You know how to define rape?
If the victim says it was and a court agrees. That’s how.
fk me
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 38
Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally <u><b>sexually penetrates</b></u> another person (B); and
(b) B does not consent to the penetration; and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents to the penetration.
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration
(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if—
(a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or
(b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body <b><u>or an object</u></b> into B's <b><u>■■■■</u></b>; or
so person was penetrated by an object, wasnt consenting as he was passed out, and the person could not have reasonably thought there was consent as he was passed out… all the conditions satisfied under the law, therefore, rape
get it out of your head that this ■■■■ isnt rape, society frankly doesnt care what old farts think rape is and isnt
like its been said, make this a university ball or something, boys get drunk, find a beer bottle and shove it up a passed out girls ■■■■… theyd be kicked out of the university pronto and have a fkg lawsuit in front of them
the blanked words are ‘aye-nus’
wim and reboots posts are quite disappointing really… you want to try and stomp rape out of society, but it is this ignorance that perpetuates and justifies it
Ffs us this what it's like dealing with day trip and politics? Boys will be boys. It's not rape since he didn't know about it until it was on Facebook.Go over the scenario and change he with your daughter and you’d be campaigning for a public stoning to death.
Why are you telling me to imagine it was my daughter to support the idea that gender doesn’t matter?
That doesn’t make any sense.
That’s arguing that it does matter.
I’m sorry, I’m having a real issue with the whole black and white thing. If tea-bagging drunk people of the same gender is now rape (and no that’s not the same as what happened, but that’s my whole point) then…I don’t know.
Yeah you don’t know.
So you’re saying that’s rape as well?
So you're saying that's rape as well?
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration
(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if—
(a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or
(b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■; or
© A introduces (to any extent) their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or
(e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■, continues to keep it there; or
(f) A, having introduced their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth, continues to keep it there.
crimes act says it is
So you're saying that's rape as well?
No, just that you’re being incredibly dense. The guy got raped, filmed and it was put on social media. He got violated and an extreme breach of trust and all you ■■■■■ think about is how the retarded ■■■■ you got up to before the internet and electricity was around was funny and that he should just toughen up.
So you're saying that's rape as well?No, just that you’re being incredibly dense. The guy got raped, filmed and it was put on social media. He got violated and an extreme breach of trust and all you ■■■■■ think about is how the retarded ■■■■ you got up to before the internet and electricity was around was funny and that he should just toughen up.
a) calm the ■■■■ down
b) don’t assume I got up to any of this stuff. Kind of rude.
c) arguing that the guy got raped because the guy got raped is redundant.
d) I have no idea why you think that just because I’m arguing something wasn’t rape, or wasn’t sexual, that it wasn’t a bad thing to do.
e) Not sure where I suggested any of this is funny
f) you’re being kind of a jerk
You’ve belittled a serious issue, so has the lawyer, so have several upstanding members of this forum.
So you're saying that's rape as well?CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if— (a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or (b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■; or© A introduces (to any extent) their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or (e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■, continues to keep it there; or(f) A, having introduced their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth, continues to keep it there.
crimes act says it is
Interesting. Is sexual penetration in this case an offense or a definition?
Because it’s the former then it’s not rape.
So you're saying that's rape as well?No, just that you’re being incredibly dense. The guy got raped, filmed and it was put on social media. He got violated and an extreme breach of trust and all you ■■■■■ think about is how the retarded ■■■■ you got up to before the internet and electricity was around was funny and that he should just toughen up.
a) calm the ■■■■ down
b) don’t assume I got up to any of this stuff. Kind of rude.
c) arguing that the guy got raped because the guy got raped is redundant.
d) I have no idea why you think that just because I’m arguing something wasn’t rape, or wasn’t sexual, that it wasn’t a bad thing to do.
e) Not sure where I suggested any of this is funny
f) you’re being kind of a jerk
Wim - they could have stuck the bottle hanging out of the guy’s mouth - after all, that’s where bottles usually go. They could have done that while he was unconscious, and then posted it on Facebook. It would have been crude, disrespectful, and it would have probably violated a few laws. But they didn’t. They stuck it in his ■■■■ instead. I think that makes it sexual.
So you're saying that's rape as well?CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if— (a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or (b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■; or© A introduces (to any extent) their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or (e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■, continues to keep it there; or(f) A, having introduced their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth, continues to keep it there.
crimes act says it is
Interesting. Is sexual penetration in this case an offense or a definition?
Because it’s the former then it’s not rape.
Come on man - it’s sexual penetration, as defined, without consent, as defined.
So you're saying that's rape as well?CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if— (a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or (b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■; or© A introduces (to any extent) their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or (e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■, continues to keep it there; or(f) A, having introduced their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth, continues to keep it there.
crimes act says it is
Interesting. Is sexual penetration in this case an offense or a definition?
Because it’s the former then it’s not rape.
sexual penetration is an element of rape, other two is whether consent was given and whether the person doing the act reasonably thought it was given
since tea bagging falls into one of the definitions of sexual penetration, which would give rise to a rape charge
So you're saying that's rape as well?No, just that you’re being incredibly dense. The guy got raped, filmed and it was put on social media. He got violated and an extreme breach of trust and all you ■■■■■ think about is how the retarded ■■■■ you got up to before the internet and electricity was around was funny and that he should just toughen up.
a) calm the ■■■■ down
b) don’t assume I got up to any of this stuff. Kind of rude.
c) arguing that the guy got raped because the guy got raped is redundant.
d) I have no idea why you think that just because I’m arguing something wasn’t rape, or wasn’t sexual, that it wasn’t a bad thing to do.
e) Not sure where I suggested any of this is funny
f) you’re being kind of a jerkWim - they could have stuck the bottle hanging out of the guy’s mouth - after all, that’s where bottles usually go. They could have done that while he was unconscious, and then posted it on Facebook. It would have been crude, disrespectful, and it would have probably violated a few laws. But they didn’t. They stuck it in his ■■■■ instead. I think that makes it sexual.
But also by the definition above, putting a ■■■■■ (sigh fine, then: vibrator) into his mouth and all the same circumstances would not have even been sexual penetration, let alone rape.
FWIW I don’t think ‘that makes it sexual’ at all. Although it may, in fact does by the definition posted, make it a form of sexual assault.
And I’m not even talking about the posting it on facebook, unless anyone’s arguing that counts as a separate count of rape.
So you're saying that's rape as well?No, just that you’re being incredibly dense. The guy got raped, filmed and it was put on social media. He got violated and an extreme breach of trust and all you ■■■■■ think about is how the retarded ■■■■ you got up to before the internet and electricity was around was funny and that he should just toughen up.
a) calm the ■■■■ down
b) don’t assume I got up to any of this stuff. Kind of rude.
c) arguing that the guy got raped because the guy got raped is redundant.
d) I have no idea why you think that just because I’m arguing something wasn’t rape, or wasn’t sexual, that it wasn’t a bad thing to do.
e) Not sure where I suggested any of this is funny
f) you’re being kind of a jerkWim - they could have stuck the bottle hanging out of the guy’s mouth - after all, that’s where bottles usually go. They could have done that while he was unconscious, and then posted it on Facebook. It would have been crude, disrespectful, and it would have probably violated a few laws. But they didn’t. They stuck it in his ■■■■ instead. I think that makes it sexual.
But also by the definition above, putting a ■■■■■ (sigh fine, then: vibrator) into his mouth and all the same circumstances would not have even been sexual penetration, let alone rape.
FWIW I don’t think ‘that makes it sexual’ at all. Although it may, in fact does by the definition posted, make it a form of sexual assault.And I’m not even talking about the posting it on facebook, unless anyone’s arguing that counts as a separate count of rape.
no i think the definition of rape clearly has to involve a sexual organ somewhere along the lines
forcibly putting a vibrator into someones mouth against their will would definitely be assault however
So you're saying that's rape as well?No, just that you’re being incredibly dense. The guy got raped, filmed and it was put on social media. He got violated and an extreme breach of trust and all you ■■■■■ think about is how the retarded ■■■■ you got up to before the internet and electricity was around was funny and that he should just toughen up.
a) calm the ■■■■ down
b) don’t assume I got up to any of this stuff. Kind of rude.
c) arguing that the guy got raped because the guy got raped is redundant.
d) I have no idea why you think that just because I’m arguing something wasn’t rape, or wasn’t sexual, that it wasn’t a bad thing to do.
e) Not sure where I suggested any of this is funny
f) you’re being kind of a jerkWim - they could have stuck the bottle hanging out of the guy’s mouth - after all, that’s where bottles usually go. They could have done that while he was unconscious, and then posted it on Facebook. It would have been crude, disrespectful, and it would have probably violated a few laws. But they didn’t. They stuck it in his ■■■■ instead. I think that makes it sexual.
But also by the definition above, putting a ■■■■■ (sigh fine, then: vibrator) into his mouth and all the same circumstances would not have even been sexual penetration, let alone rape.
FWIW I don’t think ‘that makes it sexual’ at all. Although it may, in fact does by the definition posted, make it a form of sexual assault.And I’m not even talking about the posting it on facebook, unless anyone’s arguing that counts as a separate count of rape.
no i think the definition of rape clearly has to involve a sexual organ somewhere along the lines
forcibly putting a vibrator into someones mouth against their will would definitely be assault however
Without consent rather than forcibly but yep, I agree. It would.
And again, I’d be ■■■■■■ off if that happened to me but I wouldn’t want someone going to jail for it.
Moral arbitrators unite
bottles in bums is not alright
Glaze it over at your expense…
certainly makes you look quite dense
So you're saying that's rape as well?CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if— (a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or (b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■; or© A introduces (to any extent) their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or (e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■, continues to keep it there; or(f) A, having introduced their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth, continues to keep it there.
crimes act says it is
Interesting. Is sexual penetration in this case an offense or a definition?
Because it’s the former then it’s not rape.Come on man - it’s sexual penetration, as defined, without consent, as defined.
I was asking if that was a charge in it’s own right (as distinct from rape) or a description of sexual penetration as a preamble to a charge of rape.
So you're saying that's rape as well?CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 37D
Sexual penetration(1) A person (A) sexually penetrates another person (B) if— (a) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina; or (b) A introduces (to any extent) a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■; or© A introduces (to any extent) their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth; or
(d) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's vagina, continues to keep it there; or (e) A, having introduced a part of A's body or an object into B's ■■■■, continues to keep it there; or(f) A, having introduced their ■■■■■ into B’s mouth, continues to keep it there.
crimes act says it is
Interesting. Is sexual penetration in this case an offense or a definition?
Because it’s the former then it’s not rape.sexual penetration is an element of rape, other two is whether consent was given and whether the person doing the act reasonably thought it was given
since tea bagging falls into one of the definitions of sexual penetration, which would give rise to a rape charge
Right, that’s what I was asking, whether it was a charge itself or a preamble.