otb,

"For someone who regularly claims to be a woman (always too much information) and a feminist..."

You are so full of it.

I have "never" (that's "never") claimed to be a"feminist" on this forum.

(Why don't you choof along and find a post where I have...Lol!)

And I'm sooo sorry that I regularly claim to "a woman".. Seeing that I am a woman, it's kinda hard not mention it occasionally.

"... your view is quite remarkable and callous to rape victims..."

Oh Gawd, he's at it again...reeling in compassion for the wronged with his faux feminism.

Give it a rest mate, you can't wait to put the boot into feminists/women - and every now and then you claim to be defending their honour. (Guffaw!)

"Hence the question, are you the woman you say you are?"

Only on Tuesdays....

Oh come on OTB, you are just getting hysterical now.
Of course any rape involves some form of violence, depending on what your definition of violence is.

You and the other good ol' boys are always quick to point out all the other forms of violence against men by women in the domestic violence scenario, so what is different here?

If a man indicates he is going to have sex with a women, and she has already declined, then usually she can't physically stop him. Emotionally and physically, she is being raped though.

Even if there are no obvious other injuries on her body if she has been too scared to try and fight him off, there is almost always internal tears etc.
Even if there are no obvious injuries, the emotional/mental violence against her is often worse...

Suseonline,

Then you have changed your mind, because this is what you said before when you wrongly attributed Poirot's remark to G'dayBruce,

Suseonline, "As far as violence goes, just because, in some cases, a frightened woman does not put up a fight if a man holds her down and rapes her, does not mean she isn't being violated.
Anyone who doesn't understand that concept needs to take a look at their own humanity"
Posted by Sunday, 21 September 2014 7:19:14 PM

I don't believe there would be many women who would agree with either of you, and are desirous of returning to last century where the rape victim was required to show injury or justify lack of defence against violence.

That is what you and Poirot are saying, and to quote Poirot again,

<Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".>

You are bother either very callous to rape victims, or you'd say anything to win an argument.

As I have explained earlier, duress can be present without violence.

Suse,

What about 'rape by fraud'?

No violence is used, in fact usually the exact opposite and if a man tells a woman that he is a Lord of the Realm and she believes him and has intercourse with him because she wants to have it off with a nobleman, is she not responsible?

Bye the way, do you believe that women should legally be allowed to have something to protect themselves against violent rape or the threat of such?

Feminist Suseonline and 'I-never-called-myself-a-feminist' Poirot have set the clock back a very long time, with their insistence that rape always involves violence.

Minor details lack of consent are an irrelevancy to Suseonline and Poirot, "Show evidence of violence or get out!".

Any wonder victims are reticent to report rape and other sexual offences committed against them, especially where children are involved.