Attitudes to rape

[francois]

francois:



Do you maintain rationality during sex, or do you completely lose all self-control? If you can't think rationally during sex, you may have a problem.

Well, what if you are a woman who is traumatized and in shock because you're being forced into having sex you didn't want to have. And you're crying and mascara is running down your face. In such an emotional state can one really expect somebody to think rationally in a calm, disinterested manner?

Then exactly the same thing applies. She decided to consent to the sex. If she consented, there is no rape, and why on Earth would she complain of rape if she enjoyed the sex and was a willing participant?

But she never would have had sex if her clothes were not forcibly ripped off and if she was not coldly violated and penetrated. I'm not saying it's rape or that it's not rape. Actually, I'd say it's a little of both. Because she was first coerced into sex, unwillingly. You cannot say that that's not rape.

But then later, she may have realized that she kind of liked it in a weird primitive way she didn't quite understand. And then she may have gotten into it and began screwing the guy back. All the while she may be crying and dripping mascara. So in the end, she may have enjoyed it. But can you really in all honestly say that she wasn't raped?

Blah blah. I get it dude. I know what rape is. It's non-consensual sex. All I'm saying is that it's not always clear what's consenting and what's not.

Okay. And why would she complain?

Okay, let's say a hypothetical scenario involving you. Let's say hypothetically that you're a heterosexual guy. You meet up with a friend of yours somewhere. He beats you into submission and rapes you in the ass. You are scared and confused shitless. But what if you enjoyed it in a weird way?

Just because you enjoyed it a little bit, does that mean you wouldn't report it to the police or the authorities?

Come on man. Think a little.

 

[Pete]

And dont put words into my mouth...I never said woman's value is sex. I only said that men seek sex from women...it is their main attraction,

Do you realise that women also seek sex from men? Many women will tell you that sex is all a man is good for.

Want to make human look more extravagant? why not...add souls...emotions...and such...doesnt make a difference.

If souls and emotions are worth so little, then why are you concerned about life-long marriages and no sex outside marriage?

 

[draqon]

Do you realise that women also seek sex from men? Many women will tell you that sex is all a man is good for.

yes...but that is all an illusion on part of women to keep men attached to them and make the family function as one organism to grow an offspring. Of course there are other failed women who care not for offspring but self-pleasure...all good for evolution...they will be out of the game.

If souls and emotions are worth so little, then why are you concerned about life-long marriages and no sex outside marriage?

...because I am wrong in saying that souls and amotions are worth so little. In fact I only used that line "souls...emotions...worth so little" to spark the need for these attributes that make humans what they are...and not just animals that go humping anyone around them.

 

[S.A.M.]

But then later, she may have realized that she kind of liked it in a weird primitive way she didn't quite understand. And then she may have gotten into it and began screwing the guy back. All the while she may be crying and dripping mascara. So in the end, she may have enjoyed it. But can you really in all honestly say that she wasn't raped?

You know very little about women.

Come on man. Think a little.

 

[Pete]

yes...but that is all an illusion on part of women to keep men attached to them and make the family function as one organism to grow an offspring. Of course there are other failed women who care not for offspring but self-pleasure...all good for evolution...they will be out of the game.

Right... so guys who enjoy and demand sex are normal, but girls who enjoy sex are either deceitful or failed? You really are a nasty little bigot, aren't you?
Here, read this again:
It's not "us" and "them". It's only "us" - we're all people. There is no "them".

There is no "them".
"Them" is the freedom-killer.
"Them" is the little-blindness that brings total bigotry.
I will face my fear of "them".
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
When it has passed I will turn my open eyes to see who "they" are.
Where "they" were, there will be no "them".
Only people will remain.​

...because I am wrong in saying that souls and amotions are worth so little. In fact I only used that line "souls...emotions...worth so little" to spark the need for these attributes that make humans what they are...and not just animals that go humping anyone around them.

:bugeye: Then why are you so insistent on marriage being a sexual contract?

 

[draqon]

Right... so guys who enjoy and demand sex are normal, but girls who enjoy sex are either deceitful or failed? You really are a nasty little bigot, aren't you?

noone needs to enjoy anything...but if it can be enjoyed, why not.

 

[francois]

You know very little about women.

What do you not understand about a hypothetical situation made to illustrate a point?

Rolley eyes right back atcha!

BAM! Oh yeah.

 

[draqon]

:bugeye: Then why are you so insistent on marriage being a sexual contract?

the difference between false and true feelings/emotions.

 

[Pete]

the difference between false and true feelings/emotions.

I don't know what you mean.

noone needs to enjoy anything...but if it can be enjoyed, why not.

So why do you suggest that women who enjoy sex are deceitful or failed?

 

[James R]

francois:

You're splitting hairs here, and also getting away from the main point of the thread.

Well, what if you are a woman who is traumatized and in shock because you're being forced into having sex you didn't want to have. And you're crying and mascara is running down your face. In such an emotional state can one really expect somebody to think rationally in a calm, disinterested manner?

...

But she never would have had sex if her clothes were not forcibly ripped off and if she was not coldly violated and penetrated. I'm not saying it's rape or that it's not rape. Actually, I'd say it's a little of both. Because she was first coerced into sex, unwillingly. You cannot say that that's not rape.

But then later, she may have realized that she kind of liked it in a weird primitive way she didn't quite understand. And then she may have gotten into it and began screwing the guy back. All the while she may be crying and dripping mascara. So in the end, she may have enjoyed it. But can you really in all honestly say that she wasn't raped?

Blah blah. I get it dude. I know what rape is. It's non-consensual sex. All I'm saying is that it's not always clear what's consenting and what's not.

You seem quite clear about when consent was and was not present in your scanario.

Your scenario is an abstract mind game. Think about how it would go in the real world. You can talk in the abstract about how it could have been called rape initially, when the woman wasn't consenting, and you're right. If she had stopped at that point and brought a court case complaining of rape, then a rape conviction might well have been the result. There was no consent, and she was forced into sex.

But later, you say she started enjoying it and participating willingly. So, afterwards, would she be running to the police complaining she had been raped? And if she did, how would that play in court, do you think?

All you have done is to flip a common-enough scanario the other way round. There are many examples of court cases in which women initially consented to sex, then withdrew consent half way through, but their partner continued the sex act without their continuing consent. In such cases, where there is sufficient proof, a conviction for rape is quite justified.

As far as I am aware, though, nobody has ever once brought a rape case where they complained of originally not consenting, then later consenting. Why not? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Why would the supposed "victim" complain if they came out of such an experience having enjoyed it as a willing participant?

Okay, let's say a hypothetical scenario involving you. Let's say hypothetically that you're a heterosexual guy. You meet up with a friend of yours somewhere. He beats you into submission and rapes you in the ass. You are scared and confused shitless. But what if you enjoyed it in a weird way?

If I really enjoyed the beating (unlikely) and enjoyed the sex (also unlikely), then I probably would not not run to the police crying "Rape!", would I?

If, on the other hand, I was confused at the time but later decided that this was a negative experience for me, I could legitimately complain to the police of rape. Why? Because at no time in your scenario, as written, did I give my consent for the sex. And sex without consent is rape. In addition, the police could legitimately bring charges of assault and battery if I wanted the offender prosecuted.

This scenario is actually much more clear cut that your previous one.

Just because you enjoyed it a little bit, does that mean you wouldn't report it to the police or the authorities?

No, it doesn't.

Come on man. Think a little.

Seems I'm doing your thinking for you.

 

[draqon]

So why do you suggest that women who enjoy sex are deceitful or failed?

every human is deceitful, thats the nature of humans, men are deceitfull too...with women.

 

[James R]

Pete and dragon:

If you want to have a general discussion about the nature of women, could you please start a separate thread?

 

[draqon]

Pete and dragon:

If you want to have a general discussion about the nature of women, could you please start a separate thread?

nah...its ok...I halt my discussion.

 

[Bells]

*Sigh*

It seems I'm back for a little while. My intended break and planned trip away has been permanently put on hold due to complications with my pregnancy.. so because I'm now under strict bed rest orders and bored (read every book put in front of me and sick of WoW and TV is well.. TV..), I'm back..

Anywho..

Draqon

Seriously, what can one say. You have some serious issues with women.

Marriage is not about or for sex. If that's how you wish to view marriage then that's your issue to deal with. Any partner in a marriage is allowed to refuse sex to the other partner. There is no pre-requisite number of times a person can say no. No legally binding marriage contracts or legal definition of marriage describes marriage as being for "sex". Yes sex is usually a part of a marriage, but it's just one part. There are other aspects to a marriage and sex is just one of them. If you want to get married only for the sex, then do what Pete said and get a prostitute, pay her enough to marry you for a week and then get a divorce. Because if you enter into a marriage with a woman and assume she just knows that's how you view your relationship with her, and she does not, then you're going to be in trouble. Because there will be times when sex will not be available, sometimes for several weeks.

Yes some women are deceitful. So are some men. If you wish to have an open relationship and you actually do feel the way you do, then I'd suggest you draw up a pre-nuptual agreement. And in said agreement, ensure that you list down all the situations where you think a woman has a right to say 'no'. And also make sure to put down that 10 times in the marriage is the point whereby the marriage ends and a divorce will ensue. If however no woman you meet wishes to adhere to your requirements in the pre-nup, be aware that the problem is you and not her. Because if she says no and you force her to have sex, then it is rape and you could find yourself in jail, ring on your finger or no ring on your finger.

You seem to equate that a woman is there to pleasure the man and if she somehow enjoys her sexual life, then she is some kind of whore. It is obvious that you have some serious issues draqon, and no I am not being mean in saying so. I am being honest. I'd suggest you try discussing what you've been saying in this thread with a female relative (eg mother, sister, aunt, etc). Try asking your parents if they got married only for sex. Try discussing with your mother your feelings that a woman in a marriage is only there to pleasure the man and only there for sex and that she's not allowed to say no more than 10 times. Seriously now. Because since you don't seem to think you are wrong, discuss it with the women in your family or even circle of friends and see what they say. And then I'd suggest you get some counselling.

 

[Pete]

It seems I'm back for a little while. My intended break and planned trip away has been permanently put on hold due to complications with my pregnancy.. so because I'm now under strict bed rest orders and bored (read every book put in front of me and sick of WoW and TV is well.. TV..), I'm back..

I hope you stay OK. Bedrest can have its own negative impact on you, a bit like post-natal depression. Here's a book that might be interesting: The Pregnancy Bed Rest Book: A Survival Guide for Expectant Mothers and Their Families

That's good advice for draqon. But don't be too harsh on him - he's a young bloke not long out of a sheltered and very conservative homelife. It is good for him to articulate his feelings like this. If all young men and women historically had this sort of opportunity to openly and anonymously discuss these topics, there would be less bigotry in the world, I think.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Theoryofrelativity:



If you dispute my "facts", I'm very willing to discuss those facts with you. Post where you think I am incorrect, and why.

Copious amounts of information have already been provided in this thread. If you choose not to read that information, that's your problem. I have no intention of adding to what Bells has already said on this topic. If you choose to deprive yourself of that information by placing her on ignore, so be it.

I already stated VERY clearly what facts I wanted you to provide evidence for James, more than once.

Meanwhile, I do not consider another posters opinion which supports yours as 'evidence', so in the absence of you being able to provide a valid source I shall assume you have no 'evidence' only opinion. Which you are of course entitled to. But your opinion does not represent 'evidence' James.

re ignore function

I have many people on ignore, it is a matter of good housekeeping.

People moan and whine about me, but they still read me..........flatterring. I on the other hand choose not humour those I have contempt for.

I will decide myself who writes something worth my time not you James. That is what is called freedom of choice. Or are you anti that now?

 

[draqon]

*Sigh*

It seems I'm back for a little while. My intended break and planned trip away has been permanently put on hold due to complications with my pregnancy.. so because I'm now under strict bed rest orders and bored (read every book put in front of me and sick of WoW and TV is well.. TV..), I'm back..

Anywho..

Draqon

Seriously, what can one say. You have some serious issues with women.

Marriage is not about or for sex. If that's how you wish to view marriage then that's your issue to deal with. Any partner in a marriage is allowed to refuse sex to the other partner. There is no pre-requisite number of times a person can say no. No legally binding marriage contracts or legal definition of marriage describes marriage as being for "sex". Yes sex is usually a part of a marriage, but it's just one part. There are other aspects to a marriage and sex is just one of them. If you want to get married only for the sex, then do what Pete said and get a prostitute, pay her enough to marry you for a week and then get a divorce. Because if you enter into a marriage with a woman and assume she just knows that's how you view your relationship with her, and she does not, then you're going to be in trouble. Because there will be times when sex will not be available, sometimes for several weeks.

Yes some women are deceitful. So are some men. If you wish to have an open relationship and you actually do feel the way you do, then I'd suggest you draw up a pre-nuptual agreement. And in said agreement, ensure that you list down all the situations where you think a woman has a right to say 'no'. And also make sure to put down that 10 times in the marriage is the point whereby the marriage ends and a divorce will ensue. If however no woman you meet wishes to adhere to your requirements in the pre-nup, be aware that the problem is you and not her. Because if she says no and you force her to have sex, then it is rape and you could find yourself in jail, ring on your finger or no ring on your finger.

You seem to equate that a woman is there to pleasure the man and if she somehow enjoys her sexual life, then she is some kind of whore. It is obvious that you have some serious issues draqon, and no I am not being mean in saying so. I am being honest. I'd suggest you try discussing what you've been saying in this thread with a female relative (eg mother, sister, aunt, etc). Try asking your parents if they got married only for sex. Try discussing with your mother your feelings that a woman in a marriage is only there to pleasure the man and only there for sex and that she's not allowed to say no more than 10 times. Seriously now. Because since you don't seem to think you are wrong, discuss it with the women in your family or even circle of friends and see what they say. And then I'd suggest you get some counselling.

you people are so good at spinning things around. Its ok to enjoy anything there is in sex, on male and female side. Its not ok to have sex besides that to which one is committed to, that includes past current, and the future. THATS IS ALL I SAID. never did i say that its not ok to enjoy...whats there to enjoy.

YEAH thanks for your awsome suggestions to get councelling. on the second thought, no.

Marriage is not just about sex...but sex is important in marriage...I DID NOT SAY THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY ABOUT SEX. I have said it many time that marriage is a commitment spiritual and physical between a male and female.

 

[imaplanck.]

I already stated VERY clearly what facts I wanted you to provide evidence for James, more than once.

Meanwhile, I do not consider another posters opinion which supports yours as 'evidence', so in the absence of you being able to provide a valid source I shall assume you have no 'evidence' only opinion. Which you are of course entitled to. But your opinion does not represent 'evidence' James.

re ignore function

I have many people on ignore, it is a matter of good housekeeping.

People moan and whine about me, but they still read me..........flatterring. I on the other hand choose not humour those I have contempt for.

I will decide myself who writes something worth my time not you James. That is what is called freedom of choice. Or are you anti that now?

I cant believe you haven't come across a guy who cant get it up at first, but does after coaxing.
I also find it difficult to see how accurate research could be undertaken for this, as it's basically impossible to quantify the degree of fear and/or anxiety an individual is going through.

 

[one_raven]

Theoryofrelativity,

Have you ever known anyone who gets physically aroused by the anxiety, fear and danger of having sex in public places?
Have you ever met a masochist?
Are you aware that there are men who can't even get it up unless they are consumed by fear and anxiety - yes, even to the point of risk of life?
Have you ever heard of extreme B+D?

Anxiety and fear do not necessarily equate to impotence.

 

[francois]

francois:

You're splitting hairs here, and also getting away from the main point of the thread.



You seem quite clear about when consent was and was not present in your scanario.

Your scenario is an abstract mind game. Think about how it would go in the real world. You can talk in the abstract about how it could have been called rape initially, when the woman wasn't consenting, and you're right. If she had stopped at that point and brought a court case complaining of rape, then a rape conviction might well have been the result. There was no consent, and she was forced into sex.

But later, you say she started enjoying it and participating willingly. So, afterwards, would she be running to the police complaining she had been raped? And if she did, how would that play in court, do you think?

All you have done is to flip a common-enough scanario the other way round. There are many examples of court cases in which women initially consented to sex, then withdrew consent half way through, but their partner continued the sex act without their continuing consent. In such cases, where there is sufficient proof, a conviction for rape is quite justified.

As far as I am aware, though, nobody has ever once brought a rape case where they complained of originally not consenting, then later consenting. Why not? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Why would the supposed "victim" complain if they came out of such an experience having enjoyed it as a willing participant?



If I really enjoyed the beating (unlikely) and enjoyed the sex (also unlikely), then I probably would not not run to the police crying "Rape!", would I?

If, on the other hand, I was confused at the time but later decided that this was a negative experience for me, I could legitimately complain to the police of rape. Why? Because at no time in your scenario, as written, did I give my consent for the sex. And sex without consent is rape. In addition, the police could legitimately bring charges of assault and battery if I wanted the offender prosecuted.

What I am clumsily getting at is that it's not always clear when sex is consenting or not. Here's a better example. Drunk college chicks. Let's say a college chick gets smashed and ends up hitting on a guy whom she would normally never think twice about screwing. She's not thinking rationally, yet, in her drunken state, she is obviously willing (though sober, she might disagree--emphatically saying that he may have even raped her). You and I would probably agree that she is consenting, even though she was in an altered state.

But it's surprising how many people think it's not consenting. I remember a girlfriend a while back was complaining to me about how her friend got taken advantage of while she was drunk. My girlfriend (at the time) was visibly angry. I was doing my best not to seem indifferent. But I mean. She let it happen. Yes, it would be nice if guys wouldn't take advantage of drunk chicks, but that's simply not how things are, and you're stupid if you think it's not gonna happen. She may have not been aware of the inhibition-loosening effects of alcohol, but I guess it's just a learning experience, although I'm sure she had been told numerous times to be careful about those situations at college.