Senator (D) "Rape Just Isn't What It Used to Be"....

:grr:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/14/tn-state-senator-rape-just-isnt-what-it-used-to-be/

TN state senator: rape just isn’t what it used to be.

Last week, after a debate on amending the Tennessee constitution to say that it doesn’t guarantee the right to abortion, state Sen. Doug Henry (D) stood up and reflected on how rape has changed ( http://feministing.com/archives/008603.html ):

Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, “Let’s don’t go forward with this act.“

Watch it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llt2GPGFFaU


Feministing writes, “Perhaps we should write Sen. Henry an email or two and let him know what has and hasn’t changed about sexual assault in this country?” ( sen.douglas.henry@legislature.state.tn.us )

UPDATE: Volunteer Voters has more, including a response from Senate Democratic Caucus Spokesman Mark Brown:

http://www.news2wkrn.com/vv/2008/02/08/senator-douglas-henry-lets-not-go-forward-with-this-act-not-rape/

I see...

What a PIG...

I will be sending a letter along, plus a letter to the house chair DEMANDING his resignation.

I guess all the violent rape is a thing of the past. Well thank heaven for that!!!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-211deacon,0,2464520.story

Deacon accused of rape inside Miami church

A church deacon was jailed on Sunday, accused of raping a 15-year-old girl inside the place of worship, police said Monday.

"rape".

I can remember the good old days when this was a standard defense.

The good old days when 90% of the rapes didn't get reported because, what's the use? The nicer she was the less likely she was to report a rape because of the hell victims were put through and then the people of the town never really believed her anyway, not even much of her family, no matter the outcome of any investigation unless the total holy shit was beaten out of her. That sometimes vindicated her.

Ah... the good old days...

the high profile cases that make the news and the way women are treated by the court system, I'd say things are pretty much as they've always been.

used to be that only weak men were assaulted, now it can be anyone.

I mean, you might as well say that means the same thing. Rape is NOT about sex; it is about power and control.

I bet this idiot senator would have also gone along with the idea that a "chaste" woman "asked for it" by wearing a certain dress or walking down a certain street.

..."we" is out the window. RAPE ISN'T A CHOICE.

In rape - HE chooses and SHE is left without a choice - forced into the act against her will.

THAT'S the part he leaves out of his convenient little diatribe.

And HUSBANDS can and sometimes DO RAPE THEIR WIVES. And even THEN - ain't no "WE" about it.

It is a power trip, period.

I didnt realise there were pro rape Democrats. This guy is in the wrong party.

...according to Doug Henry, when he was learning these things:

If a woman wasn't chaste (a virgin), rape and sexual violence A-O-K!

If you are married to a woman, rape and sexual violence A-O-K!

Gosh darnit, today rape is, woman says "No" and rapist continues to force himself upon her. Sorry, but yeah, that's as it should be. If someone says "No" the activities should cease. And frankly, it's not talked of much, but men get raped as well, and a man can be raped by a woman, using legal or physical or mental threats as a means of coercion.

...sick as it is.

it would just be because she "didn't want to go forward with it".

Nice. And this guy is a Democrat?

...this is why I say - just because a man is a Dem does NOT mean he can't still be a misogynist pig who thinks women exist on this planet for mens' personal exploitation, use, and abuse - and that they are inferior human beings if they can be considered human at all. Being a Democrat doesn't exempt guys from those attitudes.

All parties got 'em.

He seems to have spent quite alot of time *thinking* about the situation. Wonder if the Justice Department needs to check his home and office computers for *artwork*? :grr:

a pro-rape dem? what in the HELL is the matter with him??

(note: he must be related to the idiot state rep from colorado springs who, just a couple of weeks ago, said all unmarried pregnant women are sluts)

Rape used to be a lot easier to get away with, well, if you were white.

But, the dumbass was not thinking in those terms.

But what Senator Henry says at that point isn’t what’s most important. If you look at his quote in context, you’ll see that he’s talking about the changeable nature of legal definitions and objecting to what he thought was unclear language (or language that could be left to subjective definition) in some of the amendments to SJR127. Immediately after the section in question, he praises an amendment by Senator Herron (Am#6) that specifically protected abortions when “medically necessary” to save the life of a woman. Senator Henry says that he supported this amendment because it was clearly worded.

Senator Henry’s remarks are not meant to be a dissertation on what acts should or should not be defined as rape. They were a commentary on the importance of having clear and precise language in our constitution. That’s a point on which I think everyone would agree, especially the strict constructionists among us.

www.news2wkrn.com

I didn't think anyone would actually say these things in the context applied, and I'm glad there is some clarification.

Reading is Fundamental.......

myself. ;)

I actually responded to your post in error as I meant to post my reply as a "general" one.

:hi:

I got into a serious argument with a guy over this very issue. He seemed to think that if you are a woman and you are not a virgin and you accept anything of value from a guy, you are obligated to pay him back with sex. I said that was a definition of prostitution, stuff in exchange for sex. Virgin or not doesn't matter. Sex is not a quid pro quo, sex is on a case by case basis, if she has sex with everyone on earth except X, she is never obligated to have sex with X. If she had sex every day with Y and decides that today she doesn't want any, she is under no obligation to have sex with Y. If she's married to Z, she still has to consent. Unfortunatly I live in a state where if Z wanted to, he could hold her down at gunpoint and no court would convict him of rape because of the "not your spouse" wording.

Rape is rape. If she says no, back off.

worse back in the day, because women were considered chase. Tell that ass to go home and never talk in public again.

As far as I can tell, what he said was that rape was much more narrowly defined "back in the day" (which is absolutely true), but *not* that this was a good thing.

--followed by a napalm enema.