you show evidence that the size of your ignorance is
>> larger than your mother's ass....
>
>
>>> Secret sex tape can't be used, court says
>
>>> Man accused of assault of wife in coma
>
>
>>> Prosecutors can't use secret videotapes of a Watertown minister having sex
>>> with his comatose wife while she was in a nursing home, the 4th District
>>> Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
>
>>> The man faces eight felonies - four counts of second-degree sexual assault
>>> of an unconscious person and four counts of third-degree sexual assault - as
>>> well as a misdemeanor.
>
>> As well he should. One thing I've noticed about all you morons who
>> claim the `slippery slope' is proof your ancient sexual taboos might
>> stiil be relevant is that none of you morons understand the concept of
>> "consent".
>
>
>> Main Entry: 1 con·sent
>> Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsent\
>> Function: intransitive verb
>> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French consentir, from Latin
>> consentire, from com- + sentire to feel — more at sense
>> Date: 13th century
>> 1: to give assent or approval : agree
>> 2archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
>
>> Someone who is comatose cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless
>> of their marital status. One must be conscious to consent to sexual
>> activity. It takes "...two to tango..", idiot. If one says "no", then
>> sexual activity should not occur.
>
>> This is the same reason allowing homosexuals to legally marry will not
>> lead to the legalization of bestiality or necrophilia. Animals and
>> dead humans are not capable of consenting to a sexual union.
>> Homosexuals *are*.
>
> How is either any sort of a crime, when a dead human is already dead,
> and an animal is considered as much - I mean I hardly see that it
> crosses the line into cruelty to animals.
Are you kidding me? I ask that you research the concept of "consent"
again.
> There are far too many laws, screwing over far too many people in the
> United States, at taxpayer expense. While sex with an unconscious
> person could be considered criminal if they later decided they were
> violated, the woman in this case may consent if she ever wakes up.
"If" may be the strongest word in the English language. Or in *any*
language. At the moment the activity takes place, there is no consent
between two people.
> The law should only press charges if the once living victim is dead or
> incapacitated - in this case she is at the moment, but will she be in
> the future?
Does not matter. Should all criminals be released because their
behavior would one day be ruled legal?
> The man may have acted out of love,
Just like any man who's ever raped the target of his unrequited love.
Do you claim rape is not a crime, because he was in love?
> the wife may be happy
> he got sex.
But we won't know that unless she wakes up, will we...
> Will it serve HER to destroy her husband?
Ask her if she wakes up. Until then, it is still sex without consent.
> Furthermore,
> must we not consider; how terrible of a crime is rape in the first
> place?
You don't know many women, do you.
> For those not brutally beaten nor permanently injured, nor
> repeatedly raped, life will go on........
So you're trying to tell me that different versions of rape are more
or less moral, depending upon the level of violence created during the
act?
Yeah, I see that you haven't spent much time in the company of women
at all.
> will it go on for an
> attacker who is made a felon and sentenced to jail - to loose his
> house and his job - where he faces peril of possible beatings, death
> and rape himself?
So what? You just said that sometimes, rape ain't so bad. And what if
the other convict rapes the guy because he *loves* him? Didn't you
just say rape's OK when the aggessor's in love? Make up your fucking
mind.
> The government of the United States is the biggest
> rapist in the book, as prison rape is worse if it is repeated.
*Any* rape is worse if it is repeated.
> Repeated, brutal, and/or terrorizing rape are far worse than mere non-
> consensual assault which leaves no harsh injuries.
Once again, I must say that it seems you don't know many women....or
many convicts. Rape is rape.
> The issue of rape
> is sort of like hitting someone weaker than you when they're already
> down. Would you rather be politely sexually forced or beat up and
> injured but not raped?
I'd kill the aggressor in either case, if I were capable of it. And I
am *damn* sure I'd be capable of it.
> Perhaps both are bad, but if it was a one time
> thing you could easily recover from a rape which had no physical
> repercussions, much like a minor assault.
Your decision to compare any kind of rape with a "minor assault" is
even more evidence that you really haven't spent much time around
women. Or convicts.
> Yes you deserve your just
> desert for either, but what is an eye for an eye, a just punishment
> for mere rape
"Mere rape"????
> with no lasting physical harm?
The human body does not exist without the mind. Mental harm *is*
physical harm. Are you really attempting to claim that a rapist that
doesn't pull out his switchblade and cut up the pussy after he's
fucked it is somehow *more* moral than the rapist that would not
attempt to "erase the evidence"?
I'm snipping the rest because I'm beginning to doubt your sanity.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
