Women can get away with rape in India - thank feminism for that.

[LJ_Reloaded]

India's law says only men can rape. This is indisputable.

Feminists fought to make this the case. This is also indisuptable.

Feminism did what it's supposed to do by nature: prevent women from being punished for committing crimes.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...er-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms

NEW DELHI: "Gender just, gender sensitive and not gender neutral rape laws," is what women's groups, human rights groups and activists are demanding. The appeal gains significance as it comes at a time when the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance and the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee are set to come up for debate in Parliament.

The women's groups and human rights bodies want "all parties aligned with women's rights to ensure that laws made in the wake of the brutal Delhi gang-rape case do not leave women even more vulnerable than they already are".

"The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the 2012 Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill as well as the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance not only violates the letter and spirit of the Justice Verma Committee (JVC) recommendations but endangers and deepens women's vulnerability in this country," said representatives of women's groups preparing to raise the issue nationwide to create awareness on the lacunae in the law.

And here is the official feminist position on rape laws:

http://kafila.org/2013/03/08/gender-just-gender-sensitive-not-gender-neutral-rape-laws/

Statement by feminist and queer groups and individuals:

The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the 2012 Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill as well as the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance not only violates the letter and spirit of the Justice Verma Committee (JVC) recommendations but endangers and deepens women’s vulnerability in this country.

Representatives of women’s groups, democratic and human rights groups and activists are alarmed about major lacunae in current legislative protection to women, upheld by the Standing Committee report, and we insist on the following:

The Accused Must Be Male.

Women cannot be punished for committing rape in India. Feminists made this happen.

 

[OhSoSubmissive]

EDIT: Man, I don't know why I'm even bothering. Carry on.

 

[badbabysitter]

Seems you were right, women can get away with rape in India.............................................................................................................................................................if this was 2007


but it's not

here's the law you refuse to read


§375. A person is said to commit “sexual assault” if that person – (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of another person so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of another person or makes such person to do so with him or any other person; (e) touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the person or makes the person touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of that person or any other person, except where such penetration or touching is carried out for proper hygienic or medical purposes under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:––

Firstly.–– Against the other person’s will.

Secondly. –– Without the other person’s consent.

Thirdly. –– With the other person’s consent when such consent has been obtained by putting such other person or any person in whom such other person is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly. –– When the person assaulted is a female, with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.–– With the consent of the other person when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by that person personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, the other person is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that action to which such other person gives consent.

Sixthly. –– With or without the other person’s consent, when such other person is under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly. –– When the person is unable to communicate consent.

Explanation 1.–– Penetration to any extent is “penetration” for the purposes of this section.

Explanation 2.–– For the purposes of this section, “vagina” shall also include labia majora.

Explanation 3.–– Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act: provided that, a person who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
Exception.–– Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under sixteen years of age, is not sexual assault.

--------------------------------------

so it seems, I was wrong.. about it not being covered because of section 377 ( which you also have not read).... but it still doesnt change you were so amazingly mislead by editorials to not even bother looking into wether the laws that were being reported to you were changed at the begining of 2013.../ then again the very article you're quoting dates mere days before the changes of in the law posted above...... congratulations on spitting out the lies your conservative masters told you to


-----------------------------

To paraphrase you " men and women can be punished for rape. Despite all attempts by the MRA of India, feminists made this possible"

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Fourthly. –– When the person assaulted is a female, with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes to be lawfully married.

So if she tricks HIM into having sex with her under these conditions.. no crime has been committed.

This is just ONE of the glaring errors in your attempt at a comeback, BBS.

The other one is that the provisions you mentioned which allow for women to be accused - THAT SHIT AIN'T LAW IN INDIA RIGHT NOW. Why? Because of feminist protests.

You just keep derping and herpaderping your way right into credibility oblivion.

 

[Yudee_Three]

I read the linked statement but I still have a question: The term "rape" in India must mean the passage of a penis beyond the labial lips. Does it include forced anal assault? Forced oral copulation? Does the law treat females who engage in wanted or unwanted sexual interactions with girls under the age of 16 as offenders? How would the law treat a woman who drugs, entraps, or forces another woman into an unwanted sexual interaction? Are these still "assaults?" Or does the term "rape" include all these situations under Indian law?

 

[badbabysitter]

Fourthly. –– When the person assaulted is a female, with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes to be lawfully married.

So if she tricks HIM into having sex with her under these conditions.. no crime has been committed.

This is just ONE of the glaring errors in your attempt at a comeback, BBS.

The other one is that the provisions you mentioned which allow for women to be accused - THAT SHIT AIN'T LAW IN INDIA RIGHT NOW. Why? Because of feminist protests.

You just keep derping and herpaderping your way right into credibility oblivion.

Yes, LT... that is one of the qualifying factors

unfortunately the rest of the law doesnt match your lies

and I showed you the entirety of the law as it currently exists

flail and scream all you want.. but it just means your entire arguement is now invalid

 

[badbabysitter]

I read the linked statement but I still have a question: The term "rape" in India must mean the passage of a penis beyond the labial lips. Does it include forced anal assault? Forced oral copulation? Does the law treat females who engage in wanted or unwanted sexual interactions with girls under the age of 16 as offenders? How would the law treat a woman who drugs, entraps, or forces another woman into an unwanted sexual interaction? Are these still "assaults?" Or does the term "rape" include all these situations under Indian law?

I just literally showed you section 375 which answers those questions


ADHD much?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yes, LT... that is one of the qualifying factors

unfortunately the rest of the law doesnt match your lies

and I showed you the entirety of the law as it currently exists

flail and scream all you want.. but it just means your entire arguement is now invalid

It's not lies. The law you cited is not currently law in India.

Women, right now, cannot be busted for rape.

Everyone in the WORLD knows that except you. Especially the judges over there. ESPECIALLY the male victims.

 

[badbabysitter]

It's not lies. The law you cited is not currently law in India.

Women, right now, cannot be busted for rape.

Everyone in the WORLD knows that except you. Especially the judges over there. ESPECIALLY the male victims.

§375. A person is said to commit “sexual assault” if that person – (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of another person so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of another person or makes such person to do so with him or any other person; (e) touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the person or makes the person touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of that person or any other person, except where such penetration or touching is carried out for proper hygienic or medical purposes under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:––



just keep banging your head against the wall

 

[badbabysitter]

So if she tricks HIM into having sex with her under these conditions.. no crime has been committed.

This is just ONE of the glaring errors in your attempt at a comeback, BBS.

The other one is that the provisions you mentioned which allow for women to be accused - THAT SHIT AIN'T LAW IN INDIA RIGHT NOW. Why? Because of feminist protests.

You just keep derping and herpaderping your way right into credibility oblivion.

wandering back, because I had to clear up something

the section law as you quoted

Fourthly. –– When the person assaulted is a female, with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes to be lawfully married.


that does not mean when she tricks him... it means if the guy who knows he's not her husband ... in a country of arranged marriages.. and then convinces her he is in fact married to her, and then has sex with her.. is considered assault.. or in the west as we call it " marital coercion"


you on the other hand are telling me she's tricking him into making her think he's married to her when he's not

 

[subdued_passion]

I'm not going to waste my energy posting all the same articles and links I have in the past correcting LJ's interpretation of rape laws in India (please read one of the several dozen other threads made on the same subject by him) I will only comment on the whole 'tricked into believing they're married' and rape connection.

For a long time if a man had consensual sex with a woman under promise to marry her in the future and then reneged on his promise, the woman could file a case of rape against him. However, recently judges have ruled against this practice as it is more of a moral indictment and not a correct legal interpretation of the law. So women can no longer claim rape after being tricked into consensual sex by a man.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

s_p



Have you had your rape today?

 

[StrangeLife]

Women can get away with rape in the US too. I wont resist...

 

[subdued_passion]

I'm more interested in hearing about cases of these so called male rape victims in India LJ is fighting for. Or is this all just him fighting windmills again?

 

[StrangeLife]

Actually, I shouldn't make fun of man-rape. It's no joke when evil women take advantage of us and treat us like walking dildos...

https://hipsterracist.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/sexuallydominantwoman01.jpg



It's can scar a man emotionally for life...

http://tt13.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/man-crying.png?w=500

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He stopped tilting at windmills when he discovered they could kick his ass...





Now he chases butterflies and unicorns and sitch.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

§375. A person is said to commit “sexual assault” if that person – (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of another person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of another person so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such person or makes the person to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of another person or makes such person to do so with him or any other person; (e) touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the person or makes the person touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of that person or any other person, except where such penetration or touching is carried out for proper hygienic or medical purposes under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:––



just keep banging your head against the wall

What part of "feminists got that part of the law STRUCK DOWN" does a bonehead like you NOT understand?

 

[wildcat22wilson]

Never met a hot woman from India soooooo, I'm against this.

 

[StrangeLife]

Never met a hot woman from India soooooo, I'm against this.

Trust me - they have some serious hotties over there. And when they are decked out in traditional clothing they look like a million bucks.

Next time I go to India I'll probably wear a "Rape Me" T-shirt...

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Trust me - they have some serious hotties over there. And when they are decked out in traditional clothing they look like a million bucks.

Next time I go to India I'll probably wear a "Rape Me" T-shirt...

I'm sure that'll be as successful as you've been with girls by being such a white knight tryhard here in America







































which has been as successful as my attempts to lead the Communist Party of China...

 

[badbabysitter]

What part of "feminists got that part of the law STRUCK DOWN" does a bonehead like you NOT understand?

ummm.. what I just quoted has not been struck down.. you are the one clinging to the 2007 law as current fact desppite it being disproven

if you're refering to the coercion section you used as an example of trickery... we were just informed by an actual Indian citizen it was struck down

so, unless you're opposed to the current Section 375.. you really dont have a leg to stand on

 

[badbabysitter]

meanwhile...consensual sex between men is still a crime in India

but since those men are gay, the MRA simply doesnt give a fuck

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

ummm.. what I just quoted has not been struck down..

Jeez, you're on meth. There's no way you could be sober and lie this hard and live with yourself.

 

[badbabysitter]

Jeez, you're on meth. There's no way you could be sober and lie this hard and live with yourself.

You have been raving about these laws for over a year... yet now, when it has been shown that the laws you were raving about.. were SEVEN years out of date... you wont acknowledge them

I then posted what I thought was the most recent entire section

you jumped on this, showing how coercion was still excluded

we were then corrected by a citizen of India on the matter that the coercion statue no longer exists

you continue to deny that.. and proclaim victory


if I'm on meth... you've overdosed on it

 

[subdued_passion]

LJ, instead of going on about things you are clueless about you should get into the GB Hall of Fame thread and campaign for yourself. No one seconded my nomination of you. You need to post in that thread to remind people why you are such a well known figure in this forum and beyond.

Protect your legacy, dammit!