Is HE being unreasonable? Well, yes, very obviously...

[Trazzletoes]

This article can't get pregnant from rape was brought to my attention today. Obviously 'unreasonable' doesn't even cover it. I genuinely cannot believe that, in this day and age, someone can seriously have these views. Or even think that there is anything other than 'legitimate' rape. Seriously...

I've not read any of this stuff about George Galloway.
I was talking about Todd Akin.
Why has this just become an anti Galloway thread ?

Because you said ' I don't believe anybody that thick or with that point of view would ever get voted in, they'd be on the fringes with the rest of the loons.'

So we are saying that actually, we have got an elected politician in the UK saying very comparable things. I am as lefty as they come, and totally agreed with Galloway's stance on Iraq - but this is just shameful - as was Ken Clarke's dodgy statement on rape a few months back.

You can't make this stuff up can you. Lots of Americans up in arms, most will roll over and say well maybe he has a point and vote for that party anyway.
As a Dual US/UK living in the US I can't wait to come home.
This place is starting to make me and

"Why has this just become an anti Galloway thread ?"
Because it seems he has similar views on the same subject. And people might want to comment on that...?

OhBuggerandArse

So we are saying that actually, we have got an elected politician in the UK saying very comparable things. I am as lefty as they come, and totally agreed with Galloway's stance on Iraq - but this is just shameful - as was Ken Clarke's dodgy statement on rape a few months back.

One of the problems around discussing rape in any rational way, IMO, is that it is literally impossible to say anything which might suggest that rape is difficult to prove or prosecute. As soon as you imply that there may sometimes be a - I hesitate to use the word 'grey area' because I know the reaction it'll cause - but a less-than-clear-cut-situation during a sexual situation, you immediately become a target. And it is possible, as a result of drugs or alcohol, to end up in a situation where it is less-than-clear-cut.

The shutting down of debate by an immediate "Rarrrrr" reaction from the usual suspects as soon as some idiot politician sticks his size 12s in makes it very hard to get to grips with rape as an issue. It means that everyone's afraid to talk about it, and it means that politicians will walk over hot coals in order to avoid discussing it. That can't be healthy.

I'm not sure what your point is flatpack. What Akin said was plainly biologically false. It doesn't contribute to the debate because it makes no sense.

CailinDana

I'm not sure what your point is flatpack. What Akin said was plainly biologically false. It doesn't contribute to the debate because it makes no sense.

I thought my point was as plain as day. It was tangential to the thread though.

Now I suppose I have to make it plain that I was neither condoning nor supporting what the Imbecile Septic and the Imbecile Trot Scot were saying?

So does your point relate to this discussion? I'm not being obtuse I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Is it that we should forgive politicians for making completely incorrect statements in order to open the debate?

CailinDana

So does your point relate to this discussion? I'm not being obtuse I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Is it that we should forgive politicians for making completely incorrect statements in order to open the debate?

The point is that the debate has been closed, precisely because of "Rarrrrr" reactions in the past, and only now the only politicians prepared to blunder in with their size 12s and pass comment on it are the truly ignorant and self-aggrandising idiots. And the closure of the debate around how people deal with the crime of rape and how it should be dealt with is not a good thing.

Perhaps I should have written that the first time but I thought it would just come through in my origina post.

Thing is though the "Rarrrr" reactions have been justified. I don't think it's the case that some well meaning politician has said something totally just and innocuous and they've been jumped on regardless.

Just saw Galloway on the news. He was not attempting to open a debate about rape. He was attempting to link Assange's rape charges to a wider conspiracy theory and make himself look like a freedom of speech crusader.

Oh well, if THAT'S what he was doing, that's ok then

Course it's not ok, he's a cock. But I was attempting to answer flatpack's point above, which I read as we should cut politicians some slack for even going near the debate. My poing was Galloway wasn't going near any debate about how we as a society deal with rape, he was being a cock about Assange so it doesn't follow that he should get any credit for tackling a difficult subject. Because he wasn't. He was being a rape-apologising cock.

what Galloway says contradicts the law though, so is totally misleading.

The law is very clear - unless 'yes' has been made explicitly clear, then the answer is 'no' to having sex.

there is no grey area, drink/drugs etc make it difficult. If you're with someone and it isn't crystal clear that they are into this and willing, then pause just long enough to say 'ok?' or 'enjoying this?'. Cos they may NOT be gasps of delight. They may want a moment to agree, or they may be realising that this isn't an experience they are enjoying and would like to make that clear.

So, someone who is asleep, clearly hasn't said 'yes', therefore they have said 'no'.

And if someone is too drunk/young/learning impaired etc to give a reasoned 'yes', then the law also states that the answer is 'no'.

Basically, the answer is 'no' unless you are clearly signalled otherwise.

Whether people agree with that or not isn't relevant, that is how the law stands.

Not much room for ambiguity.

btw, living in the US and just waiting to hear Jon Stewart's take on this. Many people will be v upset about the US politician, in fact I've already heard rumblings.

BBC news was saying that the Republican party is withdrawing financial support from his re-election campaign. Fingers crossed!

I've just seen on the news that he has lost financial support even after a cringy apology on YouTube.
And he's lost backing from Mick Romney too.
I think he may have just ruined his career.

Good. Here's hoping. God knows the religious right takes things too far anyway. Having grown up in the states, I know first hand a huge number of people that feel that abortion should not be allowed in ANY circumstance and feel that it is only rape when there is a weapon involved. Frightening really.

It used to be believed in the 14th century that women could only get pregnant if they orgasmed, so if they got pregnant, it was seen as a sign that they had enjoyed the encounter and that therefore it wasn't rape (the scary flip side to this belief was that of course, if there was no pregnancy, there was no proof of sexual encounter having taken place, so prosecution for rape was practically impossible).

Apparently this moron is still living in the 14th century. As is anyone who would vote for him.

Anyone read The Handmaiden's Tale. The Midwest could quite easily get there.

Am sure New York will become an independent state eventually.

The differences between the liberal left and the ar right of America are becoming just too vast.