Russell Brand has been convicted of rape over an encounter that began as consensual. Bret Weinstein argues the ancient crime of rape no longer fits modern sex.
BRET: Rape is the crime that it is because of the harm that follows from it naturally in a biological sense.
As I pointed out before, once upon a time, if a stranger raped a woman, he was attempting to inflict on her a pregnancy. And if he was successful in doing so, not only will he have marred her psychologically for life, which would happen whether or not she became pregnant, but he is radically decreasing her ability to find a mate. He is forcing her to raise an offspring, the father of whom he is forcing her to raise an offspring without the help of a father, which she has the right to require.
So it is a crime of the seriousness that it has because it is a theft of somebody’s lifetime well-being, right?
We can compare it to something like if somebody ran up to you and cut off your arm in such a way that you survived. But the point is we can say something about the quality of life you might have led and then the quality of life you will lead without the arm. It’s not the same thing as death, but it’s a big fraction of the quality of life you might have had.
So the seriousness with which we treat rape is about the implications for the woman going forward.
In this case, we’ve now got, okay, you’ve consented to this behavior with this guy that you and then he takes it somewhere you don’t want to go, assuming that her story is correct. That is not the kind of theft of life that we are talking about. It is not some fraction of a life that has just been taken from you.
And if you don’t believe that rape as an ancient crime is inappropriate to the modern context, think about what our new understanding in light of birth control and abortion and anything goes sex with strangers and all of those things.
Think about this fact. Historically speaking, it was very difficult, vanishingly rare for a woman to rape a man. It’s just simply biologically almost impossible to do, right? The guy has to be turned on in order to be raped.
Well, if we take the new understanding of what that term means, then all it is is the withdrawal of consent. So now women can easily rape men. You can be in the midst of sex. A guy can withdraw his consent and be raped.
So the point is that weird fact, right? Rape is a very asymmetrical crime. But we’re now with the, you know, with allowing the court to have to adjudicate this thing, the withdrawal of consent turns something into rape in an instant.
Women like this are unbearably stupid and vapid.
Act as though they are so high value, but really outside of her being a doctor (and possibly one day having to provide free healthcare depending on what happens) she has nothing else to offer.
And also as a thirty six year old woman I can’t help but feel like she is indistinguishable from the 60 year old women who dress talk and look just like her.
IF RAPE STATES THAT FORCING A PENIS INTO A MOUTH IS RAPE THEN THIS LAW SHOULD ALSO SAY FORCING A VULVA OR CLITORIS INTO THE MOUTH IS RAPE. HELP ME CHANGE USA LAWS. MEN WAKE UP !!!
DO MEN NEED TO SUE ???
MEN OF THE UK PLEASE DEMAND THAT RAPE LAWS BE CHANGED !!! IF A WOMAN PUTS HER SEXUAL PART IN YOUR MOUTH THAT SHOULD BE CALLED RAPE NOT SEXUAL BATTERY. MEN WAKE UP !!!!#ENGLANDSUCKS