egafd.com

eroticartist wrote:

> The answer is to scrap all sexual crimes and judge men on the
> amount of violence they commit against a woman.

Sexual crimes are committed against children and people with learning difficulties. Do you propose to scrap all sexual crimes against these vulnerable groups?

Jacques wrote: "By that criteria grooming a prepubescent child is a lesser crime. No violence there is there Mike? But there is intent. So how are you going to criminalise intent?"

Damn! Mike forgot all about that. Just one small, tiny, miniscule aspect of destroying the sex crimes legislation, or his plan would have been perfect. Or was this perhaps the Brucie bonus he was hoping for?

Rape is an odious crime. Paedophilia is an odious attitude towards children, and is rightly considered criminal whether you download images of kids or attack them yourself. Many cases in both instances do not involve any violence or explicit threat of violence at all, and by your definition, Mr Freeman, would not be worthy of prosecution. Did Josef Fritzl commit violence against his daughters (including the daughter he fathered with his daughter) every time? Almost certainly not. And yet this creep is facing serious charges and is rightly vilified.

Do not play semantic games with serious crime. Just because the majority of victims are women doesn't give men the right to trivialise the crime itself.

I really didn't want to get involved in this argument, but your attempts to justify your fantasies and ridicule anyone who opposes your views forced my hand. Any visitor to this forum will know I seldom agree with the Colonel, and almost never with Alice In Blunderland. The fact all three of us, and many others, are of a mind on this should tell you something.

Like some others, I'd like to express my disgust that the initial post has gone unremarked by so many regular members of BGAFD, almost all the women and the Mods, whose previous defence of a provocative MF post was equally inexplicable.

eroticartist wrote:

> Wear your shortest skirt, high heels, low cut top and plenty of
> make up. Pull a gullible guy in the pub, get pissed, persuade
> him to take you to a hotel, lead him on then when he has got an
> enormous erection say "no." The standard compensation for "rape
> victims" is 11 grand, enough incentive for any ruthless female.
>
> No wonder accusations of rape are rising but convictions are
> falling!
> The answer is to scrap all sexual crimes and judge men on the
> amount of violence they commit against a woman.


Mike, I think you have taken too much cannabis over the years! This is a shocking post!! Truly appaling.
ANY woman has her right to go out and get drunk as it is yours, to suggest it is a prelude for a rape claim is beyond reproach. I think you should either apologise to all women in general, or email the mods to request your post be removed without delay!!

I've been posting on this forum for about 2 years and I've never witnessed such an appalling and shocking post as this. I also post on other porn site forums and I cannot recall there being such a similar horrendous post.

> Wear your shortest skirt, high heels, low cut top and plenty of
> make up. Pull a gullible guy in the pub, get pissed, persuade
> him to take you to a hotel, lead him on then when he has got an
> enormous erection say "no." The standard compensation for "rape
> victims" is 11 grand, enough incentive for any ruthless female.
>
> No wonder accusations of rape are rising but convictions are
> falling!
> The answer is to scrap all sexual crimes and judge men on the
> amount of violence they commit against a woman.
> Mike Freeman.
>

Caradog,

I like to think I agree with you on a lot- well, we used to..

But where are the women- the usual posters both model and non-model? Where are they in putting Mike's madness down?

A good point, Caradog- well made.

Trumpton wrote:

"Sexual crimes are committed against children and people with learning difficulties. Do you propose to scrap all sexual crimes against these vulnerable groups?"

I refer you to my essay The Criteria of Rape where I have dealt with the above and which you obviously choose to ignore.

Mike Freeman.

Jaques wrote:

"It's a crime of intent not fucking violence..."

Tell this to a woman who has been brutally raped you fool.
Mike Freeman.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as:

Rape (section 1)

The elements of rape are:

1. A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis;
2. B does not consent to the penetration, and
3. A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Penetration of the mouth is included.

Rape is still a crime of basic intent, and drunkenness is no defence.



Shouldn't you be on a Register Mike?