A woman cannot be convicted of rape under our antiquated judicial system

Chris you’re joking right ?

@Chris eh – animal species are not cogent human beings.

Chris is obviously using this analogy to parallel the gay marriage legislation by using the same arguments heard in favour of the same. Two consenting adults, in love, animals do it so it’s natural etc.

He’s being playfully facetious.

Well done. Gold star! I thought more people would have bitten though :-(

@hippocrateeth well its a pretty s**t analogy… i’d say he’s being playfully ignorant.

Clearly you haven’t

Of houndy did I strike a nerve? lol

*Oh that was meant to be

A woman can be convicted of rape. Traditional rape is gender specific (one of the few crimes that is), but what is known as ‘Section 4 rape’ can be committed by a woman on a man. Whilst the use of the term ‘rape’ here could be questioned (because rape has a particular definition), the offence carries similar penalties. This discrepancy arises merely out of the definition of rape and of the logistics of the crime.

I really can’t see how the mechanics would work. Surely if the man is not aroused the act would be very difficult. A woman raping a man just seems absurd to me.

” In my uninformed opinion the incidents of inceest and sexual abuse in general show a higher number of perpetrators to be male.” What has that got to do with the punishment, a crime is still a crime, no matter if 1% of the perpetrators are female.

As usual we get the usual opinion that it is usually the males that commit the crimes.

Another example of discrmination against men…

I’m sorry Cat, are you saying the majority of people who engage in incest are male? Who exactly are they doing it with then? It takes two to tango, and it stands to reason that any act of incest will likely have an equal number of male and female perpetrators! (assuming it’s not homosexual of course, which presumably wouldn’t be as big an issue anyway as these laws appear to be more about limiting birth defects)

Are you sick in the head? We are talking about perpetrators not victims. Idiot!

Idiot eh? So which one is the perpetrator and which is the victim exactly? If a father rapes his daughter there is a range of crimes which can be used as a prosecution (rape, molestation, defilement etc.) so those situations are not really relevant here. Incest can occur between consenting adults who happen to be close relatives – is the woman still then the victim?
Now while I am loathe to descend to your level by replacing reason with insult, I would caution against making assumptions – such behaviour is often considered idiotic!

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2009/0122/113023-roscommon/ a quick google reveals we are dealing with a law for a perpetrator and victim situation

It’s nothing to do with him its a fact supported buy plenty of credible people look it up
inbreeding among elitist family’s goes back centuries as away to keep the money and create a perfect human in their eyes but instead led to deformities and insanity and many of today’s well know big banking family’s are the offspring of these experiments

If you look up the Windsor/Bush bloodline on Google you find lots of nonsense from David Icke going on about pharaohs and Julius Caesar.

If you go back far enough though, everyone’s related to everyone else.

Well makes you say its nonsense
there are a lot of egyptian overtones in the english royal family there is a lot more to history than you learn in school

Would you Adam & Eve it!

“Well makes you say it’s nonsense”

Erm …

I can sum up David Icke real easy
Most of what he says is provable but he discredits himself by design therefor the information is discredited he more than likely works for the same people he warns against

what*
happy now

David Icke is part of the conspiracy? It’s nonsense because, as I said, every one is related to everyone else if you go back far enough. Is that a conspiracy? No it’s a simple basic fact.

I’m descended from Prussian kings, frinstance.

Even you are probably related quite closely to Aristotle.

Yes i think icke and others like him are part of the conspiracy bit of a twist aye

Glen, David Icke is a guy who makes books and DVDs about popular myths and conspiracy theories. The wilder his ideas, the more money he makes. Anyone remember him on the Late Late years ago? Predicted Cuba would disappear by the end of the year. His work carries the same intellectual weight as Dora the Explorer, with the added nastiness of anti-semitic overtones. Great role model!

Fred im actually not supportive of icke but have you actually seen his videos or read his books have you disproved what he says have you taking the time to do that or are you offering your opinion

No I haven’t and I don’t need a degree in Leprechaun-ology to argue against the existence of Leprechauns either.

I love how conspiracy theorists are so wrapped up in their twisted view of the world that the only explanation they have for discrepancies in the theory is that that is part of the conspiracy. Isis loves you Glen. But maybe time to go out for a walk in the fresh air and think about making babies instead of believing half researched anti Semitic rants on the web. Will do your rickets a world of good too.

then its just your opinion … thanks for sharing it

ahippo
how am i anti semitic let me tell you something if you are talking about anti zionisim as anti semitic zionisim has nothing to do with being jewish you should do your homework before you accuse people in the wrong

So you are anti Zionist? I wasn’t talking about you Glen I was talking about conspiracy theorists. And with many of them it all gets back to some imaginary cabal who control banking or industry and it’s usually the Rothschilds or Bilderberg or the illuminati or just the Jews.

Well I think his prediction about Cuba disappearing is evidence enough that he pedals sensationalist bulls**t. So it’s not just my opinion Glen. Why would I waste my time reading books by someone who is either dishonest or insane enough to make such a claim on TV?

Bilderberg has been proven
if you dont have an interest in it good for you i don’t care but you shouldn’t be getting upset by whats being posted on the internet ahippo
Fred …thats the point i’m making about Icke he comes out with stuff that is provable with facts and evidence that is also supported by other sane people to back it up then poo poo’s the lot of it by talking about lizards and him being the son of god …. his whole agenda is to discredit the provable stuff .. do you get what i’m saying fred

Glen, his agenda is to make money. He’s not working for anyone but himself.

The Rothschilds aren’t a myth. They really did have a massive role in founding modern banking. Their net worth was somewhere in and around 1 trillion dollars

Fred everyones agenda is to make money

Fergal
we both know that but the thing is people like Ahippo also know this but they choose to ignore it out of fear ignorance is bliss

Have you checked the Satellite images of the Caribbean this morning.

Yeah Glen. All of us concerned about everyday problems like climate change, inequality, war, human rights abuses and religious extremism are just too scared to face up to the real world.

Why are you scared ?
I am concerned about those things also.

Lol Glen you’re mad.

You tell me Glen. You’re the one who thinks we’re all too scared to believe the conspiracy theorists.

Fred .. Its known as the normalcy Bias people are afraid to face up to provable facts concerning corrupt government , banking elite the effects of fluoride in water mercury in vaccines ect ect all things proven because it upsets their day to admit to these provable facts i’m not here to convince you I don’t care if you believe or don’t but the issue is people are ridiculed and insulted for their believes there are those who cant pass a comment concerning those subjects without calling the poster anti semitic looney ect Do we not have the right to free speech without insults
daniel.. I’m eccentric not mad mind your manners :)

Well I’ve read a lot of comments by people like you over the years, who assume the people who disagree with them are living in blissful ignorance, without the courage to challenge accepted views. You go on like you have the monopoly on critical thinking. There are also people who seek out conspiracy theories that git eith their own belief in an all-powerful elite controlling the world behind the scenes. They add weight to the evidence because it fits their preconceptions about corporations, science, government etc. That one’s called confirmation bias.

Well Fred if you knew why did you ask me ?
You see we have this perfectly circular argument the people are busy arguing amoung themselves while the elite continue their wicked ways
they call that divide and conquer

Here is a circular argument:
The world is controlled behind the scenes by one shady family or consortium. All of the sources that agree with this are brave rebels willing to stand up to the elites. All sources that disagree or contradict are either a part of the conspiracy or too ignorant or fearful to embrace reality.

yeah i agree
its more or less what i said in your own words but apparently its a few family’s not just one

Well Glen, I think it’s absolute rubbish and should be consigned to the dustbin of history just like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

Yea maybe but it beats watching Faircity

That it does

Yes the Rothschilds exist, not sure what you are saying is proven about Bilderberg. But to make the leap that some do that there is a great scheme afoot for a few families to control everything and this is something that started in ancient Egypt is just balderdash. But hey you are right I am in denial about the truth. Which is out there. You just have to look. But I am blinded my Hg and pacified by Fl and under the hypnotic spell of an illuminated magister.

Genetically first cousins are the same as half siblings. It makes no sense to allow first cousins to marry from a genetic/inbreeding perspective and bar half siblings. (I am not advocating allowing any people so closely related to breed.)

First cousins are not genetically the same as half siblings. First cousins do not share a parent, they share grandparents. The parents of any two first cousins will have their own genetic variation, so it’s genetically impossible for them to have the same consanguinity as any two given half siblings.

It really annoys me when people give out about first cousins marrying. That stigma and any genetic consequences are unfounded. My parents are first cousins – they lived in different countries, met as adults and said they tried not to but couldn’t help falling in love with each other. They have been married over 30 years and have a great relationship, I had an excellent upbringing with very caring and thoughtful parents and myself and my three siblings are all in excellent health, and educted to MA and PhD level. Yet despite this I have to be ashamed of my parents and keep how they are cousins a secret due to the stigma of society. I get upset by how much shame I feel about my parents and how i avoid conversations about them just in case someone would ask my mothers maiden name especially as friends of mine had parents who rowed and argued and screamed at each other making their childhoods miserably whereas mine gave me a perfect upbringing.

I know its not normal or particularly good for cousins to marry, especially with blurred lines if they grew up together but its also not fair to shame and belittle myself and my family just because my parents fell in love and are still very much in love over 30 years later. I didn’t do anything wrong and if it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t exist or be the person I am today. Yet I am still keeping it a secret from all my friends and even from my boyfriend as I don’t even know how to tell him.

CAK, I watched a documentary about Genetic Sexual Attraction. It happens when family members meet having never known one another growing up. It’s actually quite common. The theory is that when we grow up with our family, we instinctively love them in an “appropriate” manner but when we meet as adults for the first time, the instinct to love is very strong but the manner in which we show love is completely different. Your parents are one of many couples that are related and as I said earlier, there is no law against cousins marrying. It is a shame that there is such a stigma attached to it because it really hurts the children in those relationships.

Cak, thanks for your honest perspective. It’s a real eye opener.

Enjoying a touch of it yourself ya sick puppy.

Eoin. Come back off your wild tangent. Of course any child can be born with mental or physical disabilities. I’m not saying anything about anyone’s right to life or contribution to society. The fact is if close relatives breed, the likelihood of birth defects increases dramatically. Your original comment implied that siblings having a sexual relationship was a harmless act. I was pointing out the major downside to it.

The very fact that you referred to disabilities – whether mental or physical – as “defects” (which you did again in your follow-up comment) leads one to believe that you have some kind of problem with people who have them. As someone who has a disability (high-functioning autism) I find what I have being referred to as a “defect” more than a little insulting and demeaning.
My original point still stands. There is no way to be consistent in what you are advocating without applying the same criteria where there is any kind of risk of children being born disabled in some way – which applies to far more people than incestuous couples. This would ineluctably lead to state-enforced screenings for who is deemed fit to bear children and who isn’t. As I said, a form of eugenics.

Actually, birth defects are far rarer than people believe. Do you propose sex bans for carriers of Cystic Fibrosis and other heritable disorders, too?

I have to say, when I think about incestuous relationships I immediately react with disgust. It’s amazing what societal conditioning can do! Then I read the likes of Cak, Eoin, Eurozoneous etc and I question my own reactions. If it is the case that ‘birth defects’ (Eoin I use this with no intention to insult, just because those that argue in favour of incest laws use this term in their arguments) are far less common than proposed, why should it therefore be illegal?

Does anybody have any research on the topic, I’d love to know more?

No Eoin. Your original point does not stand. Your original point was that incest is a victimless act between two consenting adults. I pointed out the widely accepted scientific fact that inbreeding increases the likelihood of birth defects, and on that basis it should remain against the law. This is a fairly basic aspect of genetics and heritability, which I am sure you have come across at some stage.

Once again – because you seem intent on turning this into a debate about eugenics – I am not making any value judgements on who has a right to life or what place people with disabilities and congenital illnesses have in our society. This is not the context in which I made my comments. You have invented that yourself.

I think it’s more to do with nature than societal conditioning.

No Fred, you quite clearly are making value judgements about genetics here – by claiming that it should be the state’s job to regulate who gets born and who doesn’t; with those having “defects” (you again insist on using that insulting term) deemed unworthy of existence.
By the way, if the woman in an incest couple became pregnant, in a sane society she could simply have an abortion. Not here though.
Incest can also occur when those involved are male-male or female-female. Are you in favour of the state clamping down on them too despite there not even existing the possibility of reproduction? All in the name of ludicrous rule-fetishism?

Ancient History, care to expand on that?

I imagine we feel repulsed by the idea of insest for genetic reasons. I think it may be natures way to tell us to go elsewhere.

Possibly. How would you explain the phenomenon where siblings who have not grown up together, despite knowing the genetic relationship, often have an overwhelming attraction to one another. It is also true of parents and offspring. It’s oddly fascinating!

Yes strange I agree.

I didn’t say it was strange, I said oddly fascinating.

Eoin, you are fixating on the term ‘birth defect’ as if it is a statement about a person. I use the term to describe diseases or disabilities that people suffer from. This is an important definition to make. I am not using it to describe actual people, because defining a person on the basis of their disability is unfair in my opinion. Again you are inventing things that I simply have not said. On the basis of me using one term, you have created an entire identity and set of opinions for me that do not exist. I am talking about preventable diseases. You are choosing to conflate that with eugenics.

We already warn mothers not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. Pregnant women who work in labs are told to avoid working with certain chemicals and radioactive material. These reasonable precautions help prevent future medical complications for their unborn child. In the same way, birth defects arising from incest are preventable and it is right that our society and our legal system backs this up.

Haha ok

You just proved my point Fred with your analogy about women smoking or drinking during pregnancy.
We, the rest of society, try to advise pregnant women against doing the above, yet we don’t throw them in jail if they do.
Just as we should advise against those who engage in incest from procreating, yet keep the state out of their personal lives.
You claim that I’m fixating on your use of the word “defect” but that word matters. And even after it was pointed out to you how insulting it was you continued using it.