AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709 
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 22:59:07 GMT -5
Correct, and this is the problem I think some here are having. Sex without consent is rape, but does that mean that sex without a singed contract consenting to it and particularly describing the activities to take place, is rape? Some here seem to think so, and that is a problem. no, it is actually not a problem at all. it means that all sex entails some risk to both parties, and that is absolutely true. it means that the degree of TRUST you have in your partner actually matters. it means your KNOWLEDGE of that partner matters. it means that if you are tuned into what HER mood is and she is tuned into what YOUR mood is, you are good to go. and if you are thick as a post, then you will (GASP) HAVE TO ASK!!!!! but moreover, you will have to not hold a gun to her head- not have any implied threat or coercion, and she will have to be CAPABLE OF CONSENT. and yes, that is a big responsibility. it is the kind of responsibility that consenting adults have. which is, you know, the domain of sexual relations. if that seems like too much trouble to you, i have but one suggestion: grow up. The gun to the head scenario was brought up by someone confusing and tripping over the concept that simple non-resistance is consent-- and it's not like I didn't provide OBVIOUS context. Instead of accepting my statement as reasonable, we got all kinds of batshit crazy and headachey about reasons why a woman with a gun to her head might not resist. But that is expressly NOT the very SPECIFIC scenario I described. Instead, that was deflection. #65 for your reference. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 29, 2014 22:59:26 GMT -5
Do you want to have sex? Yes. Ta-Da! i have spent probably 100 posts talking about the social contract as an unwritten form of consent, and that didn't work either. |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 29, 2014 22:59:57 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is disputing that a person isn't in the wrong to claim rape when no such rape occurred. At least I haven't seen anyone say that's ok.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 29, 2014 23:02:11 GMT -5
no, it is actually not a problem at all. it means that all sex entails some risk to both parties, and that is absolutely true. it means that the degree of TRUST you have in your partner actually matters. it means your KNOWLEDGE of that partner matters. it means that if you are tuned into what HER mood is and she is tuned into what YOUR mood is, you are good to go. and if you are thick as a post, then you will (GASP) HAVE TO ASK!!!!! but moreover, you will have to not hold a gun to her head- not have any implied threat or coercion, and she will have to be CAPABLE OF CONSENT. and yes, that is a big responsibility. it is the kind of responsibility that consenting adults have. which is, you know, the domain of sexual relations. if that seems like too much trouble to you, i have but one suggestion: grow up. The gun to the head scenario was brought up by someone confusing and tripping over the concept that simple non-resistance is consent-- i was speaking metaphorically. i meant "in a position of control". this could be a parent, a relative, a teacher, a cop, a priest- YOU NAME IT. someone in a position of power and control over another person. and it's not like I didn't provide OBVIOUS context. Instead of accepting my statement as reasonable, we got all kinds of batshit crazy and headachey about reasons why a woman with a gun to her head might not resist. But that is expressly NOT the very SPECIFIC scenario I described. Instead, that was deflection. #65 for your reference. i don't need #65, thanks. i think i am being perfectly reasonable. if you don't, then i think you are being unreasonable.  |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:02:13 GMT -5
no, it is actually not a problem at all. it means that all sex entails some risk to both parties, and that is absolutely true. it means that the degree of TRUST you have in your partner actually matters. it means your KNOWLEDGE of that partner matters. it means that if you are tuned into what HER mood is and she is tuned into what YOUR mood is, you are good to go. and if you are thick as a post, then you will (GASP) HAVE TO ASK!!!!! but moreover, you will have to not hold a gun to her head- not have any implied threat or coercion, and she will have to be CAPABLE OF CONSENT. and yes, that is a big responsibility. it is the kind of responsibility that consenting adults have. which is, you know, the domain of sexual relations. if that seems like too much trouble to you, i have but one suggestion: grow up. The gun to the head scenario was brought up by someone confusing and tripping over the concept that simple non-resistance is consent-- and it's not like I didn't provide OBVIOUS context. Instead of accepting my statement as reasonable, we got all kinds of batshit crazy and headachey about reasons why a woman with a gun to her head might not resist. But that is expressly NOT the very SPECIFIC scenario I described. Instead, that was deflection. #65 for your reference. No gun need be present. Until you stop fishing in the deepest part of the conversational ocean for something to justify your stance, your arguments are not credible, paul. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:02:23 GMT -5
To add to this- mmhmm- you're saying the signed contract is 'out on a limb' but how else do you clear up the ambiguity some here seem to believe exists with respect to consent? I agree with your general premise that the one who determines whether it's consent, or not, is the one who's in the position to give it, or withhold it. The problem is that the same person is also in the position to later assert something happened which did not happen. If the person who's in the position to give consent actually gives consent and participates willingly, no rape has been committed. If that person later asserts no consent was given, that person is in the wrong. Nobody has said otherwise. We've been talking about situations in which consent WAS NOT GIVEN. What is it about that you're having trouble grasping? Well, see there's still ambiguity here because you say "gives consent" AND participates willingly. I'm saying participates willingly IS consent. There doesn't HAVE TO BE A "Do you want to have sex?" followed by a "yes, let's do it" for sex to be consensual. Otherwise, we'd have to assume that resistance without an actual "No" is not no. Actions do count. |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 29, 2014 23:05:04 GMT -5
no, it is actually not a problem at all. it means that all sex entails some risk to both parties, and that is absolutely true. it means that the degree of TRUST you have in your partner actually matters. it means your KNOWLEDGE of that partner matters. it means that if you are tuned into what HER mood is and she is tuned into what YOUR mood is, you are good to go. and if you are thick as a post, then you will (GASP) HAVE TO ASK!!!!! but moreover, you will have to not hold a gun to her head- not have any implied threat or coercion, and she will have to be CAPABLE OF CONSENT. and yes, that is a big responsibility. it is the kind of responsibility that consenting adults have. which is, you know, the domain of sexual relations. if that seems like too much trouble to you, i have but one suggestion: grow up. The gun to the head scenario was brought up by someone confusing and tripping over the concept that simple non-resistance is consent-- and it's not like I didn't provide OBVIOUS context. Instead of accepting my statement as reasonable, we got all kinds of batshit crazy and headachey about reasons why a woman with a gun to her head might not resist. But that is expressly NOT the very SPECIFIC scenario I described. Instead, that was deflection. #65 for your reference. Non-resistance is NOT consent. Keep asserting it is, but it isn't going to make you right. My comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate the utter stupidity of that assertion, but it's still valid. Don't like it? Too bad. Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. You are a man who admits he sees nothing wrong with giving a woman a smack if she deserves it and now you assert that it's perfectly fine to force yourself on a woman if she doesn't fight you tooth and nail. Have a party all by yourself, Paul. Cause I'm not playing anymore. Steff is right. This is downright creepy. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 29, 2014 23:05:05 GMT -5
While I agree wholeheartedly with that in general... there's a whole range of activity that does conform to consent, that many will dismiss as not actually being so. Look, I'll agree it's not entirely "fair" to men to go over and beyond ensuring consent. It sucks that we live in a world that you guys have to. It's not because of the good guys, but it's because of the bad guys. BUT there is no way you can argue against the fact that guys have the upper hand against women. They almost always have the strength, weight, and height over girls. If they don't have all three they have at least once, if not two. The guys have the upper hand. They can stave off a drunken come-on by a girl 100% better than a girl can stave off one buy a guy. Sorry, it sucks for guys, but in the grand scheme of things I'm sorry-not sorry that's a relatively light cross for you guys to bear. Ya wanna know why I think it's not a burden to you guys? Because I know several guys that have stopped shit saying you/we are too drunk to do this and stops things. And you wanna know what? The next day I like the guy who stopped shit 100%, or more, times better than the guys who didn't and kept trying to push shit after I said no. Because in my experience - most guys take no as "I'm playing hardball, just keep wearing me down til I say yes". i am having a hard time figuring out why it is so hard to ask a woman if she wants to have sex. what is it guys, are your tongues too busy or something?  |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:05:25 GMT -5
If the person who's in the position to give consent actually gives consent and participates willingly, no rape has been committed. If that person later asserts no consent was given, that person is in the wrong. Nobody has said otherwise. We've been talking about situations in which consent WAS NOT GIVEN. What is it about that you're having trouble grasping? Well, see there's still ambiguity here because you say "gives consent" AND participates willingly. I'm saying participates willingly IS consent. There doesn't HAVE TO BE A "Do you want to have sex?" followed by a "yes, let's do it" for sex to be consensual. Otherwise, we'd have to assume that resistance without an actual "No" is not no. Actions do count. There is no ambiguity there, paul. I'm sure you'd like there to be; however, there is no ambiguity there. If a person is willingly and actively participating and does not withdraw that participation until the culmination of the act, no rape was committed. Nobody here has said otherwise. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 29, 2014 23:06:45 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is disputing that a person isn't in the wrong to claim rape when no such rape occurred. At least I haven't seen anyone say that's ok. quite right, so, if you are one of the unfortunate 1 out of 20 that happens to, by all means, fight it. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:06:51 GMT -5
Look, I'll agree it's not entirely "fair" to men to go over and beyond ensuring consent. It sucks that we live in a world that you guys have to. It's not because of the good guys, but it's because of the bad guys. BUT there is no way you can argue against the fact that guys have the upper hand against women. They almost always have the strength, weight, and height over girls. If they don't have all three they have at least once, if not two. The guys have the upper hand. They can stave off a drunken come-on by a girl 100% better than a girl can stave off one buy a guy. Sorry, it sucks for guys, but in the grand scheme of things I'm sorry-not sorry that's a relatively light cross for you guys to bear. Ya wanna know why I think it's not a burden to you guys? Because I know several guys that have stopped shit saying you/we are too drunk to do this and stops things. And you wanna know what? The next day I like the guy who stopped shit 100%, or more, times better than the guys who didn't and kept trying to push shit after I said no. Because in my experience - most guys take no as "I'm playing hardball, just keep wearing me down til I say yes". i am having a hard time figuring out why it is so hard to ask a woman if she wants to have sex. what is it guys, are your tongues too busy or something? Probably. Those tongues are probably engaged in going on, and on, and on about themselves and how absolutely wonderful, and incredible, and desireable, and intelligent ... you get the picture.  |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 29, 2014 23:07:00 GMT -5
If the person who's in the position to give consent actually gives consent and participates willingly, no rape has been committed. If that person later asserts no consent was given, that person is in the wrong. Nobody has said otherwise. We've been talking about situations in which consent WAS NOT GIVEN. What is it about that you're having trouble grasping? Well, see there's still ambiguity here because you say "gives consent" AND participates willingly. I'm saying participates willingly IS consent. There doesn't HAVE TO BE A "Do you want to have sex?" followed by a "yes, let's do it" for sex to be consensual. "Participating willingly" is such a fucked up level of what consent is I don't know if I can even explain it. The number of guys out there who think girls just "tough it out" through sex and just "lay there like a fish" are outstanding. So to those guys a girl not fighting back (like a lot of organizations/etc suggest after saying no doesn't work) or just laying there after fighting didn't work is to them a "consent". Which it's not. I think most schools of thought say that if they don't respond to NO and STOP right off the bat your best chance for staying alive is to stop fighting. Which plays right into the whole "they're not fighting they're consenting". Personally I'd rather die fighting then live with not fighting, but I also realize that I'm a stubborn son of a bitch. Not everyone is like that. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:07:25 GMT -5
Well, see there's still ambiguity here because you say "gives consent" AND participates willingly. I'm saying participates willingly IS consent. There doesn't HAVE TO BE A "Do you want to have sex?" followed by a "yes, let's do it" for sex to be consensual. Otherwise, we'd have to assume that resistance without an actual "No" is not no. Actions do count. There is no ambiguity there, paul. I'm sure you'd like there to be; however, there is no ambiguity there. If a person is willingly and actively participating and does not withdraw that participation until the culmination of the act, no rape was committed. Nobody here has said otherwise. Not in so many words, but they left room- indeed, you left room- for ambiguity in your posts which is what Richard pointed out. I'm glad you've finally cleared it up and stated precisely what I stated when we started going back and forth at reply #65. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:09:49 GMT -5
There is no ambiguity there, paul. I'm sure you'd like there to be; however, there is no ambiguity there. If a person is willingly and actively participating and does not withdraw that participation until the culmination of the act, no rape was committed. Nobody here has said otherwise. Not in so many words, but they left room- indeed, you left room- for ambiguity in your posts which is what Richard pointed out. I'm glad you've finally cleared it up and stated precisely what I stated when we started going back and forth at reply #65. Get over yourself, paul. You and I aren't even in the same galaxy. I have not, and would never, state what you stated in Reply #65. I'm not, however, surprised you see it differently. Not surprised, at all. I could have predicted it. It's what you do. |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 29, 2014 23:09:54 GMT -5
Look, I'll agree it's not entirely "fair" to men to go over and beyond ensuring consent. It sucks that we live in a world that you guys have to. It's not because of the good guys, but it's because of the bad guys. BUT there is no way you can argue against the fact that guys have the upper hand against women. They almost always have the strength, weight, and height over girls. If they don't have all three they have at least once, if not two. The guys have the upper hand. They can stave off a drunken come-on by a girl 100% better than a girl can stave off one buy a guy. Sorry, it sucks for guys, but in the grand scheme of things I'm sorry-not sorry that's a relatively light cross for you guys to bear. Ya wanna know why I think it's not a burden to you guys? Because I know several guys that have stopped shit saying you/we are too drunk to do this and stops things. And you wanna know what? The next day I like the guy who stopped shit 100%, or more, times better than the guys who didn't and kept trying to push shit after I said no. Because in my experience - most guys take no as "I'm playing hardball, just keep wearing me down til I say yes". i am having a hard time figuring out why it is so hard to ask a woman if she wants to have sex. what is it guys, are your tongues too busy or something? Your guess is as good as mine. But I'd have to sit there an seriously think to come up with a count of guys that I've straight up told "we are not having sex tonight" where I've had to either say it several times or physically pushed them off me. I'm not sure what is ambiguous with "we're not having sex tonight and if you can't handle that you need to go home" but there's an ever surprising number of guys that do not understand that simple English phrase. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:11:45 GMT -5
Well, see there's still ambiguity here because you say "gives consent" AND participates willingly. I'm saying participates willingly IS consent. There doesn't HAVE TO BE A "Do you want to have sex?" followed by a "yes, let's do it" for sex to be consensual. "Participating willingly" is such a fucked up level of what consent is I don't know if I can even explain it. The number of guys out there who think girls just "tough it out" through sex and just "lay there like a fish" are outstanding. So to those guys a girl not fighting back (like a lot of organizations/etc suggest after saying no doesn't work) or just laying there after fighting didn't work is to them a "consent". Which it's not. I think most schools of thought say that if they don't respond to NO and STOP right off the bat your best chance for staying alive is to stop fighting. Which plays right into the whole "they're not fighting they're consenting". Personally I'd rather die fighting then live with not fighting, but I also realize that I'm a stubborn son of a bitch. Not everyone is like that. If they don't respond to "no" and "stop" then we can presume that everything after that is rape, and your response-- to offer resistance or not-- is just your means of surviving the assault. So, let's not move forward from this post as if I implied not offering resistance to clear cut rape is "consent", shall we? The bottom line is this- assuming you were not attacked, you're with someone you know, you willingly start down the road towards sex, you never offer a "no" or a "stop", and you don't resist in any way, or give any other indication you're not down with what's going on-- I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with mmhmm on this one. That's consensual sex you just had there. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:13:55 GMT -5
"Participating willingly" is such a fucked up level of what consent is I don't know if I can even explain it. The number of guys out there who think girls just "tough it out" through sex and just "lay there like a fish" are outstanding. So to those guys a girl not fighting back (like a lot of organizations/etc suggest after saying no doesn't work) or just laying there after fighting didn't work is to them a "consent". Which it's not. I think most schools of thought say that if they don't respond to NO and STOP right off the bat your best chance for staying alive is to stop fighting. Which plays right into the whole "they're not fighting they're consenting". Personally I'd rather die fighting then live with not fighting, but I also realize that I'm a stubborn son of a bitch. Not everyone is like that. If they don't respond to "no" and "stop" then we can presume that everything after that is rape, and your response-- to offer resistance or not-- is just your means of surviving the assault. So, let's not move forward from this post as if I implied not offering resistance to clear cut rape is "consent", shall we? The bottom line is this- assuming you were not attacked, you're with someone you know, you willingly start down the road towards sex, you never offer a "no" or a "stop", and you don't resist in any way, or give any other indication you're not down with what's going on-- I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with mmhmm on this one. That's consensual sex you just had there. DO NOT go there, paul! DO NOT involve me in your twisting and spinning. Create your own little wormholes through which to slither. Leave ME out of it. I hope I'm making myself clear! I do not want to be associated with your garbage. Do you understand me clearly? |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:14:16 GMT -5
The gun to the head scenario was brought up by someone confusing and tripping over the concept that simple non-resistance is consent-- and it's not like I didn't provide OBVIOUS context. Instead of accepting my statement as reasonable, we got all kinds of batshit crazy and headachey about reasons why a woman with a gun to her head might not resist. But that is expressly NOT the very SPECIFIC scenario I described. Instead, that was deflection. #65 for your reference. Non-resistance is NOT consent. Keep asserting it is, but it isn't going to make you right. My comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate the utter stupidity of that assertion, but it's still valid. Don't like it? Too bad. Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. You are a man who admits he sees nothing wrong with giving a woman a smack if she deserves it and now you assert that it's perfectly fine to force yourself on a woman if she doesn't fight you tooth and nail. Have a party all by yourself, Paul. Cause I'm not playing anymore. Steff is right. This is downright creepy. Why would you lie and defame me? I'm just curious what kind of person does that? I suggest you modify this personal attack, or support it by showing where I even slightly implied that if a man "FORCES" himself on a woman and she doesn't resist, that's consent? If you actually believe I posted that, you need to explain yourself, but this goes beyond discussion and is being reported as abuse. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:16:07 GMT -5
Non-resistance is NOT consent. Keep asserting it is, but it isn't going to make you right. My comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate the utter stupidity of that assertion, but it's still valid. Don't like it? Too bad. Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. You are a man who admits he sees nothing wrong with giving a woman a smack if she deserves it and now you assert that it's perfectly fine to force yourself on a woman if she doesn't fight you tooth and nail. Have a party all by yourself, Paul. Cause I'm not playing anymore. Steff is right. This is downright creepy. Why would you lie and defame me? I'm just curious what kind of person does that? I suggest you modify this personal attack, or support it by showing where I even slightly implied that if a man "FORCES" himself on a woman and she doesn't resist, that's consent? If you actually believe I posted that, you need to explain yourself, but this goes beyond discussion and is being reported as abuse. There is no personal insult there, paul. GEL is talking about what YOU have posted here. She has not personally insulted YOU. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 29, 2014 23:16:50 GMT -5
i am having a hard time figuring out why it is so hard to ask a woman if she wants to have sex. what is it guys, are your tongues too busy or something? Your guess is as good as mine. But I'd have to sit there an seriously think to come up with a count of guys that I've straight up told "we are not having sex tonight" where I've had to either say it several times or physically pushed them off me. I'm not sure what is ambiguous with "we're not having sex tonight and if you can't handle that you need to go home" but there's an ever surprising number of guys that do not understand that simple English phrase. i guess i am lucky, but i have only been told "no" once. it is really not something you need to ask, if you are half as much in tune with your partner as you are with yourself. but i guess that is a problem for some people. |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 29, 2014 23:16:55 GMT -5
Deleted because it was childish.
But it was kinda funny. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:17:07 GMT -5
If they don't respond to "no" and "stop" then we can presume that everything after that is rape, and your response-- to offer resistance or not-- is just your means of surviving the assault. So, let's not move forward from this post as if I implied not offering resistance to clear cut rape is "consent", shall we? The bottom line is this- assuming you were not attacked, you're with someone you know, you willingly start down the road towards sex, you never offer a "no" or a "stop", and you don't resist in any way, or give any other indication you're not down with what's going on-- I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with mmhmm on this one. That's consensual sex you just had there. DO NOT go there, paul! DO NOT involve me in your twisting and spinning. Create your own little wormholes through which to slither. Leave ME out of it. I hope I'm making myself clear! I do not want to be associated with your garbage. Do you understand me clearly?  Is that a "no"? |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:17:33 GMT -5
Why would you lie and defame me? I'm just curious what kind of person does that? I suggest you modify this personal attack, or support it by showing where I even slightly implied that if a man "FORCES" himself on a woman and she doesn't resist, that's consent? If you actually believe I posted that, you need to explain yourself, but this goes beyond discussion and is being reported as abuse. There is no personal insult there, paul. GEL is talking about what YOU have posted here. She has not personally insulted YOU. Incorrect. Totally wrong. Fix it. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:18:31 GMT -5
Your guess is as good as mine. But I'd have to sit there an seriously think to come up with a count of guys that I've straight up told "we are not having sex tonight" where I've had to either say it several times or physically pushed them off me. I'm not sure what is ambiguous with "we're not having sex tonight and if you can't handle that you need to go home" but there's an ever surprising number of guys that do not understand that simple English phrase. i guess i am lucky, but i have only been told "no" once. it is really not something you need to ask, if you are half as much in tune with your partner as you are with yourself. but i guess that is a problem for some people. Exactly, dj. One whose head is firmly buried up his posterior isn't going to have that connection. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:18:42 GMT -5
Non-resistance is NOT consent. Keep asserting it is, but it isn't going to make you right. My comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate the utter stupidity of that assertion, but it's still valid. Don't like it? Too bad. Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. You are a man who admits he sees nothing wrong with giving a woman a smack if she deserves it and now you assert that it's perfectly fine to force yourself on a woman if she doesn't fight you tooth and nail.
Have a party all by yourself, Paul. Cause I'm not playing anymore. Steff is right. This is downright creepy.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:19:21 GMT -5
There is no personal insult there, paul. GEL is talking about what YOU have posted here. She has not personally insulted YOU. Incorrect. Totally wrong. Fix it. NO. Next? |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:19:54 GMT -5
The post where I asserted anything of the sort will be produced, or it is defamatory. Remember, my real name is known here by many. I'm not going to be libeled here or anywhere else.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 29, 2014 23:20:30 GMT -5
Fine- it gets escalated to ProBoards then. You have 24 hours. Good night.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 29, 2014 23:21:03 GMT -5
Non-resistance is NOT consent. Keep asserting it is, but it isn't going to make you right. My comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek to demonstrate the utter stupidity of that assertion, but it's still valid. Don't like it? Too bad. Trying to reason with you is like trying to talk to a brick wall. You are a man who admits he sees nothing wrong with giving a woman a smack if she deserves it and now you assert that it's perfectly fine to force yourself on a woman if she doesn't fight you tooth and nail. Have a party all by yourself, Paul. Cause I'm not playing anymore. Steff is right. This is downright creepy. Note the edit, paul. It is what you have asserted, not you, GEL is objecting to. She's objecting to what you have posted, as I said. Hell, I object to it, as well! So have any number of others. |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 29, 2014 23:22:08 GMT -5
Your guess is as good as mine. But I'd have to sit there an seriously think to come up with a count of guys that I've straight up told "we are not having sex tonight" where I've had to either say it several times or physically pushed them off me. I'm not sure what is ambiguous with "we're not having sex tonight and if you can't handle that you need to go home" but there's an ever surprising number of guys that do not understand that simple English phrase. i guess i am lucky, but i have only been told "no" once. it is really not something you need to ask, if you are half as much in tune with your partner as you are with yourself. but i guess that is a problem for some people. The vast majority of my bad experiences were when I was in my teens and the guys were too. While you could chalk it up to teens - I'm still talking 18/19. BUT - I've still gotten it from guys in my later 20s. Not that they kept going when I said no, but they kept bugging with a "come on" "are you sure" "you really sure". As a person, I don't think they're bad or horrible. But I do firmly blame it on society that in the past I've had to repeatedly confirm a "no" to them. Like guys are conditioned to not accept the first no. And that scares me for other girls/women that aren't sure enough to say no for a second time. |
|
