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.
While I'm not Guy, I would suggest that no should mean no until something in the relationship changes. Preferably her saying yes. But at the very least no more than once per social meeting. Asking over and over again at the same party seems wrong.
There's a point to where you're cautious to such an extreme that frankly it comes across as a neurotic p***y and won't be able to turn a women on. The fact remains that women often like an "aggressive" or assertive male.
If she gives an assertive "no!" to what you're doing then obviously you know to back off and come back later (to a spouse).
Possibly. Personally, I'm a lot more comfortable with the knowledge that I may have missed out on sex from being too passive than I would be with the idea I may have been too aggresive and gotten someone to have sex with me who didn't really want - the idea of that makes me feel physically ill.
I've actually never been drunk. A bit tipsy once, but I've never been drunk. I like beer and alcohol but I've never had more then one drink per sitting, I'm a large guy so I can drink half a dozen beers before feeling anything, but I've never been drunk and I've never hit on a woman I thought was drunk. I've also never seen any of my parents, grandparents, or aunts or uncles dunk. I've seen friends and random strangers get drunk before, we had a family friend that was a full blown drunk as well, and while my friends have been out for drinks a few times in the past, usually it was about hanging out with friends not cursing for drunk chicks. Clearly you and I have had very different life experiences.
When someone tells me that they've had drunken sex I feel bad for them. To me it shows a distinct lack of self preservation and a dangerous lapse in judgment. For women there's the chance of pregnancy, for the man there's a chance of child support payments, and for both there's a risk of STDs. Even with a condom.
When you say "Guess that makes me a serial rapist" alarm bells go off. Even if you're drunk you can be charged with sexual assault.
In all my life I've only known two people who straight up didn't drink. And one of them was sober for religious reasons.
I don't drink often.I'm a big guy, and I get drunk even less often. Maybe 2 or 3 times a year, and that's stretching it, usually special occasions. When I drink, I drink socially, which usually means I'm also drinking with my girlfriend. Sometimes, that alcohol makes us both feel more amorous.
Why would you feel bad that my girlfriend and I have had sex while intoxicated?
Why is that a "distinct lack of self preservation and a dangerous lapse in judgment"? I assure you there's no greater chance of pregnancy or STDs than sex while sober; that's just basic biology.
When I say "Guess that makes me a serial rapist" I meant it only to show how absurd your definition of rape is.
If it is true that you can be charged with sexual assault if your partner is intoxicated, even if you yourself are intoxicated, that makes both my girlfriend and I rapists many times over. Even though we're in a stable, loving relationship and have been for nearly a decade, living together for 8 years of that.
I'm saying that to point out the absurdity of the situation.
While I'm not Guy, I would suggest that no should mean no until something in the relationship changes. Preferably her saying yes. But at the very least no more than once per social meeting. Asking over and over again at the same party seems wrong.
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.
Social meeting?
Again (and again and again and again and again) I'm specifically referring to my own situation with my live-in girlfriend. This once per social outing thing does not compute.
bunch of crap
Holy s$%!.
I mean seriously holy f*++ing s+*!.Maybe you're talking about shoving your hand down someone's pants, but I'm not. Please, I implore you, go back and re-read this discussion. I'VE been talking about:
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?
Please show me where I used the term "shove my hand down her pants".
If you can find it, I'll concede this whole thread.
But that phrase is only in your head.
let's try something simple: Once per encounter a player may say "no" and negate all sexual advances from the interested party. This is considered a extra ordinary ability. It will work in dead magic zones.
This is absolutely not answering my question.
I live with the woman. What counts as an "encounter"?Once per day? Hour? Month? Year?
Social meeting?
Again (and again and again and again and again) I'm specifically referring to my own situation with my live-in girlfriend. This once per social outing thing does not compute.
Then simply until she lets you know otherwise. Your relationship should be good enough that she'll comfortable enough to communicate when she's interested in sex again.
You make it sound as if this line is so thin that its easy to sexually assault someone. As if it can happen to a rational person by accident. Like oops I accidentally committed a felony.
A lot of people use the argument. 'I didn't know she was that drunk' being the most obvious one. But can I imagine someone hassling someone into having sex with them? Yeah, sure. There are a lot of gentleman who think being in a relationship entitles them to sex, and put pressure on there partner until it happens. I intend to never be one of them. It might not be a felony but, again, I'm a lot less concerned about the legal situation and more concerned about not hurting someone else.
And, honestly, I cannot think of a compelling reason why I shouldn't be this cautious.
Then why don't you read social meeting as night. If your girlfriend isn't interested that night let it go. She might be interested the next morning.While I'm not Guy, I would suggest that no should mean no until something in the relationship changes. Preferably her saying yes. But at the very least no more than once per social meeting. Asking over and over again at the same party seems wrong.
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.Social meeting?
Again (and again and again and again and again) I'm specifically referring to my own situation with my live-in girlfriend. This once per social outing thing does not compute.
I'm just going to go ahead and ask the hard questions?
How old are you?Have you ever been in a relationship?
Are you a virgin?
Because if I ever gave up that easily, I would literally never get any. The way you keep answering questions as if you know what you're talking about...and then admit you've never been drunk, I'm leaning towards you probably have absolutely no experience in a sexual relationship.
Then simply until she lets you know otherwise. Your relationship should be good enough that she'll comfortable enough to communicate when she's interested in sex again.
Nope. Because, as healthy and good as our relationship is, she has almost never initiated sex.
If I take your advice I will be celibate for the rest of my life.
Then simply until she lets you know otherwise. Your relationship should be good enough that she'll comfortable enough to communicate when she's interested in sex again.Nope. Because, as healthy and good as our relationship is, she has almost never initiated sex.
If I take your advice I will be celibate for the rest of my life.
Then I'd suggest waiting a day or two, and talking to her.
If someone admits to terrorism or being a rapist wouldn't that raise any flags for you?
Not in a world where virtually everyone is guilty of the crime of rape.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm not Guy, I would suggest that no should mean no until something in the relationship changes. Preferably her saying yes. But at the very least no more than once per social meeting. Asking over and over again at the same party seems wrong.
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.Social meeting?
Again (and again and again and again and again) I'm specifically referring to my own situation with my live-in girlfriend. This once per social outing thing does not compute.
Obviously, if you ever want to have sex again, one of you has to move out.
I made no personal attacks. Whatsoever. I'm sorry if you read questions as attacks.
I'm trying to figure out why you have such bizarre views on sexual behavior. You've said now, unequivocally, that "When someone tells me that they've had drunken sex I feel bad for them. To me it shows a distinct lack of self preservation and a dangerous lapse in judgment. For women there's the chance of pregnancy, for the man there's a chance of child support payments, and for both there's a risk of STDs. Even with a condom."
But this was all in response to my revelation of having drunken sex with my long-term girlfriend, so I can only assume you meant that as an attack on ME, saying that I have a lack of self-preservation and other nonsense.
Can you answer why you think alcohol in the system carries increased risk of pregnancy or STDs to two people in a monogamous relationship?
It's just really puzzling, and the way you talk about sex is the way my friends did when we were all 14.
As I've said, we have very different experiences. Most of the women I've met have been through schooling, dating sites, or travel though, not in bars. I suppose if I were at bar there would be a good chance of one or both of us being inebriated. I usually only go to bars with friends though, just to hang out, not to pick up ladies.If someone admits to terrorism or being a rapist wouldn't that raise any flags for you?Not in a world where virtually everyone is guilty of the crime of rape.
And as I've said, like ten times now but don't let that stop you from steamrolling forward with your own narrative, I'm talking about two people in a long-term stable, loving, monogamous relationship.
I don't go to bars. Ever.
I met my girlfriend on a dating site, and my girlfriend before her through school.
Random hookups is absolutely not what I'm talking about AND YOU KNOW IT. I'm talking about two people, any two people, in a stable, monogamous relationship, who have sex with one another while drunk. It happens. A lot. Even with married couples. Heck, I'd say especially with married couples. All those people are rapists to you, because they've had sex while intoxicated.
Do you get what I'm saying? Am I getting through to you?
Answer me this simple question: why do you continue to try to paint my 9 year, monogamous relationship with my girlfriend in the most unflattering terms? Why, when that's very definitely the context of all my statements, do you continue to insinuate that I hang around in bars preying on drunk women? Are you having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, or are you merely trying to get a rise out of me?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting that this conversation seems to devolved with very little understanding on women in a society that raises women to be sex objects, compliant, submissive, and people pleasers, a society that blames women for getting raped, calls us sluts for saying yes, calling us frigid for saying no, and calling us all sorts of things if we call the double standards as they are. A society where a little boy hurts little girl and she's told it means he likes her, and no one ever tells them different. A society where dating site surveys show men's greatest fear is that his date will be ugly or laugh at him and a woman's greatest fear is that her date will kill her (and statistically the person most likely to rape and kill a woman is the man she's in a relationship with, by a long shot). A lot of women are told that if a man tries to force himself on us, we should just lie back and let it happen so as to not make him angry and kill us. This is what we are taught from an early age. We have to deal with all these messages and complications to love you guys, and I don't think many of you have ever thought about that.
You might be able to ignore this reality in this conversation, but I can't. The reason this book is problematic is because we live in that society where I'm suppose to put my wants and body autonomy aside to please someone and I need be careful in case he wants to hurt me, and this book takes advantage of that and contributes to that violence. No, the guy who wrote the book nor the people interested with think it's sexual assault or rape; however, about 1 in 20 young men will as long you don't mention rape . What they have in common is that they believe everyone does it, that everony treats women like that, some are just better at hiding it . This book promotes that as the best way to treat women. Both need to be challenged.
I'm seeing a lot on the topic about women saying no, an assertive no in many places. Just because someone hasn't said no, doesn't mean someone has said yes. Resistance means no. I don't care if you've been in a relationship for fifty years, why would you want to sleep with someone you've coerced and badgered and intimidated to get there? why would you not want an enthusiastic yes? There are many ways to communicate it, especially in a long-term relationship Why would you want to risk hurting someone you're suppose to love? Is getting your end away that important?
And actually, having sex with someone blackout drunk or otherwise equally too inebriated to give consent is rape and illegal even within a marriage in most places. It's not just being drunk, I'm pretty sure most people see the line between being tipsy and blackout drunk.
I've been with my partner for over ten years, had four kids with him, and nights of double-digit Os for me and have a box of toys for us and still we ensure enthusiastic yes for anything we do. I don't get wanting less than an enthusiasm when it comes to sex.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the difference between sex while inebriated and sexual assault.
You're at a party. You've been eyeing up a certain lady (or gentleman; there's been more than enough heteronormativity in this thread as it is!) your friend introduced you to earlier that night, and decide to approach him/her with your best line about getting acquainted with goblinoid sociopolitical revolutions or some such.
Maybe you're a little tipsy, and so is s/he, but neither of you are so far gone to be too badly affected. Liquid courage is what's inspiring you to approach him/her in the first place! S/he totally digs your views on intersectionality and you two head off to a dark room somewhere together. This is not sexual assault.
Or maybe s/he's just finished playing a particularly lengthy drinking game and is having trouble walking. Maybe s/he can't focus on your face very well, or maybe s/he keeps partially passing out where you sit. Maybe s/he's not responding very intelligibly to your quips about Trotskyism. You decide to see if s/he's interested in sexytimes, and s/he seems open to the idea, despite being clearly very drunk. This is sexual assault.
It doesn't matter if it's your significant other of twenty years or some random person you picked up at the pub: if they're so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on, they cannot consent to sex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One hundred or so posts to go through, but even I have found Trotskyism to be a non-starter when it comes to sexytime--inebriated or not.
"Hey, baby, you like The Rhythm of Struggle?"
[Waggles eyebrows]
But srly, there's nothing in those 100 posts that really gets me wanting to participate further.
I will say, though, that one of those poor women I battered was a Simmons undergrad who was a real big Andrea Dworkin fan--had quotes from her written on the walls of her apartment--and of all the inane crap she spouted, even she never characterized that time I placed my hands on her hips to help her scale the wall of the private garden we were breaking into as assault, or battery, even though I didn't ask for her permission beforehand.
She even went so far as to make out with me. Talk about your mixed signals.
That relationship didn't last long before it degenerated into non-touching friendom. Partly because the next morning she decided that she wanted to date women, but I've always harbored the suspicion that it was due to her being a Dworkin acolyte and me being a fan of Camille Paglia. But she had a line on primo weed and I at least had the satisfaction of introducing her to The Weather Underground.
I wonder whatever happened to her, and what she was doing during Occupy...
See I was trying to stay on topic, discuss why a seduction guide is bad and why this guy's suggestions were so creepy, talking about hypotheticals, but you've been inserting yourself and your girlfriend into the narrative and getting outraged when I tried to speak in general.
Let me let you in on something, Guy.
If I say something, and then you hit "reply" it quotes what I've said.Have you noticed that before?
When you quote someone else's text and then respond, it's assumed you are responding specifically to that text. When that text includes a question, it appears you're responding to a question. When I give you a specific hypothetical, and you respond with a general statement, it appears that you are responding to my specific hypothetical. If you are not, it comes off as schizophrenic.
Weeee:
I don't know what you think third base is but home is sex. Third has always been sexual petting when I was growing up. The problem is that you don't specify what "something else" is and then seem to rage when others draw different conclusions.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.
And see, this is where your argument style becomes maddening. Instead of quoting my entire post to illustrate what I was talking about, you quoted everything up until the last few lines which read:
"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?"Everything in your response to that post? It is a response to a post with questions at the end, hence they are responses to my questions. When someone asks you a question, and you then quote that question back to them followed by a statement, I don't think it's crazy to assume that statement is an answer to those questions.
Do you?
Imagine the following exchange:
Me: Hey Guy, what's your favorite fruit?
Guy: What's my favorite fruit? Kumquats.
Me: Really? Kumquats? That's your favorite fruit?
Guy: What are you talking about? I never said kumquats were my favorite fruit. I was just repeating the question you just asked me, then changing the subject to kumquats in a general sense.
Me: *calls the psych ward*
It doesn't matter if it's your significant other of twenty years or some random person you picked up at the pub: if they're so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on, they cannot consent to sex.
And neither can you. Meaning you've both raped each other.
Which is an absolutely bonkers state of affairs.Here's something you all may want to consider on the drunk sex tip: drunk means over the legal limit. In some states that is as low as 0.6%, or about two pints of beer drunk within an hour's time.
So, to reiterate, if you go to the pub/bar with your significant other, throw back a couple pints of beer over 5 bucks worth of jukebox, and go home and have sex, you're both rapists.
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest tipsy is too drunk for sex. Alice explicitly states that they're 'clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on' even in what you quote, which is, by no definition, tipsy.
Too drunk to walk, slurred speech of outright passed out are all significantly different. If your partner is in that state then, yes, you are taking advantage of them. That's what we're talking about - drunk enough to have a significant impact on there ability to comprehend the situation, not a slight buzz. And I sure as hell hope we can all agree that that situation would be reprehensible.
I hate 90% of the people on this thread.
rape1 [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3.
statutory rape.
4.
an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5.
Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.
7.
to plunder (a place); despoil.
8.
to seize, take, or carry off by force.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Oddly making passes at a girl and having consenting drunk sex does not fall under any of those definitions.
Just because you are drunk doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own bad decision (unless you are unconscious; We all know where the reasonable line is right?) Saying no, drinking a couple beers and then saying yes is not rape. Saying no, drinking until you can't walk to the bed because the guy you have been talking to has been spiking your drinks, that is rape(would fall under 8 since the woman can no longer voluntarily perform sex).
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest tipsy is too drunk for sex. Alice explicitly states that they're 'clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on' even in what you quote, which is, by no definition, tipsy.
Too drunk to walk, slurred speech of outright passed out are all significantly different. If your partner is in that state then, yes, you are taking advantage of them. That's what we're talking about - drunk enough to have a significant impact on there ability to comprehend the situation, not a slight buzz. And I sure as hell hope we can all agree that that situation would be reprehensible.
Drunk enough to the point that they can no longer perform sex do to limited motor control. Now if both parties are that drunk; 1 how did they manage to have sex, 2 no rape happened.
Did you miss the "so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on"?
Aren't you doing exactly what you're yelling at Guy about? Changing the topic of the question.
What the deuce?
Since I wasn't responding to a question, how can I be "changing the topic of the question"?*scratches head*
The problem I was trying to make clear is that there is no "so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on". Different people have different alcohol tolerances. You could be well wasted after a sip of brandy, while I'm barely buzzed on my fifth jack and coke. And we could both have the same BAC.
I know I'm an anomaly, but my judgment is never impaired when I'm drunk. When I'm totally sloshed, I'm still completely lucid, don't slur my speech, don't wobble too much, and I've never even considered doing something dangerous, even on a dare. I just get really chatty and start licking things (matchbox cars, beer bottles, my friend Dennis' bald head).
The only way the law can or does judge inebriation is BAC, the legal limit of which is absurdly low in many places, as in my counterexample.
Please answer me this, thejeff:
If two people are both "so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on" and they have sex with one another, are they both rapists?
Oddly making passes at a girl and having consenting drunk sex does not fall under any of those definitions.
Just because you are drunk doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your own bad decision (unless you are unconscious; We all know where the reasonable line is right?) Saying no, drinking a couple beers and then saying yes is not rape. Saying no, drinking until you can't walk to the bed because the guy you have been talking to has been spiking your drinks, that is rape(would fall under 8 since the woman can no longer voluntarily perform sex).
I also dislike many of the people in this thread, although I suspect for very different reasons, and probably different people.
To be clear, I do not consider having sex with a drunk person rape unless they are drunk enough for it be very obviously affecting there judgement. That's it. If there's any doubt? Back off. Sex is not worth the risk.
Drunk enough to the point that they can no longer perform sex do to limited motor control. Now if both parties are that drunk; 1 how did they manage to have sex, 2 no rape happened.I don't think anyone is trying to suggest tipsy is too drunk for sex. Alice explicitly states that they're 'clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on' even in what you quote, which is, by no definition, tipsy.
Too drunk to walk, slurred speech of outright passed out are all significantly different. If your partner is in that state then, yes, you are taking advantage of them. That's what we're talking about - drunk enough to have a significant impact on there ability to comprehend the situation, not a slight buzz. And I sure as hell hope we can all agree that that situation would be reprehensible.
I have no idea how tow people that drunk would do anything other than fall over and giggle. The situation I, and I assume most others, are talking about is one in which one person is significantly drunker than the other.
|
|
As far as I can tell, the situations referred to above would be "You're both tipsy but in mutual agreement" which would be fine by anyone's measure.
Being completely off your face drunk - whether or not your motor skills are affected - means you can't consent. That's all I said.
As for the case where both people are completely off their face drunk? I honestly have no idea how the legality works there, to be honest. So I'll refrain from commenting on that.
To be clear, I do not consider having sex with a drunk person rape unless they are drunk enough for it be very obviously affecting there judgement. That's it. If there's any doubt? Back off. Sex is not worth the risk.
Any amount of alcohol effects judgment. Notice in the rape definition that "having sex with someone who has artificially effected judgment" does not fall under any of those categories.
Being completely off your face drunk - whether or not your motor skills are affected - means you can't consent. That's all I said.
If motor skills are not affected and you had consensual sex, you can't claim rape. Being a woman doesn't make you immune to making bad decisions while intoxicated. When people drink and drive they aren't absolved from their actions because their judgment was affected.
You can consent as long as you can actively perform sex and can clearly state your consent. Being drunk does not necessarily prevent these actions.
I've been trying to talk about sexual assault, this rejected kickstarter project, and desperately reiterating that "no means no", a message that shouldn't be up for debate in this day and age. You're the one changing the subject,
You can't even admit that your responses to my queries have been utterly incoherent.
Even now, you continue to quote my posts without addressing them.At least I've gotten you to admit you're not addressing my posts, which is a great leap forward, and explains SO MUCH of our misunderstandings: you don't read other peoples posts, you just continue to post your own inane ramblings.
Does anyone know the ignore script so I never have to go through this crap again?
What the deuce?
Since I wasn't responding to a question, how can I be "changing the topic of the question"?
*scratches head*The problem I was trying to make clear is that there is no "so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on". Different people have different alcohol tolerances. You could be well wasted after a sip of brandy, while I'm barely buzzed on my fifth jack and coke. And we could both have the same BAC.
The only way the law can or does judge inebriation is BAC, the legal limit of which is absurdly low in many places, as in my counterexample.
Please answer me this, thejeff:
If two people are both "so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on" and they have sex with one another, are they both rapists?
I'm getting really tired of this strawman argument. If two people are that drunk, sex isn't likely happening. We're not talking about a bit tipsy - we're talking about can't talk, can barely walk and occasionally vomits on a pet drunk. If they do manage to have sex then, no, it probably isn't rape.
The situation we're talking about is where one of the people, usually the woman, is clearly being negatively affected by driunk. It's pretty simple - if they're negatively affect by what they have drunk, or drugs taken, or illness, or mental health issues, or alien mind control probes, don't sleep with them. If you have any reason to doubt they might not be completely capable of making an informed decision, then don't sleep with them.
This is pretty damned basic, really - you having an orgasm is not worth the risk of raping a woman, so eer on the side of caution. I'm sorry if this is sounding angry, but frankly, I am getting fairly irritated here. How is this even debatable?
To be clear, I do not consider having sex with a drunk person rape unless they are drunk enough for it be very obviously affecting there judgement. That's it. If there's any doubt? Back off. Sex is not worth the risk.
Any amount of alcohol effects judgment. Notice in the rape definition that "having sex with someone who has artificially effected judgment" does not fall under any of those categories.
Bully for the law. But unless you are seriously trying to argue that so long as a woman is sober enough to be not be unconscious it can't be rape, that's a load of crap.
Here, how about this - if she can't walk unaided and talk unslurred, she's probably too drunk for sex?
|
|
There's a big difference between being tipsy and being black-out drunk. Trying to pretend there isn't (and then claim that we're claiming that) is silly.
Taking anti-depressants artificially affects your judgement, but it's silly to claim that someone on anti-depressants can't consent. If someone overdosed on medication and were totally out of their mind? Yeah, that'd be when they stop being able to consent to sexual activity. I've never taken drugs, but I presume the same would apply for, say, someone who's smoked a bit of weed versus someone who is completely tripping out on something.
Still the answer stands.
If the answer still stands, then you did indeed tell me that asking politely for intimate contact twice in a 24 hour period constitutes rape.
And then advised me not to take no for an answer (cuddle, watch tv, etc., in the hopes she changes her mind).
By your own standard, you've advised me to rape my girlfriend.