internet porn reduces rape

one thing I've observed is that in countries where pornography is easily available, sex crime is a lot lower.If you go to countries like Greece or Italy where you can go and buy porn at your neighbourhood kiosk with the same ease that you can buy cigarettes or newspapers, you'll notice that sex attacks are very low compared to countries where there is high regulation and limited availability of porn (like the UK).I suppose it makes perfect sense : why go and attack someone when you can get your kicks in a much easier, safer and more comfortable way at home ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I agree. On the other hand, I think it does show that high availability of porn does not contribute towards increased rate of sex attacks.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

A good deal, that's true. But not all of it. Why can't people accept the fact that some men rape because of sheer sexual frustration. How many times have we read of rapists who lived all their lives with their parents and never had a girlfriend until one day they snap and start stalking the local Hooters girl ?One of the links supplied by brennakimi in the OP supports the theory that rape is not always about power, but somtimes just about sex. IMHO anything that can act as a sexual release valve for some people, while not harming anyone else, is a good thing.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

that's a good point. I think wrt mainstream Christianity it's to do with the self-loathing required to believe that Jesus died for your past and future sins. I sincerely think that if St Paul had the occasional one off-the-wrist the Christian church would have been a much more mellow and pragmatic affair. I believe he put it in his mouth but didn't inhale (or was that Clinton?) For the same reason you don't toss pancakes with your left hand: you'll often going to miss the pan and you'll end up with a sticky, gooey mess all over your shoes.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

It is your responsibility to make sure that anyone with whom you have sexual contact is fully aware of the situation and has actively given consent! “Consent” means a voluntary agreement to participate in sexual activity and requires mutually understandable and communicated words and/or actions demonstrating such agreement.

---

in other words, if you want to have sex with a woman who had a couple you need to bring in Henry Kissinger to negotiate the agreement and the UN to supervise the act itself.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

wow, what a spurt of over-reaction to my comment about the implications of the legal definition for conscent. Someone must have had a bad day! ?? non-sequitir. How the hell did you jump to this conclusion ? First off, (1) is totally irrelevant. The law doesn't differentiate between people who know each other and people who don't. And, just for the record, have you been to a nightclub lately? It's a pretty regular occurrence for a man to find an unknown woman interested in having sex with him, there.As for (2) and (3) my point is that the law makes it so wonderfully vague and subjective that the alleged victim can easily claim that conscent hasn't been given regardless of what was actually said or done.Example: you meet someone at a night club, she's obviously been drinking, you take her to your/her home afterwards, you make out, she undresses, lies on the bed and says 'take me now' (a la Kim Basinger in Wayne's World), and you keenly proceed to oblige.Next day, she goes to the police, claiming you raped her. The alcohol-level in her blood can still be measured. You, on the other hand, cannot prove that she did actively conscent (no witnesses ). Here's what : the police will arrest and charge you. You may be lucky enough to be acquitted at the trial, but by that time you'll have spent a few days in police cells, interrogated, your marriage will be on the rocks, your job too, to cut a long story short your whole life will be in ruins.See, when a man is accused of a sex crime, the old "innocent until proven guilty" adage goes straight out of the window.Hence, the need for the Kissigner / UN setup. It's the only way to truly have 'safe sex' these days.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

speaking of victimization, here's one for you . She sounds pretty traumatised doesn't she ? In the meantime the real victim, an innocent man, did time in jail.mythical?? ridiculous?? wake up and smell the reality mate!Enjoy,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

again....WTF? I said:

quote:

---

...my point is that the law makes it so wonderfully vague and subjective that the alleged victim can easily claim that conscent hasn't been given regardless of what was actually said or done.

---

which of the above do you not understand ? that's fine. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the law is setup in the way that conscent is whatever the alleged victim makes it out to be. It allows drunkennes to become a device of accusation and blackmail, while at the same time placing the onus on responsibility solely on the man. Instead of condemning drunken sex the law actively encourages it and absolves women of all responsibility of the consequences.The video I linked to is the false 999 rape call of a woman who claimed she was raped after fearing she might be pregnant after having drunken sex with a
friend. The falsely accused man spent 10 weeks in jail before the forensics finally cleared him. Ten weeks in fucking jail because people like you think such cases are in the realm of the 'mythical' and 'ridiculous' !There are dozens of cases like that every year. And these are only the ones we get to know of. Now, where did I say that ? I just said that unknown men and women go to night clubs to have sex. You may not like it, it's reality - deal with it! And please don't distort what I write from now on.jeez...and I thought only the fundies took things out of context! no reason whatsoever?? here's the reason the woman in the link above had (quoting from the BBC) :

quote:

---

She invented the story because she feared she could be pregnant after having unprotected sex with railway worker Mr Chisholm.

---

you want other reasons ? what about hate? settling of scores ? mental illness ?oh, and before I forget here's another big reason: In Britain we have the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, a government body that holds a large sum of (taxpayers) money which it hands out to victims of serious crime, like...yes you guessed it... rape.So, to recap, apart from the emotional and mental reasons there's also a very material motivation for someone to be declared the victim of rape. Is that enough for you ? Jeez Louise you have serious issues! Please show me where the fuck I said or even implied that or shut the hell up. Yeah ?!! Try telling this to Mr Blackwell. He spent five years in jail because some mental case said he raped her.Let me repeat that in case it didn't sink in: FIVE YEARS OF HIS LIFE IN JAIL BECAUSE SHE SAID SO...and also because there are people like you out there who live in a self-righteous la-la land where the man is guilty by default and the woman can never do any wrong.Get real.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Thank you! Succinctly put.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."