Seoan goes through so much !! My poor boy.. he has to provide support to woowon emotionall...

know more about comprehension you say? but completely missed their own point? hallelujah, bless your soul.

not you out here asking about a strangers country? lmfao??? like that changes the fact you got corrected with actual laws, examples, and real logic. you really thought someone needs to tell you where they live so you can feel right? lmao. isn't that the most pathetic reach ever?

Womp womp you coward too scared that i put you in your place ?
Yeah keep barking

who's putting who?? see how you're speaking nonsense now?

Look, I don't even care about woowon and seo an right now. But you bringing up that men can't be raped by women is egregious. You are hiding behind law. And whatever. If you bring this up in a court of law, very reasonable. And understandable. Because that is where conversation is strictly legal. This thread on this website? It's clearly moral. And morality and legality are separate. So using this as an argument here is quiet appropriate. Nobody here is giving two cents about law. The conversation started with morality (over dependence on someone is wrong, that was the message). Also, technically, a woman penetrating herself forcefully is rape. Law is outdated. And law keeps on changing as well. So we as people should never just be complicit and go "oh it's not blah blah in law." Law will change as people's mind do. It is rape, maybe not yet legally, but technically. Why? Because it is sex (penetration involved) without consent (of the penetrating party). And that is a very simple albeit not legal definition of rape. Sex without consent. Marital rape wasn't considered rape once. But now, in some countries, it is. Has the act changed? No. Are the people being subjected to forced sex by their spouse getting raped in one country and not getting raped in another? Legally, yes. But technically, it doesn't make sense, right. Even many judges in their verdicts include how morally it would be blah blah but legally blah blah. Hence blah blah. But they are judges in court of law. And judges in higher courts sometimes change legal definitions so that law can keep up morally. Things are not as rigid. You change your mindset, law will follow. I believe women can rape men. And eventually, after years and years sadly, law will follow. But this conversation here right now? Clearly moral. So I don't understand the point of bringing up law. Sincerely, a law student myself.

First of all why are you reviving a dead thread? I can't believe people can be this lifeless to scroll through thousands of comments just to find my comment that i made months ago...
Now come to your points, you really need to study hard, this shows your lack of knowledge in so many aspects..you do not have the mindset of a law student yet if you think legal concept is not intertwined with moral and ethics....laws are created to uphold moral and ethics... talking like a dumbass and saying "im a law student" won't save your ass...seriously if this is how you argue, you will be failing those exams soon...
And there are so many mistakes in your take that it actually left me baffled....
As you used marital rape for your example, even marital rape cannot be committed by a woman, ... The penetrated party is the perpetrator thus woman logically can't commit rape as they do not have physical capacity to penetrate with a penis...
And this world doesn't give a shit about what you think as it certainly doesn't revolve around your thought process....
If woman are forcing sex on someone, its sexual assault, there's specific terms and names for different offences.. but if a woman is directly involved in a rape committed by a man then she can also be convicted under the same offence which is rape...but here you are a so called "law student" blurring all the offences.. you don't actually know 2 shits about law and all i read was "blah blah blah" those are not proper arguments so don't come at me with your weak ass clapbacks . There is no space for your "technical" logics...
Honestly im more shocked at the fact that morons nowadays are studying law... Lol
Additionally this is my thread and im free to say whatever i want.. fyi this thread is certainly not a morality thread ... So kindly piss off

The penetrated party is not the perpetrator*
CORRECTION OF A TYPO

And for the love of God,
Don't put your twat arse opinion here and dig this thread up from the grave... Im tired of replying to morons with zero IQ coming to my thread to prove a point...

Seriously, stupid bitch? I was being respectful but you're definitely a self proclaimed know it all. Firstly, no I didn't scroll through thousand comments. This is the first thread on here when arranged by popularity. Second, you're the naive cunt if you think just because law is *supposed* to be in accordance with morals and ethics, it actually always aligns with it you stupid dumbfuck that's the naivest response ever. Law is supposed to do that, but it doesn't. That's the root of so many issues. And here too, it doesn't align with ethics by not recognizing rape against men by women. I don't need a random bitch to teach me what a law student's mindset should be like. Your mindset isn't the only approved one. And "I'm a law student" was supposed to reflect your own words. Because you mentioned it first as if to establish that by the virtue of being a law student, your take will have more validity. So I mentioned it too. And once again, you're the dumbfuck person. You definitely studied law without using ANY critical thinking and it shows. That's not what my marital rape example was supposed to show. You're saying it's rape because a man and a woman are involved and it fits the legal definition. And that's what I'm saying. It fits the legal definition only now and only in a few countries. But in many places, since a husband and a wife are involved, it's not rape. It's deliberately excluded. So legally, it's not rape in many place. Just like how legally woman raping man isn't rape. But when you think of it in simple terms. It is rape. It is sex without consent. So it's rape, whether it's legally recognised yet kr not. Just because one thing isn't legally recognised yet doesn't mean it isn't. And no, I did not say law should center around my beliefs. Can you stop twisting my words and skimming over points, ya dumb twat? I saw that law follows people. As people's beliefs change, law changes. So if I (I said I as a part of community, not in an individualistic way) believe that it's rape, and other people do too, hopefully law will keep after a long time (sadly). But just because law takes times to update doesn't mean that thing was any different before than it was now. It was rape then, it is rape now. And yes it was a morality thread, even though it's yours. You took one path, turned the lane. Why do I say so? It's a freakin comic website, a thread starting with your moral issue with their relationship. And now you're spouting bullshit. How wanna be superior educated lawyer are you to bring up legal definitions here and mention being a law student first when the thread started with "over dependence ain't it". Clearly, no one is gonna follow a legal trail here because this is not the place for it. I thought this could lead to a proper discussion and good arguments because I find such discussion quite stimulating. And mind you, you posted publicly. Anyone can respond to your bullshit. But you are just a stupid no-thinking-beyond-words-I-memorised and a I am better person so bad.

Hahahahah finally a cunt showing its true colour...
Yes just because you announced its rape, its rape. Hahahah what a logic... Such intelligence needs to be stored in a museum...
Law is doing its job alright its just fucking low iq bimbos like you that can't comprehend what textbook law is and what enforcing a law is, is the biggest problem.... And what was that about law following people?? Wtf is that?? Just running off that stupid mouth and saying anything atp...laws are made so the rights could be protected ..laws are not trend that it will follow people, law sees equality in everything, just because it doesn't go along with your moral compass doesn't mean its wrong or immoral...it aligns with whatever that is right...
And your paragraph proves whatever i needed to know lol...you legit have no idea that sexual offences are categoriesed in many terms and ways... woman can't rape doesn't mean woman can't pose serious sexual assault without consent...rape is a term itself that defines the penetration part.. but thats not the only offence that exist you fucking brainless bitch...go open a book or something instead of coming here dumping your 2 cent logics...
And i didn't invite you to have an argument with me just cuz thats the only shit that stimulates your cunt hole..get a life lol.. i can't argue with no brainers that has zero knowledge regarding any offences and jumps to rape at any inconvenience...
Law changes but what women physically can't do, can never be changed by any laws no matter how much you cry moron... To satisfy rape it needs to fulfill some requirements and without consent is not the only requirement...Rape is a penetration based act done without consent and that has to come from the person who has penis... As penetration can only harm whats being penetrated and vagina is the only thing that gets injured during these penetration thats why law focuses on the party thats getting injured in the process....what's so hard to understand dumb bitch? only an idiot would say woman rape not knowing what rape actually means... Shits like you are the reason now all offences are getting blurred and everything is rape.... And there are other sexual offences.. i highly doubt you ever read any rape related case laws as you claim to be a law student.. i have seen people like you that moral police others but have zero experience with real life cases... Even with consent, if a couple is doing bdsm and one party gets badly injured and in the middle of the act wants to stop but continues anyway then it might be seen as rape considering the intensity of the bdsm act... Do you have any idea how many different cases there are but none of them can directly put the term rape on women...
The point of my discussion was this that, rape is a vast area along with sexual assault and not everything is rape because it needs to satisfy criterias before it could be termed as one.. but idiots like you will jump RAPE RAPE RAPE and make everything rape not understanding a thing...

And i acknowledge that i know better than the idiots that know nothing and has no experience with real life rape victims and claims to be a so called law student just to win an argument with zero legal aspect and zero critical thinking ability... Has only their mOrAlItY that they squeezed out of their ass and a dick for a brain..

And i never bragged being a lawyer, i just said the definition doesn't allow woman to be rapist and i know that for a fact.. its you idiots that are highly self conscious with low self esteem that keeps coming to attack me with it lol.... You are bragging about me more than i mentioned it...

Lol shut the fuck up, cunt. And yes I'll do whatever the fuck stimulates my damn cunt hole, none of your business. Don't spout bullshit on internet and then be like dOnT rePly. It seems to me you're a fucktard and think you're right. But it's alright. You have very rigid views, and even after I tell you I am not saying law has to follow me, you say the same shit again. You CANNOT be this dumb. And yes, law follows people. Not in a trendy sense you dumbcunt. Comprehend shit. As in, as morality changes and people's notions changes, law changes. And that is true although it also depends on your country. Law and morality are supposed to go hand in hand. But at the end of the day, they are separate. Like I said, legit judges recognise this too. In judgement writing, I see many judges use sentences like "while morally not blah blah, legally blah blah." And then higher judges sometimes just change things when they realise it's not correct. Sometimes judges give judgements that don't seem legally correct, but they do backflips to make it seem right so that they can align it with moral standards. Laws have been kept flexible because times change. Ideas change. It's not about my moral compass. I know there are different types of sexual offences, with each country having their own categorization. Like here, we got rape, gangrape, sexual harrasment, disrobing women, voyeurism (all gendered sadly) etc etc. But rape and gang rape obviously has the highest punishment. While sexual harrasment has comparatively very little punishment. By classifying non consensual sex by a woman against a man as sexual harrasment, it downplays the act. Obviously, both are bad, but one is worse we gotta admit. Because THERE IS PENETRATION, just that the man can't be the one doing it. The woman can get pregnant. The man can have a child without his will that he might even have to pay for. But the knowledge that your child exists without your will is horrific in itself. Also, STDs and blah blah blah. While the effects of rape may be different for men and women, it's fuckin bad. And sexual harrasment nowhere covers the seriousness of the crime. Rape is not a term that defines penetration itself, in every definition. That's the legal definition. The legal definition is not the only one. It is sex without consent, and I am not the only one who thinks so. This is a well used definition for it. And it's not wrong. Many dictionaries define it like this, and distinguish it from legal definition. Like "Rape is__, and legally it's __." I have read cases, stop assuming. I know rape can look different. And it's because of how different things look, some are accepted in court as not rape sadly. And I don't fucking thing that people term anything as rape, stupid fuck. Yes, people go too far and may call anything sexual harrasment, but same treatment isn't given to rape. But you're free to think so. And yes honey, you're the only smart person who actually understands rape. Nobody else understands. We're all dumb. Please guide us. I haven't yet had the chance to work with any victim unfortunately, but I fucking know what rape looks like. I have been through it, seen so many women go through it. Rape is not a concept that can only be understood by your smart ass.
And morality does fucking matter, stupid bitch. Law does not always follow morals. But it matters. Always remember, bad shit was legal once too. And even if it was illegal, it wasn't illegal correctly like how rape was a property crime once in many places. But now it's not. People's minds changed, that's why. And nah, cunt, you're the one bragging about it. "Oh i'm a law student. You all are uneducated." (Actual things you said stringed into one quotation)

In simple terms, what I'm trying to say is...
In this case, law bad –> don't be complicit with law, at least not here where it's not a formal legal discussion -> be flexible, even law is flexible and keeps changing. So many amendments and add ons every year. New things keep on coming for a reason.


That being said, I won't respond anymore after this one (unless I feel compelled its hard to stop myself sometimes). Because clearly, you have very rigid views. And think yourself correct no matter what.

Oh and btw I think South Africa, new Zealand, and Ireland have gender neutral rape laws classifying any non consensual sex (penetration involved) as rape.

Lol i love seeing crackheads getting triggered because they start talking nonsense when they does....you keep yapping with your big ass mouth but none of it actually makes sense hahaha .. and i didn't say don't reply i said im tired of getting through thick headed bimbos like you that keeps coming with their 1 brian cell to argue shit...
Lol i never said i think im right i said i acknowledge that your bullshit won't be followed by the rest of the world and law doesn't work like that... You keep moral policing other as if you know 2 shits about it..
And again LAW DOESN'T FOLLOW PEOPLE, this single sentence contradicts the whole point of your argument dumbass.. if it follows people then law will be morally obligated to protect whatever people feel is right...and each person has different moral values...In one sentence you are saying it follows people but in the next sentence you said morality and law doesn't go hand in hand.. lol pick a struggle bitch.. .. so it definitely doesn't follow people.. it follows environmental situation based on other surrounding things.. judges don't change laws, but they can convict someone on their discretion and its called common law, they follow the verdicts and presidents but that doesn't mean they change it . Judges can't change law you idiot bitch... You know zero shits about law so stop yapping like you do .. everything you said is wrong...
And thats the thing law doesn't see a crime with moral lense, cuz everyone has different moral values... It won't match no matter what but every person has basic morality and ethics so law does uphold that...

And the rest of the essay you wrote just proved what i said is right... If a man is unwilling getting sexually assaulted the person who is disadvantaged isn't the man at all.... the woman can't claim anything from the man unless she has valid proofs.. im not gonna give you a lecture on this as its too long and i know its not gonna go through your thick head who thinks laws should be bended as you think...it only gets amended when there's something wrong with the law or they amend it cuz it benefits general people or systems more..... And thats why if a man commits it, its rape but if a woman commits it, it doesn't termed as the same in most countries but serious sexual assault has high level punishments.. and rape needs to have the core element thats penetration, no matter how hard you cry your daddy can't change that fact..thats the CORE element.. anything except penetration will not be termed as rape..

and Law is flexible, i never said it isn't bitch, stop putting words in my mouth and making up shits...

Plus its you who keep bringing my profession lol I never once mentioned in any comments what i do.. its you who keep mentioning it as if its a weapon to win an argument by degrading me with it lol...and it was also you who bragged about being a law student by saying "sincerely a law student myself" lol that was soooo cringe.. Carry on though.....

I'm not gonna read all of it and respond to all of it cuz I'm kinda done. But I'm still a bitch and I do want to say a few things. Judges can to an extent contribute to law making depending on the country. Law ain't uniform. Maybe it's not like that in your country. And I didn't mean fickle beliefs of people, but general outlook of society. I said law is supposed to follow morality but it doesnt. It follows general outlook of people because law is man made, not God sent (exceptions exist but most of time it isn't based on religion). A society full of people that believe child marriage is okay. That's how most people think in it. Chances are, child marriage is actually legal there. So what I'm saying is we should all try to correct our thoughts and align it with morality so law can keep up with morality.
And I told you of some countries where rape has a gender neutral definition. As in, it is possible women can rape men. It's just not legally accepted everywhere. But it is rape, that's why there are a few countries like South Africa where it is considered rape.
End of argument. No more for real this time lol.

Oh btw I don't think it ALWAYS follows people. But many times it does.

Im gonna leave 2 questions for you, regarding the term "women can do rape"
1. If the woman is forcefully trying to engage in intercourse (and by intercourse i mean specifically the woman is trying to insert Her own self with the man's penis) with a man without that man's consent and the man doesn't want it - what is it called?
2. If a woman is trying to insert a finger or a bottle in a man's anus without that man's consent - what is it called?

Women can't commit rape thats a given- traditionally and scientifically - BUT that doesn't mean she cannot be convicted under it, if she's the one inserting something in someone then that would convict her of the crime as i previously said so.. even involved with a rapist would convict her of the same crime....

South Africa has the highest rate of sexual violence cases- to the point that they added bottle as a weapon for rape... Laws can be different based on circumstances.. and some countries are trying to do just that to prevent it based on those circumstances, they are evolving laws... And country wise some follow exceptions...

But the term " women can do rape" is ironically wrong as the insertion needs to be done to the victims to constitute rape not to the perpetrator...
And lay people dont understand that and calls everything rape ...

Btw you are jumping from one topic to another, child marriage is a vast topic and it has critical arguments...so im not gonna touch that topic..

And you did read my whole comment but you don't have enough arguments to refute those cuz even you know it all makes sense its just you are arrogant enough to even admit it...

And judges don't make laws ONCE AGAIN.. please don't say that in real time cuz you would be embarrassing yourself...laws are passed through parliaments .. those that are statutory...but you are talking about common laws where judges take presidents and go through previous verdicts to convict a criminal..common laws are based on judges discretion cuz they have that certain level of power to do that if the circumstances says so...that doesn't mean they are making laws but rather they are following the presidents and trying to solve the case that's right before them..

You have lacking in understanding and your basics are not clear...you know a small part and the rest is made up by you..A law student shouldn't be half assing like this ....go open a book and do more research or something cuz this is so foolish...

Can you stop repeating judges don't contribute to law making? In my country, they do. I already said that maybe they don't in your country. Like I am legit saying this straight from my textbook itself that judges contribute to law making even though they don't create laws the way legislature does. They do contribute. Thats how it works in my country. You're the one embarassing yourself by insisting on it like your country is the only one in the world. Even when I said that may be it's not like that in yours which is fine. Yes I am talking about common law. But common law also differs in each country. In my country, judiciary IS strong enough to seriously contribute to law. Like in a way it actually matters. But that's my country. It's fine if it's not like that in your country. We have an article here which legit allows judiciary to go beyond it's functions if it is required for "complete justice." Different countries, different laws.

And no I didn't read your whole comment. Don't assume. Genuinely didn't feel like doing it. I skimmed it.

Fine, consider South Africa an exception. But I also mentioned New Zealand and Ireland. I guess you missed that response because it was an add on after the big ass response I typed. It may not be common, but it does say something. Rape is rape. And you know, in my country, legal definition of literally every sexual offence is so gendered that it completely excludes men. So I'd say that men can't even be sexually assaulted or harassed. Why? It's legally correct. It says so in my law. Definitions literally mention "women subjected to la la by men". So men can't be a victim of SA. But does it actually mean they can't be? They can, right? Same goes for rape. And it is rape in those three countries.

And a woman putting in a finger/bottle in a man is rape actually. Legally, it may not be considered rape everywhere. I don't know. But what I do know is that it is rape but law can be inconsistent. Like here, a woman's own hand being manipulated so as to cause insertion by a man is considered rape. But for a man, it's impossible cuz men can't even get harassed here (according to legal definition).

And god it's so hard to resist responding

And you know what, forget it. It doesn't seem to me you're gonna change your opinion. I sure as hell am not gonna change mine. Let's leave it. Just say okay fuck you lmao I can't resist responding to another huge paragraph.

Girl contribution and making law is completely different thing omg.... You clearly said they make law , not contribution... How many times are you gonna contradict yourself.. you need to use your words wisely, you are just throwing words around not understanding you are falling into your own trap....
Judges do contribute to different law proposals comes from them.. the fact that you don't even know what common law is , is quite terrifying as a law student.. your basics are so weak my god...
I never said anything about countries.. different countries can have different laws theres no arguments there.. you clearly said judges make laws by themselves but now you are changing your statement to contributions lol... Please stand by one statement instead of changing your mind every few seconds...

As per your little to no knowledge, its obvious you skim your law books too....

And fyi go read the thorough rape definition of the other 2 countries.. you just read gender neutral and started jumping like a dumbass as if you found something there... They still don't term it as rape rather sexual violence but they can convict the woman under rape as i previously mentioned as well..

What country are you from? As you are making everything about your country i need to know what their definition is .. please do mention it if you are not a coward and making things up... If you have the guts then prove it... And men can get sexually assaulted, when did i say they can't, i mean thats all I'm saying untill now .. wtf are you even talking about...

And lastly you didn't answer any of my questions.. answer my 2 questions pointing 1 and 2..and tell me what crime those are if you have the understanding of this area... Stop being a coward and dodging my questions...

Arrogance is the only weapon of fools and you proved it here... XD your opinion means shit keep it in that thick headed layers don't dump it around