What’s your take on this?

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    that’s quite the amount of confidence for being wrong.

    Many jurisdictions now center the crime on the absence of freely given or affirmative consent and also criminalize sexual acts with persons who cannot legally consent—minors (statutory rape), the intoxicated, the unconscious, or those with certain mental disabilities—so the presence or absence of capacity is often as central as whether force was used.

    source

    by your definition, having sex while intoxicated would not be rape because consent isn’t required. you allowed this by proposing consent is not a requirement to force a man to impregnate a woman.

    by your definition rape itself doesn’t exist.

    • MrFinnbean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Haha. You are really a grade A mental gymnist. Bravo. Here have a star *. You deserve it.

      I havent said single time anything about how i might or might not define a rape. You on the other hand wanted to broaden the definiton to include baby trapping, a completelly different offence that should be its own thing.