That's not what we're talking about. Maybe you're genuinely confused but I've debated with you in the past and I suspect something different. The situation is someone tells you no, you creep away, and come at her again again that some night. Although not explicitly stated, but assuming this is a party, you come at her again after she's had a bit more to drink. She told you she wasn't interested earlier but now you come at her again. Maybe now she's drunk enough to agree, maybe she tells you no a second time, but there shouldn't have been the need for the second time. After she said she wasn't interested the first time you should have respected her wishes.
Now if you're interested in courting her that's different. This is a seduction guild we're talking about though, the goal is sex, and a woman that isn't interested in sex should have to tell someone twice that she isn't interested.
So now you're saying it's not okay to TALK to a woman once she has said no. Is this not what you're saying?
But that's a single hypothetical scenario. If you're talking about a single, specific, hypothetical scenario, then say so because everything you are asserting are blanket statements.
The scenario we HAVE been debating on this page, in case you had missed it (which I doubt, you're just arguing disingenuously) is the case of a couple making out. Even more specifically, he's going from "2nd to 3rd base", in other words, breasts are already in play. Guy tries to escalate things. She says no, maybe by pushing his hand away, but they continue kissing. A while later he tries something else. This time she gives him a hard "no. I'm not ready." And he backs off and goes home.
That's what we've been talking about. That second attempt. Is that rape? Is that even sexual assault? When I ask my girlfriend if she wants to fool around and she says "no, not really" and a couple hours later I ask again, am I a felon? If I ply her with sweet kisses and she eventually gives in, is that predatory behavior? Is that sexual assault?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...holy hell, wow, you guys really need to apply some damned common sense to this topic. Preferably before you, say, trigger a rape survivor because you're armchair debating what is rape and trivializing there experience.
If a woman says no, leave her alone. If the relationship changes in a day, week or month, then ask her again. Or let her ask you, if you're uncertain. If it doesn't, then don't. Don't ask her again twenty minutes later. Don't ask her while two inches away, looming over her and panting heavily. Don't try intimidating her into sex.
A woman has to give free, un-coerced consent to perform a sexual act (any sexual act) or it's sexual assault. Hassling her ever five minutes isn't un-coerced. Physically intimidating her isn't un-coerced, and what this book seems to be about. And yes, a woman who is afraid might end up sleeping with someone they don't want to in order to maintain some come control of the situation, and to avoid getting hurt. Just like having a gun or knife pointed at her might make a women say 'yes' it doesn't mean a damn if she's afraid.
Honestly, if I was dating (and dear lord I'm so glad I don't have to go on dates) I'd be as reactive as possible. Yes, I wouldn't get to sleep with women who were looking for aggressive, alpha male types. I'm not an aggressive alpha male anyway. But even if I was, I'd like to think I would be respectful enough of another person to not try wheedling, intimidating and bullying my way into her pants.
@Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal: I went back and read what you said. Here it is for you.
Congratulations! You've just demonstrated why so many Rapists go un-convicted, if the case even winds up going to trial...
If she said no once and he tried again 2 minutes later and then she said no and he left with blue balls I encourage you to find any court in the U.S. that will listen to this case.
Here is the post we have been talking about. You said "You've just demonstrated why so many Rapists go un-convicted, if the case even winds up going to trial... "
In response to a scenario where kmal2t said:"If she said no once and he tried again 2 minutes later and then she said no and he left with blue balls" denoting that, in the hypothetical scenario, the would-be rapist explicitly left.
I'll ZOOM IN quote it for you in case you missed it: "tried again 2 minutes later and then she said no and he left"
I responded with disbelief:
The situation just described is one in which the would-be aggressor explicitly leaves rather than forcing himself on a victim and you interpret that as an instance of a rapist going unconvincted?
Then this happened:
Pretty much what Jess said, with the caveat that in the instance referenced, the guy in question did not explicitly leave, he left for a while, came back & tried again
So you can see, what we've been talking about, what you quoted in your response and which I responded to, was you calling kamal2t's hypothetical scenario of a guy being rebuked and explicitly leaving an instance of "a rapist going unconvincted."
You then said that, in referenced hypothetical, the guy did not "explicitly leave, he left for a while, came back, and tried again." Which, hopefully since I've connected all the dots, was incorrect. You reacted to something someone didn't say, and responded with vitriol undeserved by that person. When pressed, you lied to try to make the situation seem more sympathetic.
Perhaps it was just one big misunderstanding, but that's why we're on a messageboard: if you're confused, you can go back and read what people have said. It's like magic!
Its not a crime to be a player and have meaningless one night stands. If you mislead the woman and make her think you want more, but just throw her out the next morning are you a d**k? Yes. but not a criminal.
Unfortunately not, no. I don't think anyone is saying they are. If you're lying to get sex then you're a sack of crap barely holding human form, because you're telling a woman one thing to make her do something she otherwise wouldn't do if she wasn't thinking she was committing to a relationship, but it is legal.
Then again, it's also legal to enter another countries airspace, drone bomb a place and then drone bomb the emergency rescue workers come to help out if you're a big enough country, so just because it's legal doesn't make it 'right', 'good' or 'moral'.
What part of "no means no" are you failing to understand?
The part where you just called me a rapist because I've been with the same girl for 9 years and we don't always explicitly vocalize consent.
Unless of course alcohol is involved. If someone is inebriated they can't consent.
And if you're both drunk, neither can consent, making you both rapists.
Congratulations. By your definition, 90% of sexually active adults in the United States, regardless of sex, are unconvicted rapists.You've now stretched the definition to so far as to be utterly meaningless.
What part of "no means no" are you failing to understand?The part where you just called me a rapist because I've been with the same girl for 9 years and we don't always explicitly vocalize consent.
There's a fairly major difference between a long term relationship and someone you've just met. After nine years you should be able to spot plenty of non-verbal signs she isn't interested...and more importantly, she should be more than comfortable enough to simply say, 'not tonight'.
If you're with a new partner, assume some caution and make sure she verbalizes. In a longer term relationship you guys should already be fairly clear on what she's fine with and what not to do.
For example, the first time you sleep with someone I'm pretty sure even if you guys have agreed to have sex, you wouldn't suddenly flip her over and start engaging in anal sex without any warning to her. Whereas you might know your partner enjoys that. The difference is, you already know the person, there boundaries and what not not to do.
Are we seriously comparing DRONE STRIKES to getting a woman into bed? I have a feeling this is where the thread takes a turn for the worst.
Ya he's such a monster, and she has no sense of responsibility to not be so stupid as to put out on the first date.
No. I'm pointing out the being 'legal' does not make something 'moral' using a fairly dramatic example. If you prefer I could use tax evasion?
Are we seriously comparing DRONE STRIKES to getting a woman into bed? I have a feeling this is where the thread takes a turn for the worst.
Let me follow the lunatic logic in this thread.
Now trying to get laid has been likened to drone strikes, and upthread someone compared hookup artist manuals to bomb-making instructions. By transitive logic, they compared douchey frat-boy behavior to terrorism.Any touching of a sexual nature without express permission, which could be as tame as a bare leg or shoulder since "sexual nature" is subjective, we've determined is sexual assault.
We've also determined that, in many jurisdictions, sexual assault and rape are not distinguished, making sexual assault rape.
So, touching someone without their express consent is an act of terror.
It all makes sense now. I can finally see the matrix!
So you think because someone is your girlfriend that you can't rape her? That if she says "no" and you still force yourself on top of her that isn't rape because she consented before? I'd like to be clear her. Also I don't know your girlfriend, I can't speak for her, but if she's not interested in sex maybe you might do something else instead? Watch a movie, cuddle, give her a massage? She might change her mind later but that's her move at that point. Forcing you hand down her pants later just seems vulgar and crass.
Hey Guy. You might want to reread the post I made upthread. All that stuff about cuddling and massages? THAT IS THE EXACT SUGGESTION I MADE, ASKING IF THAT MAKES ME A RAPIST, SINCE SHE DECLINED THE FIRST TIME.
Your response to my question: "What part of no means no don't you understand."
You've now completely contradicted your statement from, like, half an hour ago.
Are we seriously comparing DRONE STRIKES to getting a woman into bed? I have a feeling this is where the thread takes a turn for the worst.Let me follow the lunatic logic in this thread.
Now trying to get laid has been likened to drone strikes, and upthread someone compared hookup artist manuals to bomb-making instructions. By transitive logic, they compared douchey frat-boy behavior to terrorism.Any touching of a sexual nature without express permission, which could be as tame as a bare leg or shoulder since "sexual nature" is subjective, we've determined is sexual assault.
We've also determined that, in many jurisdictions, sexual assault and rape are not distinguished, making sexual assault rape.
So, touching someone without their express consent is an act of terror.
It all makes sense now. I can finally see the matrix!
Again, no. I didn't compare lying to someone to get them into bed to drone strikes - I simply used it as an example of something being legal but not moral. Again, we can try tax evasion if you prefer. I'd say fraud, but lying to get money out of someone is illegal.
Yes, if you touch someone sexually and she asks you to back off, and you continue to do so or do it again a short time later, is sexual assault. But personally I prefer to err on the side of caution and let the lady take the lead anyway.
Again, no. I didn't compare lying to someone to get them into bed to drone strikes - I simply used it as an example of something being legal but not moral. Again, we can try tax evasion if you prefer. I'd say fraud, but lying to get money out of someone is illegal.
Oh, you laid out two examples and proceeded to point out the similarities between them. What do they call that?
Oh yes, a comparison:
com·pare
[kuhm-pair] Show IPA verb, com·pared, com·par·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
2.
to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Edit: Also, tax evasion is illegal. Al Capone did time for it.
That's a sad estimation of sexually active adults. But this is how the law views things, someone who is inebriated can't consent and therefor any actions taken against them is sexual assault. You can still be charged with sexual assault if you're drunk however.
What you're talking about is a law that varies from state to state, and sometimes municipality to municipality. Sadly, it is the case in my state.
So I guess that makes me a serial rapist.It may be a sad estimation of sexually active adults, but I assure you, it's accurate.
It just seemed a little hyperbolic though I'll accept that you were using it as an analogy.
And just because you don't approve of something doesn't make it so immoral.
She didn't go to that bar to look for a partner to play bridge with. If she voluntarily chose to down drinks at a bar and knows full well it makes her "loose inhibitions" don't blame the guy the next day and try to put all the blame on him. You were both looking for a good time whether your day-after guilt has set in or not.
From a social point of view, lying to get something is considered immoral. Lying about pain to get a medication you're addicted is considered immoral. Lying to scam someone out of there money is considered immoral, and comes with a significantly heavier sentence than most sexual assault based charges. I don't realistically see how lying to get someone into bed with you is different to these, and personally I think it makes a person scum, but I understand that not everyone sees it the same way.
I dislike 'well, she was drunk so she was at fault' because it's been used a lot in rape issues to try and shift the blame away to the victim. However, in something like this, it would be a mistake on the ladies part to go drinking if she's looking for sex. So long as she wasn't so drunk she couldn't give consent, of course. That doesn't make the guy any more moral - if anything, targeting drunk people makes him less so, and more suspicious in my eyes - but it certainly doesn't help the situation.
Edit: Also, tax evasion is illegal. Al Capone did time for it.
Perhaps I should phrase it as tax dodging? The trick big business are currently using to weasel there way out of paying any taxes, when Muggings McCoy here has to fork out. It's (apparently) perfectly legal, but I would not consider it especially moral.
That doesn't make the guy any more moral - if anything, targeting drunk people makes him less so, and more suspicious in my eyes - but it certainly doesn't help the situation.
Right. So when a guy goes to meat market hookup joints, singles bars, night clubs, etc., hoping to go home with someone, he should only flirt with/talk to women who are designated drivers? News flash: people at bars are probably drinking alcohol.
If my head hadn't already exploded in this thread, this would have done me in.
Cuddling isn't sexual, it's affectionate, you can cuddle with your kids. Putting your hand down someone's pants on the other hand is. We were talking about putting your hand down someone's pants. If you think cuddling has to involve sexual touching then please don't have kids (or look after kids). The part I'm objecting to is the sexual bits. Do you understand now?
Holy crap, no we weren't. We were EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY talking about the hypothetical between my girlfriend and myself, wherein she declines to consent to sexual congress.
I then ply her with sweet kisses, a backrub, give it a little time, then try again. I asked you if that made me a rapist, and you responded "What part of no means no don't you understand?" implying if not flat out stating that, since she had said no prior in the evening, it stood for all of time and anything I did to try to convince her otherwise is sexual assault.
You pray on drunk women?That's a sad estimation of sexually active adults. But this is how the law views things, someone who is inebriated can't consent and therefor any actions taken against them is sexual assault. You can still be charged with sexual assault if you're drunk however.What you're talking about is a law that varies from state to state, and sometimes municipality to municipality. Sadly, it is the case in my state.
So I guess that makes me a serial rapist.It may be a sad estimation of sexually active adults, but I assure you, it's accurate.
Holy leaping f+%% are you even reading my posts?
We were specifically talking about a hypothetical situation in which both parties are inebriated.I do not pray on drunk women.
I have, however, had sex with women who were drunk while I was also drunk. Furthermore, I can almost guarantee you that a sizable portion of, if not every single couple that is a)sexually active b)not a pair of teatotallers, has been intimate while drunk. Making both members rapists, by your own admission, meaning that nearly everyone who a)drinks and b)is sexually active is, similarly, a rapist.
Please tell me you're drunk right now and your reading comprehension failure on every single post I've made is not your brain working at full-tilt.
That doesn't make the guy any more moral - if anything, targeting drunk people makes him less so, and more suspicious in my eyes - but it certainly doesn't help the situation.Right. So when a guy goes to meat market hookup joints, singles bars, night clubs, etc., hoping to go home with someone, he should only flirt with/talk to women who are designated drivers? News flash: people at bars are probably drinking alcohol.
If my head hadn't already exploded in this thread, this would have done me in.
Personally, I don't drink. So when I go to a bar I am the designated driver. Or would be, if I wasn't medically banned from driving. But yes, I'm not fond of the idea of especially looking at drunk people for sex. You run into the possibility of being too drunk to consent and, again, I veer onto the side of caution. So I would be suspicious of people targeting drunk people especially. I'm not talking about a few drinks drunk and are still coherent, either. If someone is drunk enough for it to affect there judgement, then I'd back off. And because I'm well aware I'm not going to be able to judge a stranger that effectively I'd be even more cautious.
Its not very moral to lie to get women in bed, but she shares in some of the responsibility, I'm sorry. If you have sex with a guy you just met in a bar and think he's going to call you again you are likely to receive a rude awakening about how the world works. What about her morality and having good enough sense and judgement to not just hop on the first guy you meet?
I'm not suggesting she doesn't have a role in this. I'm simply saying that lying to get sex is not good, nice or clever, just legal.
Meatrace, at this point your caps and bold yelling is going to get all of these posts deleted back to Page who knows or get the thread locked.
If you don't edit those you know whats going to happen.
A pedantic point, but if someone asks on the boards "show me where I said X", what other tools do I have to point out the answer to their question other than bold, italics, and all-caps? If it were a paper I were grading I'd highlight it, but that's not an option available to me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be frigid to the point of being terrified of rape charges.
I have my own issues, yes. I do have four kids, however, and had to have a vasectomy to not have more, so frigid doesn't seem quite right. I would say I am extremely cautious. An approach I, frankly, believe most men should take.
It's also not because of rape charges. It's because of rape victims. One lady I know was bullied into a sexually abusive relationship when she was 13. Another was bullied into having sex with an ex through physical intimidation, and then anally violated. A gentleman I know was accosted by an uncle. Another lady was made to have sex in front of her sister, and made to watch. And that's not a complete list.
So, yes, I'm cautious. You can call me frigid if you wish. But I've seen the results of this stuff, up close and personal. And personally, I think you should always put your partners needs before your own, regardless of gender, to avoid risking this stuff. It's a very simple idea of respecting your sexual partner, there body and there wishes that not enough people seem to agree with.
The part where you try again. That's the part that is objectionable. Perhaps she's willing later, that's her call, but if she said no once she shouldn't have to keep pushing you off. If she says no and you continue to force yourself on her then yes you could be sexual assault. It doesn't matter if you give her a back rub or not. If she's not interested in sex then you should be man enough to let it go. Take a cold shower if need be. Maybe she will feel like doing something later. Maybe you won't. Relationships are complex things and while you might have an idea how your significant other will behave I can only deal with hypotheticals and the rule is "no means no."
Let me go over this one more time.
First, you say I'm a rapist for cuddling and spending time with her in the hopes that she will later wish to have sex.The you advise me that, if she doesn't want to have sex, perhaps you should "Watch a movie, cuddle, give her a massage? She might change her mind later but that's her move at that point."
And now, reversing your opinion yet again, you say "If she isn't interested in sex I should be man enough to let it go."
The mind boggles at how you are able to maintain such obscene levels of cognitive dissonance.
Nowhere in my hypothetical did I say a single word about forcing myself on her. YOU added that in. You. Only in your mind is cuddling forcing myself on someone. You are the one who has insinuated that. You.
If the rule is "no means no" how long do I have to wait before trying to initiate sexual contact again? You seem to know, so please share your wisdom.
You're the one insisting that the "no means no" rule is for all time. Because that argument was a classic straw man I though best to ignore it, but I guess if you must insist forcing yourself: "no means no" is not for all time but it should encapsulate the event. I should only need to tell someone "no" once at a party.
Try to focus.
We aren't talking about at a party. We're talking about a situation where you live with another person and are in nigh constant contact with them.
Can you at least confirm that with me? You are aware that this current dialogue has been about a hypothetical situation between my girlfriend and myself, correct? Not about a party.