Proposal: That sex without consent is always rape.

[James R]

Kadark:

Here are some statements that you DISAGREE with. You went on the record willingly to record your disagreement:

• You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
• If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
• If you don't ask permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.
• Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape.
• If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist.
• If you're having sex and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't stop then you're a rapist.
• If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.
• If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
• If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
• If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
• Women do not owe men sex.

From this, I take it you believe:

• It is just fine to get a girl drunk so you can have sex with her, when she wouldn't otherwise have agreed to do so.
• Having sex with a woman without her permission is permissible in some circumstances.
• Failing to stop having sex if a woman changes her mind is acceptable.
• Rape is impossible if you're married.
• Rape of a prostitute is impossible.
• Women somehow "owe" men sex.

Now, if you in fact believe these things, then it should be easy for you to argue that sex without consent ought not always to amount to rape. For example, you could argue that sex in marriage can never be rape, consentual or not.

Hence, I challenged you to this debate.

However, it appears that you don't really hold any of the above views, despite your show of bravado. Or, perhaps you hold those views but not for any reason you are able to articulate.

Maybe you hold those views but you know they are indefensible; hence your unwillingness to engage in a debate on any of these matters.

Whatever your reasons, I don't really care. My purpose has been served. Your views apparently have no support, and that is enough for me.

Your position is amazingly weak.

 

[angrybellsprout]

What implied? We were clearly discussing explicit consent. Do you have a problem with sex between two adults if the female had a beer prior to saying "please fudk me"? What if she had two beers? And does it matter if it is the female? Get real with your reactionary BS.

That is why I also throw in the requirement of implicit consent, and not just explicit consent.

 

[draqon]

James R...on behalf of Kadark...as his advocate...I would like to state that it is proposterous for you to claim that Kadark actually disagrees with those statements.

I state so because the poll is deceptive into tricking people into thinking that what they check is what they "agree" with.

 

[shorty_37]

I state so because the poll is deceptive into tricking people into thinking that what they check is what they "agree" with.

Very true that is what I said in that thread. It looks like some ppl are confused and ticking off the statements they agree with. I think even Visceral Instinct said "Shit" I ticked off the wrong ones. When I was reading it I almost did the exact same thing. So basically I think that poll is fucked.

 

[Kadark]

It is just fine to get a girl drunk so you can have sex with her, when she wouldn't otherwise have agreed to do so.

That's a risk associated with getting drunk in an area where you're vulnerable. Besides, how did I get her drunk? Was I forcing the alcohol down her throat or something?

Failing to stop having sex if a woman changes her mind is acceptable.

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.

Rape is impossible if you're married.

Truth be told, I didn't really mean to click this one. My mistake.

Rape of a prostitute is impossible.

Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.

Women somehow "owe" men sex.

If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.

Kadark the Resolute

 

[James R]

draqon:

The wording of the poll question is very clear.

But, if Kadark actually made a mistake (and I do not for one moment believe he did), then he disagrees with a number of other statements in the poll and should be able to argue his case based on those.

 

[Bells]

That's a risk associated with getting drunk in an area where you're vulnerable. Besides, how did I get her drunk? Was I forcing the alcohol down her throat or something?



Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.



Truth be told, I didn't really mean to click this one. My mistake.



Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.



If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.

Kadark the Resolute

Oh my god.:bawl:

 

[James R]

Kadark:

You're starting to debate the topic now.

This thread is for organising the debate, not the debate itself.

You have already said you do not wish to argue my original topic.

So, over to you. Propose a topic statement that you would be willing to argue, and I will consider it.

 

[Randwolf]

Kadark:
I grant that you are calling out Kadark, here, however...

Here are some statements that you DISAGREE with. You went on the record willingly to record your disagreement:

• You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
  
  First of all, how do you "get" a girl drunk? Are you saying that someone is a rapist simply because the other party is drunk? In and of itself?

• 
  
  
  
  

  [*]If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

  Love the "may" in this one. Apparently even the femnut that wrote this list in the first place couldn't hold a straight face through this.
  
  
  
  

  [*]If you don't ask permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.

  Yeah, could be. Could be your a rapist even if your name is "James R".
  
  
  
  

  [*]Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape.

  So her initial "no" holds more veracity than her subsequent yes?
  
  
  
  

  [*]If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist.

  I said this when I was a teenager, and I bet you did too, James. That doesn't mean we raped anyone.
  
  
  
  

  [*]If you're having sex and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't stop then you're a rapist.

  OK.
  
  
  

  [*]If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.

  "Can" be. Can maybe not be too. Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?
  
  
  
  

  [*]If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.

  Prostitutes have no less rights than anyone else, at least in my world.
  
  
  
  

  [*]If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.

  Bullshit.
  
  
  
  

  [*]If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.

  See above for prostitute's rights... Why do ya'll even attempt to distinguish between "regular" women and prostitutes? Who is the sexist here?
  
  
  
  

  [*]Women do not owe men sex.

No, they don't. What is your point?

Your position is amazingly weak.

Your position is nonexistent. Pffft...

 

[shorty_37]

draqon:

The wording of the poll question is very clear.

But, if Kadark actually made a mistake (and I do not for one moment believe he did), then he disagrees with a number of other statements in the poll and should be able to argue his case based on those.

I don't think ppl read it clearly James. Go and look at the poll. That would mean Orleander and Visceral think the same way Kardark does. So if that is the case why aren't you breathing down their necks then?

 

[Bells]

You should debate the following Kadark:

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.
​

Seriously. I'd be interested for your reasoning behind this.

 

[Kadark]

Kadark:

You're starting to debate the topic now.

This thread is for organising the debate, not the debate itself.

You have already said you do not wish to argue my original topic.

So, over to you. Propose a topic statement that you would be willing to argue, and I will consider it.

There is no particular statement I'd like to dedicate such time to. I gave you my reasoning for the poll options. Make of it what you will.

You should debate the following Kadark:

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.
​

Seriously. I'd be interested for your reasoning behind this.

Thanks for the suggestion, sweetheart, but I'm not here to please you.

Kadark the ... uh ...

Shit, I'm running out of words.

Kadark the Impregnable

 

[James R]

Randwolf:

Your original challenge is bullshit James and you know it. What did you actually expect to accomplish here? You want the bragging rights to say that no one would debate you that nonconsensual sex is not rape?

Of course.

The fact is: nobody is willing to argue against me that nonconsensual sex is not rape, even though they have gone on the record as holding that view elsewhere.

This is typical of radicals.

Slapping a label on me doesn't get you out of this.

What implied? We were clearly discussing explicit consent.

Then debate my suggested topic: "That sex without consent is always rape."

You don't think that sex without consent is always rape? Then debate me on the topic. I haven't restricted the debate topic to explicit or implied consent.

But wait! A few posts further up you agreed that sex without consent is always rape.

So, what's your real opinion? You need to take a stand one way or the other, rather than flip-flopping back and forth. Tell me what you really think.

Do you have a problem with sex between two adults if the female had a beer prior to saying "please fudk me"? What if she had two beers? And does it matter if it is the female? Get real with your reactionary BS.

I'll respond to this either in the other thread, or in a debate, but not in this organisational thread.

 

[Gustav]

are the housewives actually giving sci some much needed dose of commonsense
if so...
you go, girls!

 

[James R]

Randwolf:

Your position is amazingly weak.

Your position is nonexistent. Pffft...

Then debate me. We seem to have clear points of difference. What are you afraid of?

shorty_37:

I don't think ppl read it clearly James. Go and look at the poll. That would mean Orleander and Visceral think the same way Kardark does. So if that is the case why aren't you breathing down their necks then?

In visceral's case, he explicitly stated in a post that he ticked the options by accident, misreading the poll. I'm not sure about Orleander, but she is very welcome to join the debate if she wishes.


Bells:

You should debate the following Kadark:

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.
​

Seriously. I'd be interested for your reasoning behind this.

I'm quite happy to debate Kadark on this. It fits my original topic statement.

But for some reason he seems reticent...

 

[James R]

So, the current status of the debate challenge:

Kadark, although he is clearly willing to attempt to argue the negative of my proposed topic, has refused to engage in a Formal debate, so far.

Randwolf, after being pushed a little, appeared to change his mind and decided that perhaps sex without consent is always rape after all, but then flip-flopped and decided that in some circumstances perhaps it isn't always rape. And, as far as I can tell, he is also unwilling to engage in a formal debate.

angrybellsprout has run away in fear.

So, no takers?

 

[shorty_37]

shorty_37:



In visceral's case, he explicitly stated in a post that he ticked the options by accident, misreading the poll. I'm not sure about Orleander, but she is very welcome to join the debate if she wishes.

You should get to know the members more James. Visceral is clearly a female. That is why I think Orleanders answers don't make sense either, because it is against what she says. I wouldn't be surprised if more members who took the poll did it wrong.

 

[draqon]

James R...like me myself I wouldnt be talking about raping topics...but you seem to be talking about it all the time...what has happened in your life that you are so anti-man's-rights-activist?

 

[shorty_37]

are the housewives actually giving sci some much needed dose of commonsense
if so...
you go, girls!

Fuck off.

ja/ I said it.

 

[Kadark]

Kadark, although he is clearly willing to attempt to argue the negative of my proposed topic, has refused to engage in a Formal debate, so far.

Of course I don't want to engage in a formal debate. Truth be told, I don`t think I can muster enough words to make my position seem worthy of a full-fledged debate. Why? The topic doesn`t interest me enough to generate three mammoth posts worth of debate material. It has nothing to do with you, though, James. If you wan`t to debate things that I routinely participate in, such as threads dealing with war and other world events, religion (well, my religion in particular, because the others don`t really interest me nearly as much), etc, then I`d be happy to comply. But debating as to what constitutes rape? Yawn. You can get a paragraph or two out of me if you`re lucky.

Kadark the Commander