Beyond Rumors: It’s Official. Star Trek Returns To TV!

Petition: Change the definition of rape to cover forceful envelopment of a penis or digit

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape as the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with a penis. By this definition, a woman cannot rape a man or another woman. The law should be changed to include the forceful envelopment of a penis or digit

For British citizens only.

Rape laws in the UK are sexist. As defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Section 1 makes it an offence for a person (A) intentionally to penetrate with his penis the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) without that person’s consent if A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Subsection (2) provides that whether a belief in consent is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. This and the offence in section 5 are the only offences that can only be committed by a male, because they relate to penile penetration. Subsection (3) provides that sections 75 and 76 apply to this offence. Sections 75 and 76 deal with evidential and conclusive presumptions about consent.

The Crown Prosecution Service describes rape as:

The elements of rape are:

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

Penetration of the mouth is included.

This petition seeks to change this sexist and outdated definition of rape. 

It closes on the 22nd of August 2017, so please sign it if you can, or share it so British followers can sign it!

Men can be raped by women. Women can be raped by other women. The law has to change.

Women voted 75 years before feminists always tell us they were allowed to

A new document has surfaced which shows British women, of all classes, voting in 1843, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918. History professor, Sarah Richardson, explains what this discovery means and how it was possible:

Occasionally, just occasionally, you encounter a document that radically changes your view of the past. This happened to me very recently. The source was just a few scraps of parchment in a box of solicitors’ papers in Lichfield. But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918.

The document in question was a poll book for the election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor, in the parish of St Chad’s, Lichfield in 1843. I was tipped off about its existence by a friend, Philip Salmon of the History of Parliament. It was a schedule of voters, their addresses, the rates they paid and how they voted. But as I looked down the list of names, some immediately jumped off the page: Elizabeth Shorthouse, Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Ann Mallett… In all, there were thirty women playing an active role in the election. Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

The record was compiled because the solicitors were the agents for the Conservative party in Lichfield. The town was a highly marginal constituency in this period, so the party clearly wanted to keep tabs on the political temperature between parliamentary elections. The solicitor would have compiled the poll book from the ballot papers returned by the voters.

In the period before the secret ballot, everyone was entitled to know how people voted. It was unusual to have an election for an Assistant Overseer. This was a powerful post responsible for collecting poor rates and deciding how they were allocated. But the overseers were usually appointed to avoid the expense of an election. All heads of households, paying rates were entitled to vote. This was a very wide franchise, and one that included single and widowed women.

A polling document from 1843 which clearly shows women’s names among those who voted

My assumption was that the women would be of genteel status. But as I checked their names against the 1841 census return, I was surprised to see the diversity of the group of voters. There were a few women of independent means, owning property and land. There were also women, probably widows, who had inherited their husbands’ businesses. So, for example, the wealthiest female elector on the roll was Grace Brown, a butcher, who managed a large household including several servants.

Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in favour of the Conservative candidate. But I was amazed to see many women on the list who were far lower down the social scale including the laundress, Caroline Edge, the servant, Sarah Payne and even paupers, including Sarah Batkin of Stowe Street.

The poll book is all that remains of an unremarkable local parish election in a comfortable Midlands market town in the mid nineteenth century. Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise.

Sarah Richardson is an Associate Professor in History at the University of Warwick and author of The Political Worlds of Women: Gender and Politics in Nineteenth Century Britain.

Source:

Israeli Penal Code 57371977:http://www.oecd.org/investment/anti-bribery/anti-briberyconvention/43289694.pdf

Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape

[jimbenton]

so my team goes up against the London Hornets tomorrow. time to bring on the pain and bring home a win!

Fucking Play Asia, Making me a fan.

Also loving fem freq here “DIS IS SEWIOUS!”

Dose anyone ells think of TF2 when they look at this?

Wonder Woman: The Art of War Statue by Robert Valley

Available Fall 2015

The Order 1886: *shows a playable woman in practical clothing killing monsters in a Victorian London setting*

Bloodborne: *shows a woman and paraplegic characters surviving a post apocalyptic Victorian London setting*

Assassin's Creed Victory: *shows an able bodied white guy stabbing people in the ordinary streets of Victorian London*

------

So there's two games that have exactly what you're looking for and you're mad that another game that takes place in the same setting doesn't conform to your wishes. SJWs, everyone.

Grow up.