Onthebeach, I never realised you were so slow at understanding the written word.

In no way does the sentence you quoted from me above suggest I believe "...the rape victim was required to show injury or justify lack of defence against violence"

I stand by my assertion that rape always involves a form of violence, just like domestic violence does. It may not always be physical violence, but it is always violence.

You are just arguing for arguments sake, and you know it.

Is Mise, of course rape is not involved if a woman agrees to have sex.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Yes, I think women should be able to carry pepper sprays.

Suseonline, "I stand by my assertion that rape always involves a form of violence, just like domestic violence does. It may not always be physical violence, but it is always violence"

You are doing backflips. Massaging the definition of violence now it appears.

However that is still intolerable and a backslide to a dreadful past where victims of rape and other sex crimes were unfairly and cruelly required to show evidence of violence or realistic threat of violence, and explain themselves where such evidence was not in evidence to the satisfaction of police and a court.

Some rapes and sex crimes involve violence but others do not. Read the papers.

otb,

I see you've slipped into puppy-on-trouser-hem mode - and we all know how irritating you can be when when you won't let go.

"However that is still intolerable and a backslide to a dreadful past where victims of rape and other sex crimes were unfairly and cruelly required to show evidence of violence or realistic threat of violence, and explain themselves where such evidence was not in evidence to the satisfaction of police and a court."

Btw, when you're not pretending to be outraged on behalf of "whatever" (a favourite ploy of yours in debate) perhaps you can show us all the posts of Poirot claiming to be a feminist.

Go ahead, there's a good beach....you wouldn't want us to think you were just shooting your mouth off with nothing to back it up - would you?

Suse,

"Is Mise, of course rape is not involved if a woman agrees to have sex.
I would have thought that was obvious...."

It is obvious to people who think but not apparently all of the time, especially in Western Australia where a man was gaoled for some years because he didn't stop consensual intercourse when he was asked to do so.

His wife had arranged for him to have a friendly session with her girl friend who entered into the romp with evident glee, then at or near a crucial moment asked/told him to stop.
He didn't, so she charged him with rape and he was convicted and spent some years in gaol.

"....Yes, I think women should be able to carry pepper sprays."

What if the spray doesn't work, or if he knows all about such sprays and is wearing goggles?

Is Mise, there will always be false accusations for crimes of course, but I think we can safely assume that there are far more rape cases brought to court that were unable to be 'proved' , and the rapist got away with it, than the other way round.

Yes, I believe the pepper spray remains illegal to carry because it can be used against the woman in a struggle. I still would prefer to carry it if I could.

Mind you, if I was carrying it then a court may assume I expected to meet a rapist and thus may have been asking for rape...so maybe not.

Suseonline, "I believe the pepper spray remains illegal to carry because it can be used against the woman in a struggle"

Do you really believe that or is it convenient to say so (win/lose orientation)?

The spray is prohibited under Weapons Acts in all states and territories because leftist 'Progressives' such as yourself do not believe a private citizen should have the right to defend herself and loved ones if in doing so any harm might be occasioned to her assailant.

That is easily seen if the policy in the broad and the direction of policy under Labor administrations are taken into account. Excepting for NSW* , the private citizen who is required to defend herself and in so doing injures her assailant can be charged and will be required to satisfy the very unfair reversed standard of proof.

*(successful recent law amendment in NSW that was OPPOSED by Labor and Greens)

However you already know all that because it has been described in depth for you many times before in other threads on this forum. Hence one supposes your rather coy, "I believe the pepper spray remains illegal to carry because it can be used against the woman in a struggle". As usual, you continue to deny male victims of crime any means of personal defence.