Not actually raped! He just wrapped his front legs around me and refused to stop humping my leg, so I kicked him.
Rape: The Megathread
- Thread starter Randwolf
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Maybe,
But the dogs intentions are to have sex with you. There are many types of mating rituals and displays in the animal kingdom to manipulate the female into giving up sex, but if you look closely at many mammals lots of them just use there physical brute strength to overpower the female and pin her into submission.
I have 2 little kittens at the moment the boy is starting to get curious of the girl in a sexual way, he always tries to get ontop of her in a rough way, but she is bigger and stronger than him and a little older, she just beats him up and wrestles him then runs away after he has been slapped up a bit.
If you apply these behaviours to humans it would be classed as attempted rape or something along the lines.
peace.
There do seem to be a few assumptions here:
A) females never want sex and therefore have to be forced into it
B) that males are incapable of knowing when a female wants sex
c) regardless of what a female wants a male wants sex so a female has to 'give it up'
Chi I want your ipod now give it up!!!!!!
A) females never want sex and therefore have to be forced into it
B) that males are incapable of knowing when a female wants sex
c) regardless of what a female wants a male wants sex so a female has to 'give it up'
Chi I want your ipod now give it up!!!!!!
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Oh, I understand the concepts of consent, both implied and explicit. You, however, seem unable to understand that sometimes a person is incapable of giving consent.
Good for you.
So feminists are at fault for the prevailing male view in society? How so?
Are you and your fellow male brothers unable to look at yourselves and the archaic views that exist within the male psyche in society? Are feminists to blame for the fact that male rape and abuse victims are afraid to come forward because other males may belittle them for being "pussies" and "wimps"? Are feminists the cause of the male belief that a teenage boy who is raped by his female teacher is lucky because he got sex and every boy wants sex?
Tell me, how are feminists to blame for the fact that other men demean and belittle male rape and abuse victims? How are feminists to blame for the fact that males have this 'good on you son' attitude when a teenage boy is raped by his female teacher?
Is it the feminists who teach their son's that they should be grateful to the woman who takes away their virginity when they are in their teens? Or is it their fathers? Tell me, in the past, was it the mothers who took their son's to prostitutes to make them 'men'? Or was it their fathers? Is it feminists who tell men who are abused and raped in their homes by their spouses to 'suck it up and be a man'? Or is it other men who hold such views?
What fantasies? Look around you ABS. Men think that other men who are raped are somehow lucky and men who are abused are wimps. It's not a fantasy. It is a sad fact.
So why don't men speak out against other men in that regard? Why blame feminists for a belief system that exists in male society?
LOL, I hate ipods, I ended up giving my nano to my girlfriend because its so annoying to use. Im getting a better MP3/MP4 player that you can just plug into the USB port and click and drag songs into its storage.
Itunes is designed to be a bitch and incompatible.
If I didn't already give it to her I would have happily sent it to you for free, sorry though its taken.
peace.
I envy that female kitten, I really do...
Why can't they wait until she is in heat? It would make more sense from an evolutionary perspective, surely? Would she not be more likely to get pregnant, than if she is forced into it?
One day at the park we saw a duck get gangraped, we were worried that the other ducks in the train were going to make her eventually drown.
Then there is this classic clip from youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jWS9nccpYk
I wanna say bonobos have rape in their societies, but I don't feel like confirming that statement right now.
Then there is this classic clip from youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jWS9nccpYk
I wanna say bonobos have rape in their societies, but I don't feel like confirming that statement right now.
Do I wanna see what's in that youtube clip?
So you have no problem defining what rape is then. In both the 'cases' that you 'cite' here would you say that the victim was consenting?
Now what do humans have that all these creatures don't appear to? That might help with the definition of what rape is or isn't?
Let's put the issue of whether or not a spouse can be assured of faithfulness aside. Obviously they can't. A better point is that trying to convince your gf/spouse to have sex exposes her to absolutely nothing she won't be exposed to anyway unless she intends to never have intercourse with you again.
Ok. So do you think you've committed rape? Don't give me this "that's for a jury to decide" crap. I'd hope that if you really thought that trying to convince a woman to have sex was rape, you wouldn't do it. So, given that you've admitted to doint it, I can only surmise that you either don't really believe it to be rape, or you don't feel that rape is that big of a deal since you do it yourself.
Ah, the Left. Always looking for complexity, even when it's not there. Einstein said,
Everything should be made as simple as possible
and here's the part you'll like:but not simpler
I'm sure you'll hang your hat on the "but not simpler" bit. But it truly seems that the Left loves to bury itself in minuatua to the point they lose sight of the big picture.The Right, on the other hand, loves Ronald Reagan who'd make statements like (this is from memory) "My strategy for the cold war? Simple. They lose."
A Liberal would never have said something like that. They'd get bogged down in a discussion of whether or not we really have the right to "win". And what do we mean by "win", anyway?
When it comes to serious crimes like rape and murder, a person really ought to know whether he's commiting a crime without having to reference a 52 point manisfesto. There should be a clear line between right and wrong. If there is a grey area, in a nation whose justice system is based upon innocent until proven guilty, it should favor the defendent.
Comments on the sad and disgusting
Trust is just so inconvenient, isn't it?
Dude, I know I have committed sex crimes. Multiple. Aside from fucking in public, however, I don't think the mere confession of the acts would be enough to convince a jury to convict me of any crime.
What does that mean? Well, here we have people arguing over the definitions of what constitutes rape. Which leads to the next point:
Well let's stop for a minute and clear up your dishonest transformation:
Well, what do you know? Madanthonywayne has to change from past to present tense. Gosh, what a surprise!
Tell me, Madanthonywayne, what are you really here for? To discuss a topic? Or is this part of some personal crusade of yours?
Because one of the things that I would hope you're aware of is that human beings are capable of learning certain things. Over the years, some people actually learn. And we don't necessarily need the force of the law or the business end of a gun to figure it out. Perhaps that's one of the differences between our outlooks.
Now, am I worried about the effects of the nagging? No, not really. Does this mean I intend to nag future lovers? I would hope not. And this is the problem with what you surmise: you presume what is convenient for your politics.
How ... expected.
Ah, yes. The minutiae of rape.
So just remind me, Madanthonywayne, how many times have you been fucked by a penis? Do you prefer it if he ejaculates inside you, or on your skin? Or are you a condoms-only man, since nobody can be trusted?
I mean, if you're willing to functionally compare consistent and extended sexual harassment to haggling over prices at a fruit stand, I would expect that you have some relevant experience.
Yeah, well, funny you should mention that, since we're tied up in a war that invites both questions.
I agree. And to me, it's really quite simple. It's only the people who really want to find an excuse to kill people or justify a rape that make it complicated.
Wait, wait ... a conservative, in 2008, arguing that the justice system should favor the defendant? What, is this because the crime in question has to do with getting laid?
Seriously, that's fucking hilarious.
But it's not a laughing matter, unfortunately. In truth, the justice system has favored the accused, which is how we end up with things like that fifty-one point list that so many people despise. Take for instance, "We were drunk." A jury might say, "Look, the whole thing's a mess. Nobody is reliable. We have to acquit because we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how sleazy this defendant is." And after the acquittal, there will always be a willing chorus of idiots to take up the cry: She was drunk, therefore he's not a rapist.
I don't know exactly where the transition between "Drunk = unreliable stories" to "Drunk = she wanted it" occurs, but a jury might rule the former, while I've heard the latter spoken, in various forms, many times over the years, by men I've known.
Now, maybe you resent having to be reminded by "femtrolling" that is put in front of you by a misogynist looking to pick a fight with feminism, but I resent the fact that such a list should even be necessary or useful in the first place. There are plenty of men out there that need reminding that the fact of their penis is not an entitlement to its satisfaction.
Welcome to civilized society, eh?
Oh, hey, one reiteration, since you missed it in your rush to be political:
Madanthonywayne said:
Trust is just so inconvenient, isn't it?
Dude, I know I have committed sex crimes. Multiple. Aside from fucking in public, however, I don't think the mere confession of the acts would be enough to convince a jury to convict me of any crime.
What does that mean? Well, here we have people arguing over the definitions of what constitutes rape. Which leads to the next point:
Well let's stop for a minute and clear up your dishonest transformation:
"... I can only surmise that you either don't really believe it to be rape, or you don't feel that rape is that big of a deal since you do it yourself."
Well, what do you know? Madanthonywayne has to change from past to present tense. Gosh, what a surprise!
Tell me, Madanthonywayne, what are you really here for? To discuss a topic? Or is this part of some personal crusade of yours?
Because one of the things that I would hope you're aware of is that human beings are capable of learning certain things. Over the years, some people actually learn. And we don't necessarily need the force of the law or the business end of a gun to figure it out. Perhaps that's one of the differences between our outlooks.
Now, am I worried about the effects of the nagging? No, not really. Does this mean I intend to nag future lovers? I would hope not. And this is the problem with what you surmise: you presume what is convenient for your politics.
How ... expected.
Ah, yes. The minutiae of rape.
So just remind me, Madanthonywayne, how many times have you been fucked by a penis? Do you prefer it if he ejaculates inside you, or on your skin? Or are you a condoms-only man, since nobody can be trusted?
I mean, if you're willing to functionally compare consistent and extended sexual harassment to haggling over prices at a fruit stand, I would expect that you have some relevant experience.
Yeah, well, funny you should mention that, since we're tied up in a war that invites both questions.
I agree. And to me, it's really quite simple. It's only the people who really want to find an excuse to kill people or justify a rape that make it complicated.
Wait, wait ... a conservative, in 2008, arguing that the justice system should favor the defendant? What, is this because the crime in question has to do with getting laid?
Seriously, that's fucking hilarious.
But it's not a laughing matter, unfortunately. In truth, the justice system has favored the accused, which is how we end up with things like that fifty-one point list that so many people despise. Take for instance, "We were drunk." A jury might say, "Look, the whole thing's a mess. Nobody is reliable. We have to acquit because we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how sleazy this defendant is." And after the acquittal, there will always be a willing chorus of idiots to take up the cry: She was drunk, therefore he's not a rapist.
I don't know exactly where the transition between "Drunk = unreliable stories" to "Drunk = she wanted it" occurs, but a jury might rule the former, while I've heard the latter spoken, in various forms, many times over the years, by men I've known.
Now, maybe you resent having to be reminded by "femtrolling" that is put in front of you by a misogynist looking to pick a fight with feminism, but I resent the fact that such a list should even be necessary or useful in the first place. There are plenty of men out there that need reminding that the fact of their penis is not an entitlement to its satisfaction.
Welcome to civilized society, eh?
Oh, hey, one reiteration, since you missed it in your rush to be political:
There are many households in our culture that are rife with constant psychological abuse. The victims of this abuse do see their perspectives and judgments narrowed, their lives often polarized into the most basic of decisions.
And in these circumstances, I can certainly perceive the weight of "nagging". Perhaps you have never encountered a victim of psychological exploitation, but it's rather a frightening thing to witness.
And in these circumstances, I can certainly perceive the weight of "nagging". Perhaps you have never encountered a victim of psychological exploitation, but it's rather a frightening thing to witness.
Look, my intent was not to brand you a rapist, but to point out that your definition of rape is so broad and unworkable that it even includes yourself.
Look at what you just said. You said,
Does this mean I intend to nag future lovers? I would hope not.
Which suggests (if my interpretation is not predictably being clouded by my politics) that you're not sure you can stick to that rule. It sounds like you're talking about overeating rather than rape.
Can you imagine saying,
Does this mean I intend to drug future lovers and have sex with them while they're unconscious? I would hope not.
Of course not. Because that would be rape. A serious crime. Whereas nagging is just being a pain in the ass.Why do you always ask whether I've engaged in homosexual sex when discussing heterosexual sex? No, I've not had a penis inside of me. I'm not homosexual. What bearing could this possibly have on the present discussion?
I'm for harsh punishment, including death, hard labor, whatever. But I'm also for making sure you've got the right guy and that a crime's been commited.
Now, during a war, dealing with terror suspects, I might give the government a bit more slack. But that's because we're talking about war, not normal crime.
It doesn't mean he's not a rapist, but it also (taken by itself) doesn't mean he is.
Of course the fact that she was drunk doesn't mean "she wanted it". But, as you pointed out, it does diminish the reliability of everyone's testimony.
Perhaps I never have encountered such a victim. Or, more likely, I did and didn't realize it. Which is why I didn't comment on that. Frankly, it sounds like you're talking about some kind of wife beater who has his wife trained to jump when he calls for her.
If your point is that you shouldn't beat your wife to the point that she'll agree to anything, well, I agree. But it really wasn't clear to me from what you said.
Last edited:
It's kind of cute watching them play though, they have alot of affection towards each. The boy is funny becaue he doesent exactly know what to do or what he is trying to accomplish, all he seems to know is that he has to go ontop and do something or other. They playfight alot and rew up together since the female was 6 weeks old and the male was 3 weeks old. the little boy was given to me too early and taken away from his mother way too young, he is really tough though because he has been getting hs ass whooped everyday of his life by a bigger older kitten and h is adapting to it and growing stronger every day.
Also yeah it would make more sense, but I guess at a certain age before heat they still give off some kind of chems/hormones and a scent to indicate they are opposite sex and theefore instinct tells hem to try and mate.
peace
That list wasn't written with the kind of sarcasm that I expected and it didn't get the point across.
I found out that I was a rapist because one time a woman I was working with was ragging on her husband and I kept moving further away from her. Every effort to avoid physical contact, eye contact, physical proximity, or saying a word still proved that I was a rapist and even worse, I was a sexual harasser. Being a rapist was a lesser included crime.
How's that for sarcasm?
Here are a few: If she gets you drunk so that she can get you to have sex with her, you're a rapist.
If she gets drunk because she wants to be ready to have sex, you're a rapist.
If all signs are that she completely enjoys having sex with you, and you know her, she knows you, no drugs or any kind of coercion involved, and six years later she changes her mind and decides she feels bad about it, you're a rapist.
If you tell her to go fuck herself, you're a rapist.
If you are having sex with a married woman, her husband pops in and she cries "RAPE!", you're just fucked.
You are a rapist if you have ever contradicted a respected militant feminist author.
You are a rapist if she demands sex from you at gunpoint and you get an erection.
You are a rapist if she thinks you raped her after she ties you up on your back, teases you to erection, impales herself on your shaft, and does all the work. Especially if you ask if she will do it again.
You are of course a rapist if you think that paying the mortgage, giving her every cent you have, buying her the drugs that she just can't live without, and being married to her entitles you to be considered as one of your sexual partners. What did you expect, respect?
Also, this kind of thread is ban-bait. A hell of a thread for Independence Day in the United States, come to think of it.
I found out that I was a rapist because one time a woman I was working with was ragging on her husband and I kept moving further away from her. Every effort to avoid physical contact, eye contact, physical proximity, or saying a word still proved that I was a rapist and even worse, I was a sexual harasser. Being a rapist was a lesser included crime.
How's that for sarcasm?
Here are a few: If she gets you drunk so that she can get you to have sex with her, you're a rapist.
If she gets drunk because she wants to be ready to have sex, you're a rapist.
If all signs are that she completely enjoys having sex with you, and you know her, she knows you, no drugs or any kind of coercion involved, and six years later she changes her mind and decides she feels bad about it, you're a rapist.
If you tell her to go fuck herself, you're a rapist.
If you are having sex with a married woman, her husband pops in and she cries "RAPE!", you're just fucked.
You are a rapist if you have ever contradicted a respected militant feminist author.
You are a rapist if she demands sex from you at gunpoint and you get an erection.
You are a rapist if she thinks you raped her after she ties you up on your back, teases you to erection, impales herself on your shaft, and does all the work. Especially if you ask if she will do it again.
You are of course a rapist if you think that paying the mortgage, giving her every cent you have, buying her the drugs that she just can't live without, and being married to her entitles you to be considered as one of your sexual partners. What did you expect, respect?
Also, this kind of thread is ban-bait. A hell of a thread for Independence Day in the United States, come to think of it.