# Seduction - (pushing, consent, AC - specifics)



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening all
There are a lot of threads on affirmative consent, pushing, last minute resistance etc etc. I think sometimes those get confusing / argumentative because people are discussing in general terms not specifics. Often people are arguing over what some other hypothetical person *might* do, while not one is actually claiming that that would themselves behave like that. 

I wanted to try something different here. The idea here is to post realistic scenarios that (if you were dating) you might actually do to seduce someone and see if others believe this is acceptable behavior. So (for this particular discussion) I'm asking that people stick to thinks that either they personally would do (if attempting to seduce someone) or have done, or things that they personally have experienced. 


Scenario (unrealistic only because I am not dating right now). Have a couple of normal dates - dinner, going to a movie or something. Then suggest a week in Venice. Assume she accepts (for some reason people trust me - so acceptance isn't as unlikely as it might seen). Walk around Venice. Get gelato - offer to share. Gondola ride - which results in sitting right next to each other. Offer a hand up out of the gondola (a physical touch). Offer my coat if its cold (another touch).

We stay in my favorite hotel in Venice - a 15th century palace converted to a hotel, right on the Grand canal .Dinner on the hotel patio - has a view of the Rialto Bridge - watch the sunset. She has a glass or two of wine - I never drink.

The hotel room is a suite - there are two beds, the master bed is in an alcove between two 14th century pillars. The balcony has a view over the canal so we sand there looking and talking for a while. I put an arm around her. If she gives the impression of being happy with that, I kiss her. If she responds positively I kiss her more. Start to undress her. Lead her to the bed. If she objects in any way I stop, offer to sleep on the other bed. But if there is on objection, I continue.


Thoughts? Is this scenario acceptable?


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

The evening starts with my picking her up in my '81 hatchback. I've thoughtfully draped a towel over the bead seat cover so she doesn't get red marks all over her back. Handing her my Big Gulp (I don't have a cup holder and I drive a stickshift), I inquire where she'd prefer to eat--Wendy's or KFC?

Later, I seductively lick the chicken grease from my fingers as we sit in a Kroger parking lot. I ask her if she'd care to duck inside for a nightcap. I'd noticed earlier in the day that Kroger has an excellent selection of domestic tallboys.

After she finishes her 40oz malt beverage--I know it's time to finally make my move.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> After she finishes her *40oz *malt beverage--I know it's time to finally make my move.



I am pretty sure there is a section in today's college handbooks with stern warning on 40oz beverages and it even has this photo:










Which then resorts to something like this:










Not cool man, not cool!

Badsanta


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Seduction to me is just a dance, sometimes it's one step forward, one step back, other times it's two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back etc.

Anyway during my time alone with a woman, I test the waters first by flirtation, starting from mild, easily laughable jokes, to more suggestive flirts. By her responses it helps me determine her mood (not to mention chemistry!), as well as her level of arousal/interest/etc. The flirting carries on throughout by the way.

Next step is to break the physical barrier, generally I work with a slower pace (especially seducing women within my social circles, awkward aftermaths are not worth it!) so I may lean in just slightly, see if she leans towards me or leans away, helps with determining whether she is drawn to me physically or not. If she is, then I make a move with non-sexual touches, like a hand on her waist/shoulder, very innocent, but it still lets me see if she's tense or relaxed, and the best sign is if she responds in kind with her own touches. Other times I make up excuses to break the physical barrier, which is quite fun! But I let my gut tell me what I can and can't get away with.

Anyway if she's relaxed/holding me too, then the next step, my hand moves to less 'neutral ground', such as her thighs, the flirting may escalate at this point from 'flirting' towards 'dirty talk', if the responses indicate a green light, I'll start teasing, hands may move towards her inner thighs for instance, I may even withdraw to tease, just for fun. Anyway at this point it's really her move, it's obvious whether she wants it or not and what I can do next. If she starts squeezing her own bewbies for instance, well, you know 

And yeah I'm a leg man! So I always start sexy time going down, just me! 
And if she doesn't like men down there, then I never see her again lol - I love it too much, can't live without it

But seriously, I have no idea why people make this out to be bloody rocket science, this is just human mating!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

When my H and I were first dating, I was planning on jumping his bones by the 2nd date (not meaning doing it on that date, but knowing I wanted to by the end of that date), whereas he was still just getting to know me. He's had a lot more sex in his life than I have, so I was eager for that part while he was eager to see if there was actually a connection between us.

I'm a very aggressive person when I want something, so I started my seduction of him by actually talking about sex, sexuality, preferences, and things we might potentially do.

I found out many relevant things about him during those discussions. One being, he was in no hurry to get down. He knew we'd have a great time in bed, but he would rather get to know me better as a person. I was actually in a hurry...but by this point I was starting to like him a lot and suddenly was in less of a hurry.

We ended up just mashing, making out and getting to 3rd base over the next couple of months, while we concurrently got to know each other. 

Just that limited amount of intimacy was so freaking good that it actually felt better than the best sex I'd ever had in my life up to that point. So I was happily enjoying this long, slow time of seduction we had. 

By the time we actually had PIV sex, we were falling in love. And I had absolutely no doubts that he was going to rock my world in the sack. I was however, unprepared for having my world shattered to pieces and then sent through a wood chipper. I've never been the same since. (I never really reassembled myself either...I basically walk around with a dazed look on my face, still to this day).

We then began a 6 month long f?ckathon, and by the end of it we knew we had to keep each other forever. 

Even now, we seduce each other constantly, in the same way we did in those early months before we actually had sex. It is the funnest part of our sex life.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Thoughts? Is this scenario acceptable?


You could seduce me with that example.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Thoughts? Is this scenario acceptable?


Well...I mean, it sounds great...but honestly I would be wary of a man I'd only been on a couple of dates with who suggested taking me out of the country for a week. It just doesn't happen, so it would make me suspicious. Like, why the heck would he be doing this, just to get me to sleep with him? I would know he could not be in love with me in that short of time, so I would assume he wanted sex.

Now if the suggestion was more like, a weekend at the beach (which is 1 hour away, for me)...then I would think that was far more normal but I would only accept if I wanted to have sex with the guy, because I would know that's what he expected.

Perhaps you are really wealthy, and if that was the case and I knew about it going in, maybe I wouldn't think the trip to Venice sounded so odd. But I don't know anyone THAT wealthy (that would take a total stranger on that expensive of a trip).


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I have been married for almost 30 years. Seduction continues to happen

Seduction for me -
- I talk to her about her day
- Maybe send a flirty text or two during the day
- Help with supper/cleanup
- A few touches (her hair, short shoulder rub, etc.) throughout the evening
- Watch some TV shows together and laugh a bit together
- A hug in bed
- Progress to caresses
- Progress to touching more intimate places
- Eventually she will take my hand and place it where she wants it

(if I do any of the last four things in the wrong order or progress too quickly through them, then there may be pushback)

Seduction for her
- touch me anywhere once


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Well...I mean, it sounds great...but honestly I would be wary of a man I'd only been on a couple of dates with who suggested taking me out of the country for a week. It just doesn't happen, so it would make me suspicious. Like, why the heck would he be doing this, just to get me to sleep with him? I would know he could not be in love with me in that short of time, so I would assume he wanted sex.
> 
> Now if the suggestion was more like, a weekend at the beach (which is 1 hour away, for me)...then I would think that was far more normal but I would only accept if I wanted to have sex with the guy, because I would know that's what he expected.
> 
> Perhaps you are really wealthy, and if that was the case and I knew about it going in, maybe I wouldn't think the trip to Venice sounded so odd. But I don't know anyone THAT wealthy (that would take a total stranger on that expensive of a trip).


I would if she looked like my wife!!! :laugh:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

SadSamIAm said:


> I would if she looked like my wife!!! :laugh:


You "would"....take a woman after only 2 dates on a trip to Venice? If she looked like your wife? Is that what you meant? Just making sure.

I guess I just don't know any people closely who have that kind of money or who spend it like that, anyway.

All the wealthy people I know personally are total millionaire next door types who don't spend any money they just hoard it for retirement.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Was gonna add in there....I did have a guy ask to take me to San Diego for a week (not a super expensive trip from where I live but I knew he would also spend a lot of money on us while we were there)....and I just couldn't do it because I knew I wouldn't be into the sex...there was just not enough attraction.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> You "would"....take a woman after only 2 dates on a trip to Venice? If she looked like your wife? Is that what you meant? Just making sure.


My poor attempt at humor. 

Yes, that is what I meant. We have been getting along great the last couple of months. She is very attractive. I remember the first time I saw her some 30 years ago. I would have taken her anywhere even then. I couldn't afford Venice at the time, so we opted for the bar in town.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Was gonna add in there....I did have a guy ask to take me to San Diego for a week (not a super expensive trip from where I live but I knew he would also spend a lot of money on us while we were there)....*and I just couldn't do it because I knew I wouldn't be into the sex.*..there was just not enough attraction.


That's along the lines of what I was thinking as I read Richard's OP.

If she agreed to go away with you without establishing before hand that there would be two hotel rooms, she has pretty much consented to sex. I mean who says "yes I will sleep in the same bed with you but no sex." Well I know some people do but I think they've agreed to that ahead of time, with the exception of passed out college drunks!

I think agreeing to travel together with someone your dating is essentially agreeing to sex. Now it's not an agreement for sex on demand and as always, either of them can withdraw consent.

Does this mean there are times when consent is implied?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> If she agreed to go away with you without establishing before hand that there would be two hotel rooms, she has pretty much consented to sex.


Also...(this is actually directed to Richard)....how would the guy know in this scenario that the woman wasn't just "putting out" in order to get a free trip out of him? I do know women who would be happy to exchange sex for a free trip to Italy. Richard, I don't see you as the type of guy who would want a woman to just "give you sex in order to get a free trip"....but in the scenario you described, how would you possibly know if she actually liked you or was into you, if she said yes?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

SadSamIAm said:


> My poor attempt at humor.
> 
> Yes, that is what I meant. *We have been getting along great the last couple of months*. She is very attractive. I remember the first time I saw her some 30 years ago. I would have taken her anywhere even then. I couldn't afford Venice at the time, so we opted for the bar in town.


That's awesome, Sam. What has changed? Are you having more sex, too? Do you have a thread going with an update?

Two thumbs up from me!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> If she agreed to go away with you without establishing before hand that there would be two hotel rooms, she has pretty much consented to sex.


Help me out here. 'Cause I sincerely believe that if I had made that statement above, I would have been absolutely creamed in this forum. That sounds like the absolute definition of a covert contract, and hence is the antithesis of informed consent.

I get that the guy still has to ask in the hotel room, but if there's an unspoken expectation, is he wrong to view that as consent?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Oh c'mon, you know you want to be creamed.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh c'mon, you know you want to be creamed.


FW for the score.

No, really. That was a sincere question. I read Anon's answer and my radar went :surprise:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

IMO (and this has nothing to do with AC law, but only with good AC practice), he would not be "wrong" to have an expectation, but he would be wrong to feel entitled or make any demands. In the given scenario, he could "expect" that she would not go with him and stay in the room with him without knowing they would likely get intimate. But the best practice is to cut all the bullsh*t since we are adults and simply make it known and discuss it....that's how you avoid stupid covert contracts. Either of the adults in this example could be the one to go first with the verbal confirmation of their intentions, it wouldn't have to be him necessarily.

As for me personally, it is pretty obvious if I want to have sex with someone and I've never had any issues with misinterpretations. I mean ffs if I'm humping your leg then duh.

(that's a joke)


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> As for me personally, it is pretty obvious if I want to have sex with someone and I've never had any issues with misinterpretations. I mean ffs if I'm humping your leg then duh.


When they say "doggie style", I don't think this is what they mean.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Personal said:


> One doesn't need to invest in a trip to Venice in order to seduce a woman or a man.


I've often found that being a good dancer really helps. I'm serious.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> When they say "doggie style", I don't think this is what they mean.


I know...they made a new category...."FW style"...just for leg humpers like me.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> That's along the lines of what I was thinking as I read Richard's OP.
> 
> If she agreed to go away with you without establishing before hand that there would be two hotel rooms, she has pretty much consented to sex. I mean who says "yes I will sleep in the same bed with you but no sex." Well I know some people do but I think they've agreed to that ahead of time, with the exception of passed out college drunks!
> 
> ...


I'm interested in hearing other responses to *this question*.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
to combine response to a bunch of questions.

First - while I'm not really wealthy, I travel a lot and I'm rather random / impulsive. I could easily imagine taking a week long trip to Venice with someone I had barely met if we seemed to enjoy each other's company. I live comfortably below my means, so blowing ~$15K on a lark like this is possible - once in a while. 

In person people trust me - I don't know why. I've had a woman I barely know share a hotel room with me: We were on a business trip to Japan and decided to spend a day in Tokyo. Split the costs of a room. Nothing was discussed specifically but both gave clear (if subtle) signals that while we were sharing a room, sex was not part of the plan. We had a wonderful day exploring the city, and spent the night with nothing happening between us. Happiness all around. I think she would not have particularly objected if I had started something but I didn't. 

In the scenario I describe in Venice I would be hoping for sex, but not requiring it. If she turned me down, I would not feel cheated or angry, just mildly disappointed. I'd enjoy the rest of the trip with her - though not giving up hope that she would eventually find me irresistible. I love sex, but I also greatly enjoy the non-sexual companionship of women. 

All this really is what I'm like - were I dating it is what I might well do. (during a normal date I'd move the conversation to travel. Find out where she most dreamed of going - and then offer to take her there).


OK - I listed this because it does have a lot of "implied consent". What (if anything) is she implying consent for by going on the trip? I would claim that it is not consent for sex, but IS consent for me to engage in increasingly intimate physical contact if she responds positively - even if this is not discussed verbally. I would not feel I could become sexual with her while she was sleeping - but would feel I had given my implied consent for her to do so to me by inviting her. (yes I know that is sexist - but that is how I feel). 

Does paying for such a trip constitute pressure? Am I putting her in a position where she would feel she could not turn me down for sex even if she decided she didn't want it? Might she worry about my reaction if she says no? Am I being romantic, or manipulative? 

Does this change if we make it a "low class" trip? If instead I invited here camping do the same rule apply? Is this a case where Christian Grey is romantic, but the trailer park version is a creep?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Anon Pink said:


> *If she agreed to go away with you without establishing before hand that there would be two hotel rooms, she has pretty much consented to sex.* I mean who says "yes I will sleep in the same bed with you but no sex." Well I know some people do but I think they've agreed to that ahead of time, with the exception of passed out college drunks!


*?!!!!*

And this is coming from a woman? :surprise:
Hell that's a very dangerous assumption!!! IMO of course...

Anyway I don't understand the whole discussion of "what is consent and what is not", hell I dunno for me it's always been common sense. I even tried to describe some cues that women do when they consent to sexual activity.

Hell to me the word "consent" doesn't even compute when I'm initiating sex. She either wants it or she doesn't! Hell come to think of it, I don't think I can even call the way I 'seduce' a woman seduction at all. 

The dance goes both ways, if she slips enough during the dance (like, shows no interest physically - or expects me to do everything - one sided affection) I would have lost all interest in sex with her already!

Bah! But 'tis just me


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> OK - I listed this because it does have a lot of "implied consent". What (if anything) is she implying consent for by going on the trip? *I would claim* that it is not consent for sex, but IS consent for me to engage in increasingly intimate physical contact if she responds positively - *even if this is not discussed verbally*. I would not feel I could become sexual with her while she was sleeping - but would feel I had given my implied consent for her to do so to me by inviting her. (yes I know that is sexist - but that is how I feel).


Do you mean, you are claiming to us here that you would not consider it implied consent, or you would claim to your date? If you meant the latter, how could you claim this nonverbally?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

“The time has come," the walrus said, "to talk of many things: Of shoes and ships - and sealing wax - of cabbages and kings” L G Carroll.

There are a few threads touching on the same theme. The basic question is "How does a man get access to a woman vj and secondary sex organs". The question could be posted as "How do you find a partner who agrees to a voluntary act for the benefit of both". The latter needs an inclusive framework that appears to be missing from the former.

The former is a slimy, underhanded, disrespectful attempt to detach a vj from it's owner and the latter is a search for a willing partner who want the same thing. It's that simple. One focusses on men getting over on women to get an orgasm and the other focusses on two people getting what they want out of a fully mutually consensual activity. 

Nothing slimy need be applied. One is sex as a filling station for one person only and the other is sex as a whole sensual experience with two people filling each other, for one or many many encounters. 

A problem presents itself more likely than not. The filling station frequenter has the misfortune of falling in love with a woman attacked to a vj. Has he learned to share a passionate experiences with the whole woman or is he still gaming to get access to her vj and other parts? Who knows. The problem is that women, like most human beings, feel that they should have control over what is theirs. 

Sadly, decades of gate keeping may ensue. I don't know why - women know they are being gamed and play their own game too or they want to feel the passion of receiving as much as they are expected to give? Maybe I don't know really. Don't get into the habit of gaming the results are unpredictable. Just ask.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

I'm thinking the woman probably does want sex when she agrees to travel in the Venice scenario, because it's highly unlikely she'd agree to go without much discussion of boundaries otherwise, but there's no guarantee sex will happen. Maybe she expects the bulk of the vacation to be getting to know him, with intimacy anticipated on the last night if everything goes well. The man might do or say something while en route that totally changes her opinion of him. Either of them might be too jetlagged, or eat something foreign that disagrees with them. One of them might receive some bad news that spoils the mood, or get a terrible sunburn while sightseeing. Who knows what could happen? Maybe she's previously told him she's saving herself for marriage and assumes he's going to remember and respect that the whole trip.

I prefer the term enthusiastic consent to affirmative consent. If your advances are met with enthusiasm, either verbal or body language, proceed with your own enthusiasm. If you get resistance, frigidity, reluctance, awkward silence, grumpy facial expressions, no return seduction efforts, back off. If the mood appears to change from enthusiasm to resistance partway through, pay attention and back off.

Maybe if enough people make backing off from unenthusiasm a habit, more people will stop putting up 'fake' resistance because they think they should.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I am saying to this discussion, that I would not consider it consent for sex. In this scenario, we do do not directly discuss sex. 






Faithful Wife said:


> Do you mean, you are claiming to us here that you would not consider it implied consent, or you would claim to your date? If you meant the latter, how could you claim this nonverbally?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I am saying to this discussion, that I would not consider it consent for sex. In this scenario, we do do not directly discuss sex.


I see.

Well in my case, I make these types of decisions easily and will usually say it first anyway, so I would likely take your offer, discuss sleeping arrangements and expectations before hand (in a cute, flirty way, since I'm obviously going for it), and then as someone else said I would know that it was possible it wouldn't happen anyway (changes in plans, fatigue, illness, something turned one of us off, etc). But I would be looking forward to it and expect it.

I simply wouldn't do it at all (ie: accept the offer) unless I was fully consenting and enthusiastic and looked forward to it.

However...it would still seem weird to me and some part of me would wonder if you were going to bury me in a field in Europe. Because stuff like this never happens...so it would seem suspicious to me on some level. I'd probably still go, though. Would just have alerted trusted people and would ask all my friends if they know anyone in Italy I could run to in case I had to flee from you.

I know that's maybe odd for you to hear? But it was my gut feeling when I read your scenario. NOT that I had this feeling about YOU, the actual Richard...just that I *would* have that feeling if a guy made me that offer after only 2 or 3 dates.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> However...it would still seem weird to me and some part of me would wonder if you were going to bury me in a field in Europe. Because stuff like this never happens...so it would seem suspicious to me on some level. I'd probably still go, though. Would just have alerted trusted people and would ask all my friends if they know anyone in Italy I could run to in case I had to flee from you.
> 
> I know that's maybe odd for you to hear? But it was my gut feeling when I read your scenario. NOT that I had this feeling about YOU, the actual Richard...just that I *would* have that feeling if a guy made me that offer after only 2 or 3 dates.


I had that same gut reaction. I would never go off on a trip like that with someone I hardly knew. Not necessarily because I was worried they would bury me in a field, but because I wouldn't understand their expectations and entitlements, and I wouldn't want to find myself pretty much stuck in a situation where I had to spend time with someone who I found out to be not what I signed up for. I mean, you can always find another hotel room, and still be in Venice, but not exactly a great vacation if they should decide they don't like you or you don't like them. 

If I did go off on a trip like that, it would be only if I was already fully into the person. That might not be a guarantee that things would work out, but it also might mean that I wouldn't even wait to get to Venice to have sex.

I also don't think seduction should be a one-sided thing. There needs to always be two people involved, both with the same gleam in the eye. Otherwise, what's the point? I would never bother seducing someone who wasn't already into me. Seduction, IMHO, should be more like foreplay than tactical maneuvers to "get" something.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Yes richard, I'm wiht other girls - that trip to Venice is too much, too soon. Just weird.I would worry that maybe you are not very balanced person, that it would be too much ups and downs, too much drama in the future.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Whatever the particulars are with regard to the Venice Vacation together prior to the couple becoming sexually engaged with one another, I do think her consent to travel with him implies a measure of consent. She expects to be sleeping in the same room and likely the same bed. If she has reservations about having sex with this man, she would (if she is a decent woman who isn't a gold digging user) she would either speak up about separate rooms or she would not agree to go. Agreeing to travel together is essentially agreeing that there is an expectation that sex will happen, baring unforeseen circumstances.

And for what it's worth, I don't think if a man such as ...Cletus posted this scenario and stated that agreeing to travel/vacation together implies consent would result in him being "creamed" by the women here.

When a man says, "I want you to meet my family" that implies a level of serious commitment, right? A woman who agrees to meet the family is implying she is game for the serious commitment, baring unforeseen circumstances, such as finding out he sleeps in his parents bed when he goes home to visit.  

Granted it's been a long time since these kinds of subtle agreements were something that concerned me, but I would expect that once she accepts his offer to meet his family, that they will actually discuss and agree to some form of serious commitment.

I've been trying to think of other scenarios in which consent for sex might be implied and I can't think of any aside from vacationing alone together. 

If there were a group of people vacationing together, renting a house together...that might not be implied consent because she may be assuming she'd be in her own room or bunking in a room with another woman. In this instance it would have to be stated by him, "you'll be staying in my room with me" or by her, "I will be staying in my own room or with another woman in our own room?" If she agreed to his statement it is implied consent. If she made her own statement it is implied that she did not consent.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I am definitely weird and impulsive - though there is a part of my brain that always keeps me from getting into too much trouble. Despite being impulsive, I'm remarkably drama-free - I'm very good about having contingency plans.

I'm fully aware that I would not be a good match for a lot of people, and that a lot of people wouldn't be a good match for me. That's fine - I only need one wife, and I have her and we are well matched. This is also why I think a lot of people get dating wrong - the idea is not to find the biggest pool of "applicants" but to find someone who is well matched to you. There is no "sex order" - what is a good match for me may be a terrible match for someone else. 

Its fun to imagine a romantic adventure with some of the lovely women here :smile2:, I really was trying to lean towards a different discussion on consent, pressure, assumptions etc. 

So far it sounds like many (but not all) women would decline the offer, but I don't get the impression that anyone would be offended by it. This scenario doesn't have direct verbal consent, but relies on non-verbal signs of consent. 







WandaJ said:


> Yes richard, I'm wiht other girls - that trip to Venice is too much, too soon. Just weird.I would worry that maybe you are not very balanced person, that it would be too much ups and downs, too much drama in the future.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Let me pose a question, why can't the man ask the woman "do you want to bone"? Whats the problem? 

If he wanted to borrow money for the trip he wouldn't plan it, ask her along and then skulk around her purse hoping she will crack it open. What is it about sex that needs innuendos, tricks, 3 witches and a cauldron. The dynamic is sick. 


First of all, sex is not vital; when in doubt, just don't. If you are feeling lucky and proceed under the slightest resistance then you gamble with your life. You may get fvcked but not the way you expected.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
In this scenario I'd be very happy to discuss sleeping arrangements. I'd try to find a way to make it clear that the room will have two beds, but that you would be very welcome if you found your way into mine:smile2:

I'd make sure you knew that you had your own tickets, so that you would not be trapped. No offers to "hold your passport for you" or anything. Besides, its really difficult to bury people in Venice - the water level is at (or sometimes above) ground level. 

One interesting thing is that this is actually a very safe trip. Its either public transit (airlines, ferries etc), or in a crowded tourist city. Its far safer against psych-killers than a camping trip or even a few hour drive in the American southwest (which has some great places to bury bodies...not that I'd know).

I'd only suggest something like this if things had seems really good on the first dates. I think sometimes you can tell that you get along well with someone very quickly. Not enough to know about a lifetime, but enough to know about a week. 




Faithful Wife said:


> I see.
> 
> Well in my case, I make these types of decisions easily and will usually say it first anyway, so I would likely take your offer, discuss sleeping arrangements and expectations before hand (in a cute, flirty way, since I'm obviously going for it), and then as someone else said I would know that it was possible it wouldn't happen anyway (changes in plans, fatigue, illness, something turned one of us off, etc). But I would be looking forward to it and expect it.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I would say that a plan that involves sleeping in the same room generally implies consent for the other person to initiate some sort of sexual activity (which can of course be rejected). There are lots exceptions. It might have been discussed beforehand. If the sleeping in one room is clearly for practical purposes. If the trip is functional, not in any way romantic etc. 

There are of course also lots of non-verbal signals people can give. 





Anon Pink said:


> Whatever the particulars are with regard to the Venice Vacation together prior to the couple becoming sexually engaged with one another, I do think her consent to travel with him implies a measure of consent. She expects to be sleeping in the same room and likely the same bed. If she has reservations about having sex with this man, she would (if she is a decent woman who isn't a gold digging user) she would either speak up about separate rooms or she would not agree to go. Agreeing to travel together is essentially agreeing that there is an expectation that sex will happen, baring unforeseen circumstances.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I don't think if a man such as ...Cletus posted this scenario and stated that agreeing to travel/vacation together implies consent would result in him being "creamed" by the women here.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
To me the issue is romance. I think of the Venice trip (for example) as a sort of magic spell that transports us back to the world of 500 years ago (minus the plague and other annoyances). Waking through streets that haven't changed since Galileo, finding little secret nooks with no one else around, seeing moonlight reflecting on the canals. The game of giving non-verbal signals - smiles, comments, just seeing the other person's eye's shining when they look at you. 

If the goal was just sex, you could bring up a checklist of activities you both like, or dislike. Discuss precautions against disease and pregnancy, etc. 

But to me the goal is not sex. Sex is just one part of the magic. Something that should flow from everything else that is going on. The day should start with smiles, and end sleeping in each others arms, with no clear line as to when sex started and ended. 

(though of course that rational part of your brain does need to make sure appropriate precautions are taken!). 







Catherine602 said:


> Let me pose a question, why can't the man ask the woman "do you want to bone"? Whats the problem?
> 
> If he wanted to borrow money for the trip he wouldn't plan it, ask her along and then skulk around her purse hoping she will crack it open. What is it about sex that needs innuendos, tricks, rabbit feet and witches brews? The dynamic is sick.
> 
> ...


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> To me the issue is romance. I think of the Venice trip (for example) as a sort of magic spell that transports us back to the world of 500 years ago (minus the plague and other annoyances). ).



It sounds lovely if done with your siginificant other. With someone I just met? - could end as a f*ck fest in romantic scenery, or it could be disappointment of not met expectations.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I've done this with my wife - pretty much as described - except no sex  but that is a different problem. 

Yes, with another person, the reality might fall far short of fantasy. 






WandaJ said:


> It sounds lovely if done with your siginificant other. With someone I just met? - could end as a f*ck fest in romantic scenery, or it could be disappointment of not met expectations.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

You make me want to jet off the Venice right now. I see what you mean. It's hard to be sexually? romantic with a person you are not sure of. A romantic trip takes trust, and intimacy. Planning a romantic trip with a person you are not intimate with and don't trust to feel as you feel is not romantic. It's nerve-wracking. 

I know this is hypothetical situation that you set up but, it still exposes a problem. The lack of forthrightness, transparency and honesty about sex. It seems a uniquely American. I have not lived in other cultures but I have friends and colleagues who are products of cultures other than the US. Their attitudes about sex seem so natural and strait forward. Two adults participating equally seems to be the rule. A man's masculinity does not hinge on how many vj's he gets into. Men and women have an equal opportunity to be bad lovers or good for each other. 

In LTR in American culture, men are expected to have a bag of tricks that are good enough to coax favors out of women. It's all on him, he has to perform stupid rituals like on a monkey on a string. How undignified. What would happen if men and women viewed sex as an activity that is mostly giving - receiving, focused on shared pleasure and uninhibited by judgment? I wish I had the lack of judgment part down.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> You make me want to jet off the Venice right now. I see what you mean. It's hard to be sexually? romantic with a person you are not sure of. A romantic trip takes trust, and intimacy. Planning a romantic trip with a person you are not intimate with and don't trust to feel as you feel is not romantic. It's nerve-wracking.
> 
> I know this is hypothetical situation that you set up but, it still exposes a problem. The lack of forthrightness, transparency and honesty about sex. It seems a uniquely American. I have not lived other cultures but I have friends and colleague who are products of other cultures. Their attitudes seem so natural and strait forward. Two adults participating equally seems to be the rule. A man's masculinity does not hinge on how many vj's he gets into. Men and women have an equal opportunity to be bad lovers or good for each other.
> 
> *In LTR in American culture, men are expected to have a bag of tricks that are good enough to coax favors out of women. It's all on him, he has to perform stupid rituals like on a monkey on a string. How undignified. What would happen if men and women viewed sex as an activity that is mostly giving - receiving, focused on shared pleasure and uninhibited by judgment?* I wish I had the lack of judgment part down.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I can't offer any specific scenarios. But I can offer an observation. The whole idea of seduction is about getting sex. There are a lot of opinions about how this is done. Some here object to the PUA (presumably a male) who uses basic psychology to "trick" (aka seduce) a woman into sleeping with him. Some object to honeypots, who use basic psychology to "trick" (aka seduce) a man into sleeping with her. In the end I believe the basic human need for sex is what makes both the game of seduction and the seduction itself neccessary.
I also believe that nobody can be seduced, unless they are willing to be seduced. At least not healthy people, that is. Hence the art of seduction lies in knowing what the other person is looking for and that involves real communication and not some particular technique (aside from effective communication) to be honed and sharpened to achieve the desired result.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> Let me pose a question, why can't the man ask the woman "do you want to bone"? Whats the problem?


LOL! I actually had a woman say that to me one time in a bar. It was more like...

Her: "You know what I wanna do right now?"
Me: "What's that?"
Her: "I really want to fvck you right now."
Me: "Umm....OK."



Rather direct, but she got her way. LOL!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I'm thinking the woman probably does want sex when she agrees to travel in the Venice scenario, because it's highly unlikely she'd agree to go without much discussion of boundaries otherwise, but there's no guarantee sex will happen. Maybe she expects the bulk of the vacation to be getting to know him, with intimacy anticipated on the last night if everything goes well. The man might do or say something while en route that totally changes her opinion of him. Either of them might be too jetlagged, or eat something foreign that disagrees with them. One of them might receive some bad news that spoils the mood, or get a terrible sunburn while sightseeing. Who knows what could happen? Maybe she's previously told him she's saving herself for marriage and assumes he's going to remember and respect that the whole trip.
> 
> I prefer the term enthusiastic consent to affirmative consent. If your advances are met with enthusiasm, either verbal or body language, proceed with your own enthusiasm. If you get resistance, frigidity, reluctance, awkward silence, grumpy facial expressions, no return seduction efforts, back off. If the mood appears to change from enthusiasm to resistance partway through, pay attention and back off.
> 
> Maybe if enough people make backing off from unenthusiasm a habit, more people will stop putting up 'fake' resistance because they think they should.


So is the man a rapist if he doesn't stop after noticing insufficient enthusiasm?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> Let me pose a question, why can't the man ask the woman "do you want to bone"? Whats the problem?
> 
> If he wanted to borrow money for the trip he wouldn't plan it, ask her along and then skulk around her purse hoping she will crack it open. What is it about sex that needs innuendos, tricks, 3 witches and a cauldron. The dynamic is sick.
> 
> ...


Yes, *that's* what every LD person says, and the purpose of AC laws is to bring the force of the state into play, just to make sure.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MountainRunner said:


> LOL! I actually had a woman say that to me one time in a bar. It was more like...
> 
> Her: "You know what I wanna do right now?"
> Me: "What's that?"
> ...


Of course you understand that the vast majority of men have never had that happen...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> In LTR in American culture, men are expected to have a bag of tricks that are good enough to coax favors out of women. It's all on him, he has to perform stupid rituals like on a monkey on a string. How undignified. What would happen if men and women viewed sex as an activity that is mostly giving - receiving, focused on shared pleasure and uninhibited by judgment? I wish I had the lack of judgment part down.


I personally have always been fine with suggesting, initiating, and discussing sex. I've never expected men to be the ones to have to pursue me for it, although they did, but I pursued men (and women) for it, too.

I can say this freaks some men out. They don't know what to do with me and assume there must be something wrong with me. (shrug) I knew to stay away from that type of guy. I never tried to push him or seduce him, because ew. If he doesn't like me or want me like that, it would just be gross to try anyway. (Plus I could not respect a guy who couldn't handle me enough to be turned on by him...even if he seemed hot to me before, if he was suddenly spooked just because I am sexually self-aware and don't need to be coddled and coerced into wanting sex, then he was clearly not going to be a good match for me).

I always looked at it just like, hey, we aren't all each other's types. If a guy wasn't into me, it was just like when I wasn't into some other guy. Sometimes you just don't jive right together.

Sometimes you are into each other, then get to the finish line and realize....man, that was horrible. No compatibility physically.

I have always felt free to enjoy and want sex and go for it, though...even with mishaps along the way. I am grateful I wasn't shamed into silencing my natural drive and that I had at least enough tools to figure out how to go after what I wanted. I enjoyed when a guy came after me too, but it was not something I felt was his job.

By and large, I've had no complaints.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> I personally have always been fine with suggesting, initiating, and discussing sex. I've never expected men to be the ones to have to pursue me for it, although they did, but I pursued men (and women) for it, too.
> 
> I can say this freaks some men out. They don't know what to do with me and assume there must be something wrong with me. (shrug) I knew to stay away from that type of guy. I never tried to push him or seduce him, because ew. If he doesn't like me or want me like that, it would just be gross to try anyway. (Plus I could not respect a guy who couldn't handle me enough to be turned on by him...even if he seemed hot to me before, if he was suddenly spooked just because I am sexually self-aware and don't need to be coddled and coerced into wanting sex, then he was clearly not going to be a good match for me).
> 
> ...


Well, from what I've read in your posts FW, you're clearly comfortable with yourself, your feelings, and yes..your desires. Ain't nothing wrong with that in the least my friend.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> Of course you understand that the vast majority of men have never had that happen...


And it happened without me ever hearing/reading anything like MMSLP/PUA/Red Pill tripe. Amazing, huh?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

MountainRunner said:


> LOL! I actually had a woman say that to me one time in a bar. It was more like...
> 
> Her: "You know what I wanna do right now?"
> Me: "What's that?"
> ...


Urgh, I hate that approach!

I never liked women being too forward, but 'tis just me. Not my cup of tea.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I personally have always been fine with suggesting, initiating, and discussing sex. I've never expected men to be the ones to have to pursue me for it, although they did, but I pursued men (and women) for it, too.
> 
> I can say this freaks some men out. They don't know what to do with me and assume there must be something wrong with me. (shrug) I knew to stay away from that type of guy. I never tried to push him or seduce him, because ew. If he doesn't like me or want me like that, it would just be gross to try anyway. (Plus I could not respect a guy who couldn't handle me enough to be turned on by him...even if he seemed hot to me before, if he was suddenly spooked just because I am sexually self-aware and don't need to be coddled and coerced into wanting sex, then he was clearly not going to be a good match for me).
> 
> ...


I think for some men, an aggressive woman is desirable, but enough of an anomaly that it raises suspicion that you're going to lure them somewhere and feed them to your hogs.

In other words--too good to be true.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MountainRunner said:


> And it happened without me ever hearing/reading anything like MMSLP/PUA/Red Pill tripe. Amazing, huh?


That's because you are a natural. 

I have known several other men like that. Regardless of their other sterling attributes, they are among the last people I would ask for advice on how to get women sexually interested.

Men who have had problems in that department and have found solutions to those problems are much better qualified in that regard.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

RandomDude said:


> Urgh, I hate that approach!
> 
> I never liked women being too forward, but 'tis just me. Not my cup of tea.


Oh, she surprised me to be sure, but...hey...who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth. Honestly, I just walked in for a beer after work and that is all I wanted to do. She managed to get me to change my mind about the beer. Drop dead gorgeous too. Raven haired Native American beauty...named "Mona".


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> I think for some men, an aggressive woman is desirable, but enough of an anomaly that it raises suspicion that you're going to lure them somewhere and feed them to your hogs.
> 
> In other words--too good to be true.


Oh trust me, I get it.

Some men only want a woman who doesn't appear to want sex, and then he feels good about himself "seducing" her. Because obviously if she wants sex without being seduced, then she's a sl*t.  How dare she know what she wants without a man telling her what that is first? 

But also....some guys just weren't feeling it. There just wasn't a match between us. It didn't matter if I was coming on it him first, he would have gone for it if there was a match. This is why I scoff when people say "women can get sex whenever they want". Um, no, they can't. Men are not indiscriminate pigs who have no regard for their own actual tastes. They will not just "do any willing woman". I'm attractive but sometimes that just isn't enough....there has to be chemistry.

Then there were some guys who just weren't very sexual. They would have turned down any woman, because they just weren't into sex enough to proceed. I understand what a natural LD person looks like in part because I've met them myself.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh trust me, I get it.
> 
> Some men only want a woman who doesn't appear to want sex, and then he feels good about himself "seducing" her. Because obviously if she wants sex without being seduced, then she's a sl*t.  How dare she know what she wants without a man telling her what that is first?


Not exactly what I'm getting at, but I agree those men do exist. I'm talking about the guy that actually WANTS an aggressive woman, but when he finds one he can't believe that it's legit. Society has told men that women just don't act like that, so when he's confronted with it--it's a trap somehow. Cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Not exactly what I'm getting at, but I agree those men do exist. I'm talking about the guy that actually WANTS an aggressive woman, but when he finds one he can't believe that it's legit. Society has told men that women just don't act like that, so when he's confronted with it--it's a trap somehow. Cognitive dissonance.


But the same man wants to take a woman who DOESN'T want to have sex and "seduce" her until she does want to. Because he wants it to be due to HIS efforts that she gets horny, not just be horny all on her own. I don't really think this is ok, cognitive dissonance or not.

If the same man was just scared of sex in general and wouldn't try to "seduce" a woman because he just wasn't sure about how any of it worked....then I could respect that he at least is not full of sh*tty double standards that favor HIS feelings only, while making HER out to be a sl*t.

Now...if I asked a man to fly off to Venice with me after 2 dates, it would make sense he feared I might feed him to the hogs.

But just because I want to have sex with him?

That's just the same entitled thinking that causes all of these issues. Some men don't think women are even entitled to their own sexual feelings...they "must" be supplied to her by a specific man. Meanwhile, that man will continue to feel sexual toward many women and not see the hypocrisy.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Not exactly what I'm getting at, but I agree those men do exist. I'm talking about the guy that actually WANTS an aggressive woman, but when he finds one he can't believe that it's legit. Society has told men that women just don't act like that, so when he's confronted with it--it's a trap somehow. Cognitive dissonance.


Well, a certain level of suspicion is just common sense really. I've heard plenty of stories of men being approached for sex by women, thinking they've hit the jackpot, and then finding out the hard way the women were actually only really interested in stealing his wallet. 

There are all sorts of liars and scammers out there and if something seems to be too good to be true, there is a relatively good chance that it is.

Doesn't mean that when that same man meets the aggressive woman who *is* totally into him that they won't find magic.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Though it is flattering to feel I may be too good to be true (ha, no)....I never approached a complete stranger for sex in my life.

I'm talking about guys I knew personally, was dating, had grown up and gone to school with, etc.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> .
> 
> So far it sounds like many (but not all) women would decline the offer, but I don't get the impression that anyone would be offended by it. This scenario doesn't have direct verbal consent, but relies on non-verbal signs of consent.


There is nothing wrong with offers. And I've even followed up on a few of them, when it seemed like the right thing to do, and had some marvelous adventures as a result.

What struck me most about your story is the timing of it. Too much too soon. This would make me wonder why, what was behind it. 

I remember this one time I met this guy and he was like all over me to marry him from practically the first second we met. I know your example isn't as extreme as that, but it raises the same sorts of flags, "this isn't real, there's something else going on here." Needless to say, I didn't marry him, and indeed, never saw him again after that one date (no doubt because I didn't have sex with him either).


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

badsanta said:


>


I don't know what it is about this photo but I have a hard time looking away. I don't even like OE40 it taste flat.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

gouge_away said:


> I don't know what it is about this photo but I have a hard time looking away. I don't even like OE40 it taste, 'flat...?'


The international maps in the background give it a subliminal sense that she is adventurous!


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

It certainly doesn't appear to have a high gravity.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Though it is flattering to feel I may be too good to be true (ha, no)....I never approached a complete stranger for sex in my life.
> 
> I'm talking about guys I knew personally, was dating, had grown up and gone to school with, etc.


That makes sense. I think we were having two separate conversations, lol. I was referring more to a situation like Mountain Runner was referring to.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'd like to believe that there is a huge range between "OK" and rapist. I think someone should back off if they don't receive enthusiastic consent. I don't think its rape unless they continue with a lack of consent. 

So saying "I bought you dinner and drinks, now I expect you to [insert sex act here]" is being slimy and obnoxious, but not rape. In my book, its only rape if when she says no, he continues anyway. 

It is also rape if she is incapacitate, or in several other situations. The above is not intended to include ALL things that are rape. 




technovelist said:


> So is the man a rapist if he doesn't stop after noticing insufficient enthusiasm?


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

badsanta said:


> The international maps in the background give it a subliminal sense that she is adventurous!


True, without the maps, she just seems like some chick that likes chugging large amounts of cheap beer. Who wants that around,... Boring!


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think its fine that people have and want different styles of seduction. Some like to be direct. Some like a long slow intricate dance. Some people are just not compatible that way - one may want moonlit walks and candlelit dinners, the other may want to tear each other's clothes off and fck all night. 

As long as people follow a reasonable "escalation" path and stop / back-off if the other shows rejection, there is no problem.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

gouge_away said:


> True, without the maps, she just seems like some chick that likes chugging large amounts of cheap beer. Who wants that around,... Boring!



Relevant:


----------



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

Fozzy said:


> The evening starts with my picking her up in my '81 hatchback. I've thoughtfully draped a towel over the bead seat cover so she doesn't get red marks all over her back. Handing her my Big Gulp (I don't have a cup holder and I drive a stickshift), I inquire where she'd prefer to eat--Wendy's or KFC?
> 
> Later, I seductively lick the chicken grease from my fingers as we sit in a Kroger parking lot. I ask her if she'd care to duck inside for a nightcap. I'd noticed earlier in the day that Kroger has an excellent selection of domestic tallboys.
> 
> After she finishes her 40oz malt beverage--I know it's time to finally make my move.


I don't think this would work, not seductive enough. You need to offer her the chance to lick the chicken grease from your fingers instead! >


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> That's because you are a natural.


I don't think that's it at all. In fact, knowing what I know now (that there exists a whole group of males out there that prescribe to the whole MMSL/Red Pill philosophy), it makes sense how that scenario played out in my favor.

You see, I walked into that bar, after work, with the intent on being by myself and unwinding after a day of writing code. There I was in blue jeans, tshirt, leather jacket, sitting at the bar minding my own business while I amusingly watched the parade of guys in suits try to coerce this woman at the other end of the bar.

Next thing I know, she blew them all off and sat down next to me...and we talked about all kinds of stuff before she dropped the bombshell on me.

You see, I happen to think that women are smart. They can see when men are playing them to get in their pants. They see the ruse. They also don't appreciate the games these guys play. In other words...I was "safe" because I wasn't really paying her any attention...just drinking my beer.

Now when she sat down, she probably found out that I'm a pretty nice guy, a good conversationalist, comfortable being with a lady, and quite likeable.

She didn't give the other putz' the time of day. I say again...any self respecting, intelligent woman will see it when a man is trying to play her. Just my opinion.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

technovelist said:


> Yes, *that's* what every LD person says, and the purpose of AC laws is to bring the force of the state into play, just to make sure.


It's not. That is a truism and has nothing to do with LD, HD or ND. It's already mandated, the statutes and laws of civilized and developed countries back me up. There are many more on the way because there is a need to protect the vulnerable still. I very glad about that. 

If sex is vital then the places on this planet where women and children are held as sex slaves are perfectly normal. It's like farming only you plant a few humans and use them at will. 

Or maybe a place where women are gang raped by men on public transport - any ungraded vj is fair game if human farms are not available and vital needs are wanting. 

Or maybe the young man who is raped for 5 years by Baba and company while he locked up for robbery. Baba is in for 20 and he has needs. 

I don't see any indication that sex is ever vital, ever. If you do then please tell me about it. People can and do live for long periods of time with no sex. They have sex when they find a person with the mental capacity to give consent, and who consents. 

If they cannot find a willing partner then they are required, thorough everything that is human and good, to curb the desire, period. The nature of the sex drive is immaterial. We cannot degenerate into a society that places a higher value on getting orgasms than on human beings. We have those places around the planet already and they are an abomination.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> But also....some guys just weren't feeling it. There just wasn't a match between us. It didn't matter if I was coming on it him first, he would have gone for it if there was a match. This is why I scoff when people say "women can get sex whenever they want". Um, no, they can't. Men are not indiscriminate pigs who have no regard for their own actual tastes. They will not just "do any willing woman". I'm attractive but sometimes that just isn't enough....there has to be chemistry.


I think you've skirted around something here. The men who say 'women can get sex whenever they want" probably ARE the indiscriminate pigs. They can't imagine a willing woman they wouldn't do. Or possibly they are the ones who believe that obese/scarred/otherwise ugly women shouldn't have sex so they are mentally omitting them from consideration.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

technovelist said:


> So is the man a rapist if he doesn't stop after noticing insufficient enthusiasm?


I doubt he'd ever be a convicted rapist, but yes, if he can tell his partner isn't comfortable but doesn't stop simply because he hasn't been blatantly denied, I'd consider him to be crossing boundaries. The woman, if not feeling completely violated, certainly feels used.

We need to get our culture to the point where people can be comfortable directly indicating their desires, for or against sex, without fear of consequences from the partner, or society in general.

Just because there's not a razor-wire fence, a guard dog and visible signage doesn't make you welcome on someone else's private property. Just because no one comes running out of the house when you step onto the lawn still doesn't give you a right to be there. If someone does come out and glares at you but doesn't say "get off my lawn!" you still don't have a right to be there. If someone says "come on, have a seat," they can still change their mind and ask you to leave later. If you pull out a pocket knife and start cutting their flowers down, and the person is too afraid to try to stop you, you still don't have a right to be there.

I do have to thank this thread though. I have a new way at looking at potential partners. Would I invite them to Venice?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MountainRunner said:


> I don't think that's it at all. In fact, knowing what I know now (that there exists a whole group of males out there that prescribe to the whole MMSL/Red Pill philosophy), it makes sense how that scenario played out in my favor.
> 
> You see, I walked into that bar, after work, with the intent on being by myself and unwinding after a day of writing code. There I was in blue jeans, tshirt, leather jacket, sitting at the bar minding my own business while I amusingly watched the parade of guys in suits try to coerce this woman at the other end of the bar.
> 
> ...


No, actually the red pill analysis is this:

1. You weren't trying to impress her, and the other guys were.

2. Thus, you must have other options besides her.

3. Men who have other options are more attractive than those who do not.

4. Therefore, you were more attractive than those other guys.

Q. E. D.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Pushing, consent, and AC....

I asked my wife if I could share one of stories and she agreed...

My wife was an "early bloomer" if'n ya get my meaning. At 13 she already had ample breasts which made her a target from many of the boys. One day, she was in the barn taking care of the horses when a neighborhood boy(15) stopped by. They knew each other, but this time, he took it upon himself to start groping her breasts. Her first reaction was "WTF are you doing?" and she told him to stop.

He refused to stop. He was trying to kiss her and she managed to grab a brick and clocked him hard upside his head drawing considerable blood. This finally got the little pr1ck to stop and he ran home with a trail of blood following him.

About 40 minutes later, my wife's mother answers the door and there is the boy alongside his mother and his mother proceeds to start screaming at my wife's mom about the attack on her boy by wife.

He conveniently left out the part where he was about to rape her. When that was divulged, the boy's mother changed her tune and left.

I guess there are some "men" out there that feel they can take anything they want from a woman regardless of whether she complies or not. Or maybe they just have a low opinion of women in the first place and just percieve them as "objects"


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

technovelist said:


> Q. E. D.


LMAO! OK...Just keep telling yourself that my friend. Heh.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MountainRunner said:


> Pushing, consent, and AC....
> 
> I asked my wife if I could share one of stories and she agreed...
> 
> ...


I'm not sure under what legal system that has ever existed in the US that would be considered anything other than sexual assault. Thus, there is no need for "AC" laws to deal with it.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'd put a higher bar than "noticing your partner isn't comfortable" on rape. Continuing without enthusiastic consent is bad, really bad, but I don't think rises the the level of serious felony.

Continuing in the face of a lack of consent or a "no" is completely different.






Hopeful Cynic said:


> I doubt he'd ever be a convicted rapist, but yes, if he can tell his partner isn't comfortable but doesn't stop simply because he hasn't been blatantly denied, I'd consider him to be crossing boundaries. The woman, if not feeling completely violated, certainly feels used.
> snip
> 
> ?


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

I would take you up on the Venice trip Richard, and I am not even a romantic. I do think there is a level of implied consent, but sometimes you just have to ask, even if it's not that sexy.

You wanted stories, so here is a real story from my past: 

I was out of town and having dinner at a bar/restaurant about three blocks down the road from my hotel. I spend the evening chatting with several other people, men and women, who were also away from home.

When I decide it's time to leave, I announce to the group that I am headed back to my hotel down the road. As I say this, I lock eyes with one of the men in the group. He's younger than I, with dark piercing eyes, jet black hair, a groomed beard and several tattoos. He has recently separated from the military and a recent deployment-an army ranger turned civil engineer. He is a perfect dreamy mix of mysterious, dangerous, and sexy. He rises from his seat and says, "Miss, may I please escort you back, you should not be walking alone at night."

I accept his offer and we head towards my hotel. Along the way we encounter some rough terrain. Several times he assists me by gently taking me by the arm or the waist, and at one point lifts me down from a rock wall. He was a true gentleman, but each touch lingered a bit longer and the conversation turned flirtatious. He appears to move in for a kiss, but instead he pulls away and gently brushes my hair and my neck with his lips. 

After we arrive at the hotel he asks permission to use the bathroom in my room. I then use the bathroom and once I exit his demeanor completely changes. His black eyes stare down at me and he demands in a low, gruff voice, “take off all your clothes, I want to see you.” I quickly comply with his request. Then he kisses me really hard while pulling my hair, and he bites my lip. He steps back, stares at me for about 10 seconds and then pushes me down on the bed. He continues to go about his business and he was very rough about it. 

At this point, he has not asked permission to do any of this; however, I was consenting and he knew that I was consenting, WITHOUT ruining the moment by asking me.

At one point he does ask for consent. “Do you have anything that I can tie you up with? I really want to tie you up and have my way with you.” To which I reply, “I would absolutely love that, but I do not allow that with someone I don’t know well.” He says, “I understand, no worries” and we continue without any restraints. A few more times he asks, in a very dominant but sexy manner, for verbal consent to do things, all of which were granted with a verbal “yes!” 

This is an example of two people who are very skilled at reading sexual cues. He knew how far he could take it because he was in tune with my verbal and non-verbal responses. He knew when to ask and how to ask, without breaking the heat of the moment.

And, if you were paying close attention you would realize that I am the one who actually picked him up. I picked HIM out of the group because I sensed that he would know what I was looking for and I didn't have to ask him to do it (that's not sexy after all). 

And he did…to perfection!

I think I need a cold shower now.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

where_are_we said:


> At this point, he has not asked permission to do any of this; however, I was consenting and he knew that I was consenting, WITHOUT ruining the moment by asking me.


It's a great story. If you think it would have "ruined the moment" for him to ask you for consent, that's fine...but don't speak for others or imply it would ruin the moment for everyone.

Some of us like to actually discuss what we want to do sexually before we do it.

And in some cases it is absolutely necessary to discuss consent first.

It wasn't in your case and that's cool. But you also admit you did not even know the guy and part of his allure was that he was mysterious and dangerous. Again, that's cool and all but....wow, that was risky. I'm not risk adverse...but I've just known too many people who have regretted decisions like that.

Though I have known many who had great adventures just like yours.

I personally am pretty brave...but not in that way.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> It's a great story. If you think it would have "ruined the moment" for him to ask you for consent, that's fine...but don't speak for others or imply it would ruin the moment for everyone.


Richard asked for stories and examples of consent - implied or otherwise and I shared one. This was an example of how consent can play out. I did not state that everyone should believe the way I do. I was sharing my personal story from my perspective. It was about me, not about you or anyone else. 

In fact, your reaction to my story just proves that "implied consent" is very grey. It is subjective, it means something different for everyone and changes between partners.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

This thread was spawned by several other threads that were about affirmative consent, both the sex positive ideal and the new laws about it to be going in effect soon. I hope you'll drop by one of those, too....it is nice to hear from everyone. This is the one I started but there are several others going.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/284818-what-affirmative-consent-looks-like.html

AC has come into the spotlight more and more recently, in part due to the PUA culture, where men are taught how to ignore women's boundaries and coerce or rape them. They call it "how to get past last minute resistance" but in fact it simply means "how to rape". There is an entire culture of men teaching each other this "tactic". AC is one response to it.

If we could trust that once we said "no" (for instance, if you suddenly felt sick and told the guy in your story to stop everything) that everyone would always respect our boundaries then stories like yours would be safer for people. I wish that were the case. I wish AC was not a necessity and we could just trust each other.

I feel fortunate that I've never ended up harmed sexually or coerced, but I have heard too many stories of those who have been and sadly, I don't feel I could ever be single without speaking about consent verbally first again in this day and age. Too many creepers a'creepin'.

As I said though it has never been an issue with me, because I like talking about things first. My main concern is usually that I don't want to waste energy on "meh" sexual experiences...I want to talk to the person and know he or she is sexually adept enough to at least converse about it.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Interesting. I had not read that thread. Thanks for sharing it. 

I have three sons and I have taught them all to have the conversation and seek a verbal yes and to not pursue anyone who is high or drunk. I also taught them that both parties have a right to say NO at anytime. Even if the girl is naked and straddling him. I hope they follow through with these teachings. 

In most of my experiences the man usually prefaces the encounter with, "please tell me if I am doing something you don't like, don't want to do, etc." If he doesn't. I usually say something like..."I'm all in unless I say no/use a safeword, etc."

In my story here that was not the case. It was a good example of when implied consent works well with two people who pay attention to each other. Yes, it was risky. However, I am still more risk averse to inverted roller coasters. I think people who ride those must be bat sh!t crazy. 

LOL point being...all things are subjective.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

where_are_we said:


> I would take you up on the Venice trip Richard, and I am not even a romantic. I do think there is a level of implied consent, but sometimes you just have to ask, even if it's not that sexy.
> 
> You wanted stories, so here is a real story from my past:
> 
> ...


If AC were law, then after all that you could charge him with rape and if everyone told the truth and the jury believed them, he would be convicted.

Is that what anyone really wants?


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

technovelist said:


> If AC were law, then after all that you could charge him with rape and if everyone told the truth and the jury believed them, he would be convicted.
> 
> Is that what anyone really wants?


Nope. I don't think this law is a great idea. Also, just because it's a law and a verbal YES must be obtained, how can that be enforced? How do you know who is telling the truth. I don't see how it will change anything. It's another law to legislate people who can't have an adult conversation. 

You are correct about charges. First - I WOULD NEVER EVER DO THIS TO A MAN...

Consider your scenario for a moment: He would have very swiftly been charged and convicted of rape. I had a fat lip and some bruising. Physical evidence right there.

The difference is I wanted and consented to everything. This is what I like and although there may be marks, he did not beat me and I was not injured in any way. I should also note that I bruise if someone looks at me too hard.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

where_are_we said:


> It's another law to legislate people who can't have an adult conversation.


True, and as I said, it is sad that things have come to the point of needing to pass laws about this kind of thing.

But also as I said, as long as there are men deliberately trying to "get sex" from women regardless if those women actually want to have sex with them or not and passing around "tips" about how to do this, we are going to have to step into the middle of this kind of crap with laws. I personally am not following the laws or the possible complications of it, but I will be interested in how things turn out.

Here's a little gem for you to get an idea of what these types of men are saying and doing....

5 Ways To Smash Through Last Minute Resistance With Any Girl

Here's a nice (meaning, sh*tty) little quote from above article, meant to entice the reader to believe the author's schemes will ALWAYS work:

"Obviously every girl is different and there are some girls that take weeks, even months to break down, but eventually they always do it just requires persistence."

Because you know, these guys aren't talking about a scenario like yours where a woman is clearly wanting to have sex with him. They are talking about women who DON'T want to have sex with him and how to coerce her into doing it anyway. Pure creeps.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

where_are_we said:


> Nope. I don't think this law is a great idea. Also, just because it's a law and a verbal YES must be obtained, how can that be enforced? How do you know who is telling the truth. I don't see how it will change anything. It's another law to legislate people who can't have an adult conversation.
> 
> You are correct about charges. First - I WOULD NEVER EVER DO THIS TO A MAN...
> 
> ...


Fine, but how could a man know that a woman wouldn't do that, with certainty? And certainty is what would be needed if AC were law, given the horrid consequences of a rape accusation, much less a conviction.

Obviously there is no way for him to know that. Thus, no man in his right mind would ever do anything like that, if AC were law.

Again, who wants that result?


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> True, and as I said, it is sad that things have come to the point of needing to pass laws about this kind of thing.
> 
> But also as I said, as long as there are men deliberately trying to "get sex" from women regardless if those women actually want to have sex with them or not and passing around "tips" about how to do this, we are going to have to step into the middle of this kind of crap with laws. I personally am not following the laws or the possible complications of it, but I will be interested in how things turn out.
> 
> ...


Well, you I tend to agree with a lot of your assertions FW, but I'm going to ask you about a scenario where I asked a woman, several times over a month, on a date before she finally agreed to go out with me, and I'd like your take on whether I was simply an a$$ or was I reading her "correctly", k?

I worked at Wells Fargo in SF as a Systems Engineer and I worked closely with the VP of Customer Service (I was designing the networks in the service centers she oversaw). One on one meetings with her began to take on a "different" tone. She was 49 and I was 34 and a drop dead knockout. She began looking at me as I talked to her with these "eyes", so one day I asked her..."What's up?", to which she replied "You just look so yummy."

So I asked her on date...and she declined. I was like "WTF?"

More meetings, more "eyes", so I asked again...same response..."No thank you." *scratches head"

Even her admin told me that she was sweet on me, which befuddled me even further as her admin said to not give up...so I didn't...always "no"

I finally had enough so one day I walked in her office and said "Look, you have always turned me down and you've made it clear that you're attracted to me as I am to you, so I am going to ask you one last time and I will never ask again. I am leaving now, but you can give me your answer later today, k?" and walked out.

Later in the afternoon, she popped her head into my office and said one word and left. That word was "yes" *dance of joy*

It was an awesome evening of a laser light show to Pink Floyd, dinner and the rest of the evening at her place. 

Given the fact that she made it clear that she was attracted to me, do you feel I "pressured" her? Would like to hear your take on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

IMO, asking someone on a date is a much different thing than coercing someone into having sex, MR.

Sure you may have pressured her and I admit I don't understand what she was up to with the mixed signals....but again, it was asking her for a date and she did eventually say yes. I don't see this as a similar thing at all.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

I guess we should resort to legal contracts which are notarized.

No law to require consent is going to stop a person from assaulting another. We have plenty of laws that are broken every day. Bad people will be bad people.

Law or no law, people are at risk for being falsely accused. And those rightly accused will sometimes continue to go free. 

I think I will create a form to use. Then each person can check off all the acts they are willing to do and both parties sign. Then there can at least be some spontaneity. I wouldn't want "I am now going to put my *** in your *** do you consent?" And do you have to ask each time you change positions. I mean, WTH. So bizarre.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> IMO, asking someone on a date is a much different thing than coercing someone into having sex, MR.
> 
> Sure you may have pressured her and I admit I don't understand what she was up to with the mixed signals....but again, it was asking her for a date and she did eventually say yes. I don't see this as a similar thing at all.


I won't lie...I did want to have sex with her, and yes we did have sex on the first date, but I got you. I never did understand the mixed signals either. I never really asked her, but I have always thought that maybe she liked being "pursued", know what I mean?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

where_are_we said:


> I guess we should resort to legal contracts which are notarized.
> 
> No law to require consent is going to stop a person from assaulting another. We have plenty of laws that are broken every day. Bad people will be bad people.
> 
> ...


Yes, a lot of people feel this way.

Unfortunately, it is going to have to happen.

Too bad people can't just respect boundaries and not try to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with them.

These laws are going to happen whether we like it or not.

Part of the reason is because men were raping passed out drunk women and then used the excuse "well she didn't say no, so it wasn't rape".

We can thank those asshats for the need for these laws.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Is there an app for that?


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

MountainRunner said:


> Well, you I tend to agree with a lot of your assertions FW, but I'm going to ask you about a scenario where I asked a woman, several times over a month, on a date before she finally agreed to go out with me, and I'd like your take on whether I was simply an a$$ or was I reading her "correctly", k?
> 
> I worked at Wells Fargo in SF as a Systems Engineer and I worked closely with the VP of Customer Service (I was designing the networks in the service centers she oversaw). One on one meetings with her began to take on a "different" tone. She was 49 and I was 34 and a drop dead knockout. She began looking at me as I talked to her with these "eyes", so one day I asked her..."What's up?", to which she replied "You just look so yummy."
> 
> ...


I'm really not interested in people who play mixed signal games like that. After the first 'no' I'd have assumed she just liked flirting, or was trying to manipulate me for some reason. If she kept doing it after declining to date me, I'd make efforts to avoid her at the workplace. I'd certainly never ask her again - if she was that interested in a date with me, she'd have to come ask ME, and there better be an apology first or I still wouldn't want to have anything to do with her.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Is there an app for that?


Yes. There are several in development but I think this one is on the market and being used now.

http://protectequalsrespect.com/#!/pageHome


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

technovelist said:


> So is the man a rapist if he doesn't stop after noticing insufficient enthusiasm?



Just by asking this question demonstrates that you are kind of murky of what consent looks like. It's also concerning that you even have to ask about insufficient enthusiasm, because if your partner isn't demonstrating clear enthusiasm one of two possibilities are true.

1. She is a lousy lover and you should not proceed. Do not form attachments, momentarily or other wise, with people who suck at sex.
2. She is not into it and you should not proceed. Do not continue to press when you have a clear indication that your pressing is unwelcome.

Does it make you a rapist if you continue to proceed while she continues to clearly show she isn't into it?

Let me ask you this, how would you advise your daughter if she comes to you and says her date kept pushing and pushing and she didn't know what to do. She didn't want it but she didn't know how to stop it. She was afraid and she just kind of shut down. She hoped that he would notice and stop but he didn't. He didn't stop and she didn't tell him to stop. She just laid there and didn't do anything. Now she feels totally violated but also extreme shame and guilt because she didn't stop it. She's also hurt, because it hurt.

What do you tell your daughter?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> What do you tell your daughter?


Sadly, I think some parents would say "if you'd kept your legs together like a good girl you wouldn't be in this position".


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening where_are_we
Its a great story and a good example of how two reasonable people can give and accept consent mostly without words, but used words when necessary. As far as I'm concerned, you both acted correctly. 

Yes - you took a risk. That is your choice. You have to evaluate how good a judge of character you are. How you weigh the positives (what sounds like are wonderful memorable night) against the possible negatives. As long as you are honest with yourself about the risks, its great.

I like reasonable risks, and I like people who are willing to take risks. The "Venice trip" is a bit of a test. It sounds exotic and possibly risky - but isn't really any more so than any other date. 

I think we would have a wonderful time in Venice. I'd add a stop at one of those shops that sell the beautiful feathered masks. :smile2:

Not everyone should take risks - its a matter of personality. Its one of the many ways people can be compatible or incompatible with each other. 





where_are_we said:


> I would take you up on the Venice trip Richard, and I am not even a romantic. I do think there is a level of implied consent, but sometimes you just have to ask, even if it's not that sexy.
> 
> You wanted stories, so here is a real story from my past:
> 
> ...


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

badsanta said:


> The international maps in the background give it a subliminal sense that she is adventurous!


Are those maps even real?


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

gouge_away said:


> Are those maps even real?



Normally maps of that size would be sagging down a bit.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

gouge_away said:


> Are those maps even real?



Tell you what kid, you find a girl like that that can chug a 40oz when you go off to college, you do NOT mess around with her! You CALL ME RIGHT AWAY and I'll come driving up to campus faster than a bat out of hell! You understand!


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> Just by asking this question demonstrates that you are kind of murky of what consent looks like. It's also concerning that you even have to ask about insufficient enthusiasm, because if your partner isn't demonstrating clear enthusiasm one of two possibilities are true.


This entire thread is about consent. Yes, consent can be murky......and not just for the person who asked this very important question.

I really don't understand why all the responsibility is placed on one party...typically the man.

I agree if he notices lack of enthusiasm he may want to question if she is enjoying herself or wants to continue. But, I also believe if she is not into it, feels pressured, or is in pain, then it is her responsibility to open her mouth and say what is on her mind. And saying YES up front doesn't change any of this. What is she gives a verbal yes...then acts disinterested, but he doesn't question it.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

The whole idea of AC is just silly to me, especially with my style that I posted on 1st page. Hell if she doesn't even respond to my flirts/touches I'm not interested even if she did like me but just clueless/no game/not confident whatever, chemistry is important for me - BOTH ways... also plenty of opportunities for her to turn me down and she doesn't even need to say it, I can fking tell - it's bloody common sense! Hell sometimes all the responses are great, she could be so into me, yet at the last minute she resists, like women from religious backgrounds, that's cool with me too.

Hell with ex-wife we danced for a YEAR before we had sex! So WTF, I sure as hell ain't anything like those PUAs who push and push with total disregard of a woman's boundaries.

Yet to make it into a law where verbal consent is the only acceptable bloody form of consent it will also make it illegal for men like me to do anything either than pathetically going "Can I touch you there? can I have sex? can I flirt with you?" LIKE WTF?!?!?! Way to romance a lady *cough*! Pffft!


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> Yet to make it into a law where verbal consent is the only acceptable bloody form of consent it will also make it illegal for men like me to do anything either than pathetically going "Can I touch you there? can I have sex? can I flirt with you?" LIKE WTF?!?!?! Way to romance a lady *cough*! Pffft!


Exactly! And women "like me" would consider it pathetic. But each to his own I guess.

If people could read social cues this would not be an issue. RandomDude mentioned using his "instinct" and that right there along with speaking up when things are not going right is key!

You can't legislate stupid. My opinion only!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I wish everyone had good "instinct", but some claim that it is in their "instinct" to rape. So that's not really a good reliable indicator of someone's ability to know what is right and wrong.

Regardless though...at this time there is no AC law that affects anyone who is discussing this topic, and there is no obligation for you to use AC, either. At this time it is just considered good practice by sex positive advocates.

That doesn't mean you must do it. People are free to do what they want in this regard. 

I wish people would stop assuming that AC (as a sex positive ideal) is all about burdening the man, though. It isn't. It is also about getting women to know how to speak up and take responsibility for their sexuality (if they don't already know how to do that).

where_are_we...you clearly know how to get what you want. RD, you do, too. I actually do as well. But there are many who don't know that if you don't want this or that to be happening then it is on your shoulders to say it out loud. AC teaches women (and men) to do exactly that.

But again....since it does not apply to you, it is not something that is going to be forced upon you, and I totally believe you are both responsible for your own sex lives and having no issues with anything AC covers. The same is going to apply to many millions of people....most sex is had by consenting adults.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

where_are_we said:


> This entire thread is about consent. Yes, consent can be murky......and not just for the person who asked this very important question.
> 
> I really don't understand why all the responsibility is placed on one party...typically the man.
> 
> I agree if he notices lack of enthusiasm he may want to question if she is enjoying herself or wants to continue. But, I also believe if she is not into it, feels pressured, or is in pain, then it is her responsibility to open her mouth and say what is on her mind. And saying YES up front doesn't change any of this. What is she gives a verbal yes...then acts disinterested, but he doesn't question it.


The person most at risk has to be smart enough to weigh the risk and benefits. So yes, it is on one person but that's life. When in doubt, don't. If he wants to risk his future on 2 mins of pleasure then it's on him. He is not a victim, he is a fool. The notion that getting sex is vital, needed and not under personal control is dangerous and untrue. Most men know that and act ethically. Paradoxically though, as if in a parallel universe, they also feel that women control the ethic. 

If there is a universal truth, it is that we need to treat others as we want to be treated. That ethic was not formulated by women, it's part of the human condition. If men, in general terms, put themselves in the shoes of women and walked around, there would be no wiggle room. Or they can think of their daughters in vulnerable situations or their wives experiences before marriage or their mothers and grandmothers. How would they want them to be treated? 

To quibble about the nuances of consent is, to me, revealing. It's a search for a rationalizations for hurting someone if its beneficial to oneself. There is no other body part, except the vj, that the possessor has to actively defend and declare control over. 

The same attitude can easily be employed with body parts that both men and women have. Who knows, maybe in the future, the powerful will covet the organs of the masses - we have a surplus kidney, 2 liver lobes, 20 feet of intestines and one lung we can live without. Why deny them to those who have a vital need. 

To both men and women. If it's not yours and its not freely shared by someone you know and can trust then leave it alone. Problem solved.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> Just by asking this question demonstrates that you are kind of murky of what consent looks like. It's also concerning that you even have to ask about insufficient enthusiasm, because if your partner isn't demonstrating clear enthusiasm one of two possibilities are true.
> 
> 1. She is a lousy lover and you should not proceed. Do not form attachments, momentarily or other wise, with people who suck at sex.
> 2. She is not into it and you should not proceed. Do not continue to press when you have a clear indication that your pressing is unwelcome.
> ...


To say "stop", then if that doesn't work, to shout "stop!" at the top of her lungs.

This isn't rocket science.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

where_are_we said:


> This entire thread is about consent. Yes, consent can be murky......and not just for the person who asked this very important question.
> 
> *I really don't understand why all the responsibility is placed on one party...typically the man.*
> 
> I agree if he notices lack of enthusiasm he may want to question if she is enjoying herself or wants to continue. But, I also believe if she is not into it, feels pressured, or is in pain, then it is her responsibility to open her mouth and say what is on her mind. And saying YES up front doesn't change any of this. What is she gives a verbal yes...then acts disinterested, but he doesn't question it.


*That* is because some people want women to have all the rights, and none of the responsibilities, in any sexual situation involving a man and a woman.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Some more thoughts: I think most people really do know if their partners are consenting or not. Some may not act correctly based on that knowledge, but I think most know. There are a few people though who are extremely bad at picking up non-verbal communication and that can lead to problems. Alcohol and hormone addled brains and wishful thinking can make observing consent more difficult. 

I think everyone should try to be aware of whether or not their partner is consenting AND I think everyone should try to make their consent clear. Absent some threat, if someone is doing something you don't want, tell them very clearly.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Maybe this is part of the issue. For some people it is not 2 minutes of pleasure, but a vital part of a romantic connection with another person.

BTW 2 minutes 




Catherine602 said:


> snip
> If he wants to risk his future on 2 mins of pleasure then it's on him. He is not a victim, he is a fool.
> snip
> .


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
This thread has me thinking about sex and risk. I think men ARE taking a risk whenever they have sex with someone they don't know very well. I think women are taking a risk when they let themselves be alone with a man they don't know very well. 

But - life involves risk. Different people have different risk tolerance - but I think these risks should be viewed like any other. 

I take a variety of physical risks in my life (flying airplanes, traveling to exotic places, mountaineering, etc). I am married so I don't have any risk with sex - but if I were not, I think I would enjoy myself dating women, and accept the risk of false accusation as just another one of life's risks.


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> ….I think I would enjoy myself dating women, and accept the risk of false accusation as just another one of life's risks.


uh huh, cuz a false rape accusation is like a big pimple on your forehead which goes away after a few days! 

Read up on how false rape accusations can ruin a man's life, and then lets see how cavalier you are.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

False rape accusations are despicable, personally I feel they are just as despicable as the rapists themselves.


----------



## doobie (Apr 15, 2014)

Jeez RichardSharpe - totally acceptable scenario - I'm in


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I wish everyone had good "instinct", but some claim that it is in their "instinct" to rape. So that's not really a good reliable indicator of someone's ability to know what is right and wrong..


This is my point exactly. Criminals will not stop their bad behavior because a law is enacted.

As for the uncertainty of consent, non-criminals can prevent a sexual encounter from becoming rape by educating themselves.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

OnTheFly said:


> uh huh, cuz a false rape accusation is like a big pimple on your forehead which goes away after a few days!
> 
> Read up on how false rape accusations can ruin a man's life, and then lets see how cavalier you are.


I think I get what Richard is trying to say here. We take risks every day and you have to decide which risks you are willing to take.

You take a risk every time you get in a car. You could be killed or kill someone else, yet most of us don't stop driving because of it.

You take a risk walking across the street, there is no guarantee every car will see you. You could get hit. 

You take a risk going into the bank, what if it is robbed?

The plane? Enough said.

I'd like to think that MOST people are good. That they will speak up when necessary to state their boundaries. That they will respect boundaries. That they will not falsely accuse. However, like all the things I listed above there is no guarantee.

Each person can choose how they want to live and what risks they are willing to take.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> This thread has me thinking about sex and risk. I think men ARE taking a risk whenever they have sex with someone they don't know very well. I think women are taking a risk when they let themselves be alone with a man they don't know very well.
> 
> But - life involves risk. Different people have different risk tolerance - but I think these risks should be viewed like any other.
> ...


No, *this* is incorrect, even in current law. If your wife called 911 and said "I'm scared of my husband", people with guns would come to take you away to jail without any evidence of any misbehavior other than her statement.

However, with current law you would probably be able to get out fairly quickly in that case. 

On the other hand, if there were AC laws, you would have to prove your innocence, which is basically impossible unless you were videotaping all interactions with your wife.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

where_are_we said:


> As for the uncertainty of consent, non-criminals can prevent a sexual encounter from becoming rape by educating themselves.


Yes, educating themselves about the need for affirmative consent.

It really doesn't matter what we think about it. This change is coming and is adopted already in sex positive circles and spreading by other sex educators. Knowing how to communicate about sexual desire is something everyone needs and thankfully, young people now have a good model for that.

In the kink community, it has already been the standard for years.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

For every one false allegation, there are 80 rapes, sexual assaults and child molestation. One man's ruined life by a false allegation Vs. 100's of lives of men woman and children who are directly or indirectly impacted by sex crimes. One man's life is not more important than 100's of lives of both men and women however it is as important.. There is a way of balancing out this injustice.

Men are welcomed to join the world of sexual risk aversion. However it requires a frame shift. You have to buy into a greater sense of personal responsibility and self-protection in reference to sex. Any woman or child can teach them what they need to do to avoid false allegations. We know because we live a risk aversive existence. Children are responsible for avoiding pedophiles and women are responsible for avoiding situations where their genitals are unguarded. Men need to take responsibility to protect themselves against false allegations. 

Decrease the risk of false allegations by not having sex with a woman you don't know, when you are drinking, when the women is drinking or drunk, with reluctant women, any women who cannot give consent, in the presence of a group of males who are recording the encounter, with a women you dislike and are disrespecting. That's not an exhaustive list but its a start but they greatly decrease the risk. 

Men and women should keep in mind that they do not need to risk their psychological wellbeing or future life to have orgasm. If there is a possibility of a bad outcome - false allegation, rape or assault, get out.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

technovelist said:


> This isn't rocket science.




LOL, neither is affirmative consent.



I asked what you would tell your daughter after this happened to her.


So after you daughter informs you that this happened to her, you would respond by telling her she should have said no?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> LOL, neither is affirmative consent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes.
And I would also consider myself a failure as a parent for not having made sure she understood that.
Not that I would ever have made such a mistake...


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> For every one false allegation, there are 80 rapes, sexual assaults and child molestation. One man's ruined life by a false allegation Vs. 100's of lives of men woman and children who are directly or indirectly impacted by sex crimes. One man's life is not more important than 100's of lives of both men and women however it is as important.. There is a way of balancing out this injustice.
> 
> Men are welcomed to join the world of sexual risk aversion. However it requires a frame shift. You have to buy into a greater sense of personal responsibility and self-protection in reference to sex. Any woman or child can teach them what they need to do to avoid false allegations. We know because we live a risk aversive existence. Children are responsible for avoiding pedophiles and women are responsible for avoiding situations where their genitals are unguarded. Men need to take responsibility to protect themselves against false allegations.
> 
> Decrease the risk of false allegations by not having sex with a woman.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

technovelist said:


> Yes.
> And I would also consider myself a failure as a parent for not having made sure she understood that.
> Not that I would ever have made such a mistake...


Hell yes.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> *That* is because some people want women to have all the rights, and none of the responsibilities, in any sexual situation involving a man and a woman.


tech...I understand now why you are so uptight about this stuff. I would be too if I thought that men hated women, wanted all the power, and that there was no way to bridge the gap between the battle of the sexes.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Some other thoughts about AC...

Once upon a time, we could hook up with a stranger and stay blissfully ignorant of the dangers of STI's. We knew about pregnancy, and we did our limited best to not get knocked up just because we wanted to knock boots. Still, men rarely wore condoms, and women were typically responsible for their own birth control.

These days, if you are going to sleep with someone without a condom, and further, without asking them if they have any STI's and when the last time they were checked was, then I can see why AC wouldn't matter to you either. If you really feel you can trust this person (again, assuming you barely know them, a new person you are seeing or a hook up) and not even ask them anything about their sexual history, then sure, go for it without the merest bit of conversation. I do agree that can happen and it does. However, when I have been single there was no way sex happened without discussions about all of these things. If not prompted by him then easily prompted by me. I need to take care of my own health, and studies show that people with STI's will not always disclose it, but are more likely to if asked.

And if you think that you can pick someone so precisely that they couldn't possibly have an STI so you don't even need to have the conversation, again I can only say...wow, I hope you get lucky. Sometimes it does happen, sure. I would never risk this.

So along with discussions about birth control and STI's, it is simple to also discuss AC. Sometimes you don't even have to because in discussing being safe with each other's bodies, you are talking about your consent. In my case, I want to get more specific and find out what a person's tastes are...sometimes this will reveal something that is an automatic red flag or just a turn off. Most times, if you've gotten that far to the point where you are discussing wearing a condom and finding out which one of you has one, probably would have an idea if this person has some weird thing about them that turned you off. But asking doesn't hurt, and in my experience, has always helped.

I've found that when discussing sex upfront, including intention and safety issues, I learn a lot about a person's insides, before ever bumping with their outsides. I also always found my potential lovers in these discussions to be open and forthcoming, and delighted to be discussing how we might work out our chemistry. They liked being offered a platform to talk first and set some reasonable expectations. This was never, ever unsexy....and was almost 100% very sexy and fun.

I'm like "Oh yeah? You're into that, huh? Tell me more."


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

technovelist said:


> Fixed it for you.


I'm interested in knowing what is it about this subject that makes you so angry? My suggestions are reasonable and I took some time to write up a proposal. Your FIFY was dismissive. What is that about? My question is rhetorical - you need to answer it yourself. It's so common that I wonder where it comes from. Why would a call to self-protection, and caution provoke resistance and anger??? Rape victims are asked why they didn't use more caution and self-protection. I could ask the same of a man who is falsely accused, no? 

Maybe the man got what he deserved for putting himself in a dicey situation? I've heard that one thrown at women who are raped and assaulted. If this makes you angry, I understand. It makes me angry when any victim is blamed. A man or woman can do all of the right things and still be assulted or falsely accused. That's because our current system favors predators. 

The overwhelming majority of sex crimes are not reported, the perps risk of being charged is low and the consequences are trivial in many cases. If the burden of proof was robust, the consequences severe and the risk of being prosecuted were high, sexual assault and false allegation would decrease exponentially. 

BTW my suggestions are gender neutral. You could equally have said that women should not have sex with men.

But that may be part of the problem - many women do stop having sex with men. They stop at the strangest time, when they are married to a man who loves them. Some of these women have been assaulted, coerced, or made to feel that they can't say no. The effect is frequently latent. It seems to me that a good gender nuetral policy on sex crimes and false allegations will help men as well as women.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

It seems to me that the problem is a lack of agreement on the term rape. To be a rape victim you must have been raped. Rape is defined in law. I've been on the planet >50 years and never felt the need to actually read the law since I've never engaged in any activity I felt was even within 20 miles of crossing a line. But, for the sake of argument. In my state rape is defined as:

"First Degree – engaging in sexual intercourse with another without his or her consent by force, using weapons, strangling or inflicting serious physical injury, threatening with death, serious injury, or kidnapping, or committed with another’s help or during a burglary

Second Degree – engaging in vaginal intercourse with another 1) without his or her consent by force or threat, 2) with a mentally or physically incapacitated person (includes drunk, high, or unconscious) when the defendant knows of his or her condition, or 3) the victim is under 14 years old and the defendant is at least 4 years older than the victim."

Clearly first degree does not apply in any of these discussions right? If violence is combined with sex and no consent, it is rape. 

Second degree hinges on 'or threat' for case #1 and physical incapacitation in case #2

What is being discussed here at most fall under sexual offense, fourth degree:

Fourth Degree – any of the following: Engaging in sexual contact without the other’s consent Engaging in a sexual act or vaginal sex with a 14 or 15 year old when the defendant is at least 4 years older Engaging in a sexual act, sexual contact, or vaginal sex with a child under 18 who at the time of the sexual activity was a student enrolled in a school where the person was in a position of authority (i.e. a principal, coach, teacher, or counselor who’s at least 21 years old, employed by the school, and was in a supervisory position over the student)

That is a misdemeanor punished by not more than a year in jail and not more than a thousand dollar fine.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> tech...I understand now why you are so uptight about this stuff. I would be too if I thought that men hated women, wanted all the power, and that there was no way to bridge the gap between the battle of the sexes.


*Some* women hate men. It is fairly easy to avoid them in relationships, although not so easy to avoid them in the workplace.

However, there are other women who don't hate men, but still want all the power.

As long as women have legal power over men in the area of sex, it is very hazardous for a man to have sex with a woman, and the proposed AC laws make this even worse.

And this is very bad for women who don't even WANT that power, because they can't disclaim it legally. Thus, it is still hanging over the head of the man like the Sword of Damocles, which is a big obstacle to overcome in intimate relationships.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> I'm interested in knowing what is it about this subject that makes you so angry? My suggestions are reasonable and I took some time to write up a proposal. Your FIFY was dismissive. What is that about?


Legally, a man puts himself in extreme peril when he has any sexual contact with a woman, even under the current laws in the USA. The proposed AC laws would make that much worse, as they make it essentially impossible for him to be acquitted if accused.

That's why I fixed it for you.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good eveing
I said acceptable risk, not small. If I make a mistake flying an ILS in my airplane, I and my passengers will die - but I still fly planes. A good friend of mine fell in the mountains, shattered his leg and will never walk correctly again - but I still go mountaineering. Travelers are sometimes abducted and held for years for ransom or political gain, but I still travel.

I've watched family die of cancer, Alzheimers, strokes etc. That is not a motivation to live life safely. I don't see why taking risks for sex is different from taking any other risks. 





OnTheFly said:


> uh huh, cuz a false rape accusation is like a big pimple on your forehead which goes away after a few days!
> 
> Read up on how false rape accusations can ruin a man's life, and then lets see how cavalier you are.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Too bad I'm married :smile2:

this is my favorite hotel in Venice....
Hotel Al Ponte Antico Venice hotels | Official Site | 4 star hotel Venice Italy





doobie said:


> Jeez RichardSharpe - totally acceptable scenario - I'm in


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> *Some* women hate men. It is fairly easy to avoid them in relationships, although not so easy to avoid them in the workplace.
> 
> However, there are other women who don't hate men, but still want all the power.
> 
> ...


Some people hate everyone. Some are racists, sexist, classist, homophobes and can't stand anyone, want all the power, are violent, and all kinds of other human drama.

I don't associate with people like this in real life, and it does not affect me or my attitude about the world and about other people. I like people and I don't fear those who hate me or hate everyone.

Are you surrounded with women who hate men and want all the power? Why are you so focused on them?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I really don't see how AC changes things legally. A rapist or a false accuser can just slightly change their lie. In what specific scenario would it make a difference either way? (assuming that we are considering a case where one or the other is lying). 

Video cameras are the only way to know what happened - and even then you can't know what happened before the sexual interaction (threats etc). Of course the western world is moving toward universal surveillance, so this won't be a problem for long (we will have other problems!)


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

I think existing laws cover things just fine. We don't need more stupid laws. As people have mentioned, a rapist readily ignores a screamed "no!"--what about "no!" Is so difficult to comprehend? "No!" Seems pretty clear to me. Crystal clear.

Are there really so many men that do not understand "no"?? Those convicted of rape should *swing*. 

As for sexual etiquette, why would any man even bother with a "starfish" or some confused woman that "shuts down"? Why the desire to spend a moment with a lousy lover, or someone that is for whatever reason apprehensive? If the woman isn't stripping down, or growling in your ear as you tease her to death, just get up and get dressed, and leave. Move on. Move on to some hot woman that's eager to wear you out nine ways to Sunday.

Hungry, eager women are fully capable of showing "consent". No stupid legal forms necessary. I can think of dozens of expressions of consent all along the way, prior to "penetration". Besides the obvious of her directly mounting up. Lol. Why would anyone want to proceed further if you *arent* getting all the "yes!": "give it to me": "do it!": "fvvck me!": and on and on.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

technovelist said:


> Legally, a man puts himself in extreme peril when he has any sexual contact with a woman, even under the current laws in the USA. The proposed AC laws would make that much worse, as they make it essentially impossible for him to be acquitted if accused.
> 
> That's why I fixed it for you.


Would you be happy if, in your encounters with women, you had to get to know her and then make a mutual, honest and clear decision about what you want from each other? Is there any reason to believe that you will not find a woman who wants the same thing you want? 

Totally give up the notion that women need to be gamed to get at their sex parts and supplant it with the notion that women are whole being who you can share sex under a variety of circumstances. The fact that women think and feel is not an obstacle to getting sex, it's an asset. One that many men want to tap into, eventually but often don't know how.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> I think existing laws cover things just fine. We don't need more stupid laws. As people have mentioned, a rapist readily ignores a screamed "no!"--what about "no!" Is so difficult to comprehend? "No!" Seems pretty clear to me. Crystal clear.
> 
> ...


That is excellent advice... for men who don't need advice, i.e., alphas.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I really don't see how AC changes things legally. A rapist or a false accuser can just slightly change their lie. In what specific scenario would it make a difference either way? (assuming that we are considering a case where one or the other is lying).
> 
> Video cameras are the only way to know what happened - and even then you can't know what happened before the sexual interaction (threats etc). Of course the western world is moving toward universal surveillance, so this won't be a problem for long (we will have other problems!)


AC does change things immensely, because all that the accuser has to say is "I changed my mind but forgot to mention it", and the accused is guilty. With current law, that would not be sufficient to get a conviction.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Some people hate everyone. Some are racists, sexist, classist, homophobes and can't stand anyone, want all the power, are violent, and all kinds of other human drama.
> 
> I don't associate with people like this in real life, and it does not affect me or my attitude about the world and about other people. I like people and I don't fear those who hate me or hate everyone.
> 
> Are you surrounded with women who hate men and want all the power? Why are you so focused on them?


Any person, man or woman, who wants men to have the burden of proving that they didn't push past resistance, with a criminal conviction if they fail to meet that standard, is a threat to all men, even if a lot of men don't understand that yet.

If AC becomes law, they will eventually figure that out.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> Would you be happy if, in your encounters with women, you had to get to know her and then make a mutual, honest and clear decision about what you want from each other? Is there any reason to believe that you will not find a woman who wants the same thing you want?
> 
> Totally give up the notion that women need to be gamed to get at their sex parts and supplant it with the notion that women are whole being who you can share sex under a variety of circumstances. The fact that women think and feel is not an obstacle to getting sex, it's an asset. One that many men want to tap into, eventually but often don't know how.


I would be happy if a claim of sexual assault had to be proven, like every other claim of assault.

Changing the rules so that the accused has to prove his innocence is a threat to every man, since he can never know with certainty that the woman will not accuse him later.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
are you suggesting that only "alphas" can tell if women are actively enthusiastic about sex? Maybe that wasn't your intent.




technovelist said:


> That is excellent advice... for men who don't need advice, i.e., alphas.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
If the accuser wants to press a false rape charge, all they have to say now is "I said "no" and he didn't stop". Or even "he pulled a knife and threatened me". 

Someone who is willing to put a man in prison because she changed her mind is presumably willing to lie to put him in prison. 

There is no magical spell that keeps people (accuser or accused) from lying if they want to. 

I don't think AC makes any difference .






technovelist said:


> AC does change things immensely, because all that the accuser has to say is "I changed my mind but forgot to mention it", and the accused is guilty. With current law, that would not be sufficient to get a conviction.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Any person, man or woman, who wants men to have the burden of proving that they didn't push past resistance, with a criminal conviction if they fail to meet that standard, *is a threat to all men*, even if a lot of men don't understand that yet.
> 
> If AC becomes law, they will eventually figure that out.


How could anyone have sex with ALL men? :scratchhead:

Ok just kidding.

However, I literally don't know anyone who wants men to have the burden of proving they didn't push past resistance...so I am not sure where you are seeing all these boogey-women who believe such a thing.

I understand you feel sure they exist. I'm just wondering where they are and who they are. Maybe you just know a whole lot of horrid people?


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

technovelist said:


> That is excellent advice... for men who don't need advice, i.e., alphas.



Greetings!

Hey Tech! Good to see you. So, what kind of responses do women give to "beta" males? I've never been with a woman that wasn't hot and eager. Well, after we get the clothes off, I mean. I've had dates that there wasn't any chemistry. I just ended the date politely and moved on. But the dates with chemistry? Right on track, brother! No hesitation or problems at all. When there is chemistry, yeah I'm seducing them, but they know it, and they eagerly let me know that they know *exactly* where this is going, you know?

What does a date with a "beta" male look like? Is there no obvious sensuality and lust that the woman is obviously showing them, and eagerly goading the man to do more, more, more?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> are you suggesting that only "alphas" can tell if women are actively enthusiastic about sex? Maybe that wasn't your intent.


No, I was suggesting that alphas are the ones who don't have to worry about whether women are actively enthusiastic about sex. 

That's because alphas could be defined as men with whom women are actively enthusiastic about sex.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> If the accuser wants to press a false rape charge, all they have to say now is "I said "no" and he didn't stop". Or even "he pulled a knife and threatened me".
> 
> Someone who is willing to put a man in prison because she changed her mind is presumably willing to lie to put him in prison.
> ...


Right, people can lie in either case. 

The difference is that without AC, the accuser has to prove that rape occurred. With AC, the accused has to prove that it didn't.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> How could anyone have sex with ALL men? :scratchhead:
> 
> Ok just kidding.
> 
> ...


That is the purpose of AC rules (perhaps laws, in the future): to make men prove that they didn't push past resistance.

So anyone who is in favor of AC is in that category.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't think that is the common definition. Usually "alpha" refers to a set of behavioral traits. It may be that many women are attracted to those traits, but I don't think "alpha" is defined by that attraction. 



technovelist said:


> snip
> That's because alphas could be defined as men with whom women are actively enthusiastic about sex.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
That is a fair question. Do any proposed AC laws shift the burden of proof to the defendant in a criminal case? Can anyone find a reference to an actual law or proposed law that does that? If so, I can't imagine it withstanding a US supreme court challenge. 






technovelist said:


> Right, people can lie in either case.
> 
> The difference is that without AC, the accuser has to prove that rape occurred. With AC, the accused has to prove that it didn't.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Hey Tech! Good to see you. So, what kind of responses do women give to "beta" males? I've never been with a woman that wasn't hot and eager. Well, after we get the clothes off, I mean. I've had dates that there wasn't any chemistry. I just ended the date politely and moved on. But the dates with chemistry? Right on track, brother! No hesitation or problems at all. When there is chemistry, yeah I'm seducing them, but they know it, and they eagerly let me know that they know *exactly* where this is going, you know?
> 
> ...


Right. The beta male has to try to get the woman interested, and she generally isn't that interested, at least at first. 

Due to responsive desire, women sometimes get hot and bothered after making out for a while, even with a beta male, as long as he isn't too "creepy" (i.e., unattractive). But it does take some time, and in the meantime she is likely to be slowing things down. Thus, if such a male stopped when he encountered resistance, he would never get anywhere.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> That is a fair question. Do any proposed AC laws shift the burden of proof to the defendant in a criminal case? Can anyone find a reference to an actual law or proposed law that does that? If so, I can't imagine it withstanding a US supreme court challenge.


I don't believe any bills have been introduced to make it a criminal offense, so obviously it's not possible to analyze them. However, the civil rules in California universities clearly put the burden on the accused to prove his innocence, which is obviously going to be impossible in most cases.

As for what the Supreme Court would do, that is anyone's guess. They certainly have no problems finding Constitutional rights that no one had ever suspected existed before, so perhaps a "right not to be seduced" would show up out of nowhere...


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I don't think that is the common definition. Usually "alpha" refers to a set of behavioral traits. It may be that many women are attracted to those traits, but I don't think "alpha" is defined by that attraction.


Obviously there can be many definitions of alpha, depending on the area of relevance.

My working definition for purposes of sexual discussion is: "Alphas are men whom many women want to have sex with."


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> I don't believe any bills have been introduced to make it a criminal offense, so obviously it's not possible to analyze them. However, the civil rules in California universities clearly put the burden on the accused to prove his innocence, which is obviously going to be impossible in most cases.


No. The accused does not have to prove innocence. What it says is that the preponderance of evidence needs to show he accused took reasonable steps to ensure consent.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Due to responsive desire, women sometimes get hot and bothered after making out for a while, even with a beta male, as long as he isn't too "creepy" (i.e., unattractive). But it does take some time, and in the meantime she is likely to be slowing things down. Thus, if such a male stopped when he encountered resistance, he would never get anywhere.


This is beyond creepy, this idea you have that betas have no choice but to push past resistance, and that they are justified in doing so to get their ration of sex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Hey Tech! Good to see you. So, what kind of responses do women give to "beta" males? I've never been with a woman that wasn't hot and eager. Well, after we get the clothes off, I mean. I've had dates that there wasn't any chemistry. I just ended the date politely and moved on. But the dates with chemistry? Right on track, brother! No hesitation or problems at all. When there is chemistry, yeah I'm seducing them, but they know it, and they eagerly let me know that they know *exactly* where this is going, you know?


This is funny to me, how you assume the seduction is all on your side, and they are just passively "eager". I bet if you asked them, they would say that they had seduced you, and you were "eager".


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> That is the purpose of AC rules (perhaps laws, in the future): to make men prove that they didn't push past resistance.
> 
> So anyone who is in favor of AC is in that category.


Can you do us a favor and stop claiming to know what others think, unless they say it themselves?

I am in favor of AC and have no thoughts about "making men prove that they didn't push past resistance".


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I completely agree.
the only saving grace is that I think Technovolist is using his own definition that :

alpha == a man all women want to have sex with
beta == a man no woman wants to have sex with.

Since neither of these exist, maybe we shouldn't worry about how such hypothetical men would behave. 

FWIW, I know a number of beta-like guys who are very attractive to women. Most are happily married to happy wives. 






always_alone said:


> This is beyond creepy, this idea you have that betas have no choice but to push past resistance, and that they are justified in doing so to get their ration of sex.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I completely agree.
> the only saving grace is that I think Technovolist is using his own definition that :
> 
> ...


Actually, I specifically stated that an alpha is a man that *MANY* women want to have sex with. There is no man that all women want to have sex with.

Betas are all other men.

Hope that helps.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> No. The accused does not have to prove innocence. What it says is that the preponderance of evidence needs to show he accused took reasonable steps to ensure consent.


Right, so you agree that he has the burden of proving his innocence.

Perhaps you don't know that this is completely contrary to all other criminal law, where the accused doesn't have to prove *anything*. If the state doesn't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused goes free.

So this would be a gigantic change, not a tiny one.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Can you do us a favor and stop claiming to know what others think, unless they say it themselves?
> 
> I am in favor of AC and have no thoughts about "making men prove that they didn't push past resistance".


Then you should explain to always_alone why her statement is wrong that men have to show that they didn't push past resistance.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Then you should explain to always_alone why her statement is wrong that men have to show that they didn't push past resistance.


tech...I'm not like you. I don't tell other people what they think. I listen to them and believe what they say about what they think and don't then impose what I believe they think upon them. I don't feel I have everyone "understood" well enough to possibly make assumptions about what they think. It is absurd that you keep doing this, actually.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I am in favor of AC and have no thoughts about "making men prove that they didn't push past resistance".


Perhaps you should. 

This isn't your area of interest concerning AC, but if you don't consider the implications of what this position will imply when it gets enacted into law, and that's not hypothetical since it is actively under consideration RFN, you'll never understand why some of us are aghast at what we hear.

Germany voted for the Enabling Act in 1933. Too bad they didn't pay attention to the manifesto of the guy to whom they were giving nearly absolute power.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Perhaps you should.
> 
> This isn't your area of interest concerning AC, but if you don't consider the implications of what this position will imply when it gets enacted into law, and that's not hypothetical since it is actively under consideration RFN, you'll never understand why some of us are aghast at what we hear.
> 
> Germany voted for the Enabling Act in 1933. Too bad they didn't pay attention to the manifesto of the guy to whom they were giving nearly absolute power.


Wow, you did it. You found a way to compare to Hitler. I'm impressed!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Perhaps you should.


Honestly, how is this even fair?

I'm not trying to tell you how to think. I'm not going to bother quoting the reasons why I am for AC and what it would accomplish to you in order to "make you see the light". 

People are perfectly within their rights to have different opinions or even not think of something at all. There are a lot of injustices in the world...we don't all focus on the same ones.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Right, so you agree that he has the burden of proving his innocence.


No, I didn't agree to this at all. The accused is still innocent until proven guilty, and doesn't have to prove that innocence. What the change amounts to is that there has to be at least some evidence that the accused had reason to believe the activity was consensual.

Given that rape and sexual assault have *always* involved issues of consent, this is nothing new. Even in criminal law, the accused may be required to supply DNA evidence or tell their side of the story to challenge the charges.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> No, I didn't agree to this at all. The accused is still innocent until proven guilty, and doesn't have to prove that innocence. What the change amounts to is that there has to be at least some evidence that the accused had reason to believe the activity was consensual.
> 
> Given that rape and sexual assault have *always* involved issues of consent, this is nothing new. *Even in criminal law, the accused may be required to supply DNA evidence or tell their side of the story to challenge the charges.*


Sorry, but you are completely wrong about *this.* The accused doesn't have to do anything, including testifying; that's what the Fifth Amendment is for. The state has to prove their case without forcing the defendant to testify.

Of course the jury may assume that he must be guilty if he doesn't testify, but he cannot be compelled to testify, and legally that does not mean that he is guilty.

That's why AC laws would be so horrible: they would overturn this age-old rule that our forefathers fought for.

Of course many people don't understand this, but it is true nonetheless.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> tech...I'm not like you. I don't tell other people what they think. I listen to them and believe what they say about what they think and don't then impose what I believe they think upon them. I don't feel I have everyone "understood" well enough to possibly make assumptions about what they think. It is absurd that you keep doing this, actually.


I didn't make any assumption about what she thinks. She stated what she thinks, which is that it is a good idea, under AC, for men to have to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove their guilt.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

technovelist said:


> I didn't make any assumption about what she thinks. She stated what she thinks, which is that it is a good idea, under AC, for men to have to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove their guilt.
> 
> Hope that helps.


You already made the blanket statement that anyone who is for AC is trying to make men prove they didn't push past resistance. You clearly believe you know what others think by making that statement.

I wish you could simply realize that you cannot possibly know what others think unless they tell you. Further I wish when they did tell you what they think and it doesn't match your pre-conceived notion, you would accept them at their word for what they think. However, you don't do that, you just go round and round with them, TELLING them what they think.

It is so bizarre to me.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
As the OP for this thread, could I suggest that we move it back towards the original topic which is specific situations. 

There is a lot of discussion of AC and similar topics in general terms, and that doesn't get very far: people create straw-man arguments about what *other* people might do. We even got to a Godwin's law fail. If we can stick to specific scenarios that a real person (poster here) might really do, I think it makes the conversation for focused. 

We've already had a lot of threads of the other type.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Richard, your first post on the thread was confusing, as related to the title. Perhaps you could give us an example of scenarios a real person might do. Your first post scenario was very murky to me WRT to AC or "pushing".


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Honestly, how is this even fair?
> 
> I'm not trying to tell you how to think. I'm not going to bother quoting the reasons why I am for AC and what it would accomplish to you in order to "make you see the light".


It's no less fair than working to achieve AC for the ends you _do_ care about. It's a multi-faceted problem. When you tell a group that you don't care about their concerns, you dismiss them, especially (and this is the important point) when you are advocating a change that might impact upon those concerns, and still don't care. "I don't agree with your assessment" is a whole different ballgame that "I neither think nor care about it". 

If you don't care about dolphins, no one will much notice until you start advocating for change that will affect dolphins. Then dolphin lovers have a right to your attention. 

I'm not trying to tell you what to think, but I can perhaps be accused of trying to persuade you what to think about. We're just different sides of the pot, kettle. You're advocating for AC for good reasons, even if I'm not convinced that you'll achieve your goals. My concerns lie in the unintended consequences.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
In my first post, just as an example, I set up a realistic "fantasy" scenario with several features (by realistic, I mean I might actually do this if dating - I've done a simliar trip with my wife).

There is consent, but it is not verbal.

There is an imbalance in power - one person is taking another on a long expensive vacation to a (possibly) distant country.

It is a situation where there could easily be unspoken assumptions of an agreement to have sex. The woman might feel "pressured" even if there were no threats of any sort. 

It seemed "dangerous" traveling a long way with a stranger - but in reality was no more or less risky than a weekend trip a short distance away.


I'd rather not create a scenario that someone else might do - my thought was to get people to describe things that they themselves might actually do that had interesting implications for consent. 

I can give other examples for myself, but I don't think they would in the end be all that different from what I posted. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Richard, your first post on the thread was confusing, as related to the title. Perhaps you could give us an example of scenarios a real person might do. Your first post scenario was very murky to me WRT to AC or "pushing".


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Wow, you did it. You found a way to compare to Hitler. I'm impressed!


Thanks. And I wasn't even trying very hard.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

technovelist said:


> Due to responsive desire, women sometimes get hot and bothered after making out for a while, even with a beta male, as long as he isn't too "creepy" (i.e., unattractive). But it does take some time, and in the meantime she is likely to be slowing things down. Thus, if such a male stopped when he encountered resistance, he would never get anywhere with that woman.


FIFY

At this point he walks away to find someone who is sufficiently interested in him to sustain a feeling of excitement. It's like a man losing his erection in the middle of a sexual encounter. Something may have happened to turn him off. The woman cannot overcome his resistance because he lost his outie that fits into her innie. 

Of course she can grab his junk and try to work it back up but that would be illegal, right. He said no with his body and mind, he does not even need to say anything. It just ain't happenin'. 

There is no shortage of women and I see no reason why there would not be plenty who find you very sexually attractive. Why can't you see that??


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

technovelist said:


> Right. The beta male has to try to get the woman interested, and she generally isn't that interested, at least at first.
> 
> Due to responsive desire, women sometimes get hot and bothered after making out for a while, even with a beta male, as long as he isn't too "creepy" (i.e., unattractive). But it does take some time, and in the meantime she is likely to be slowing things down. Thus, if such a male stopped when he encountered resistance, he would never get anywhere.


Greetings!

Tech, do "beta" males not understand the sex signals that women provide? You know, when women are interested, they stare at you intensely; they giggle; they touch their hair; lick their lips; they "invade" your space; touching you more and more; they let you touch them more and more; kissing, of course; they lower their voices, start whispering in your ear more; besides the overtly sexual touches; the sexual inuendo that increases; then the overt expressions of sexual desire; and so on.

After going through all that, once in the hotel room--or apartment, house, whatever, the clothes just fall off, and you get busy devouring each other. Where do "beta" males get the disconnect? 

Early on in the process, I can tell the woman is hungry merely by the look in her eyes. Her eyes, long before she explicitly expresses something particular, tells me with her eyes to proceed, and hints to me where the night is going, before even a kiss, or certainly soon after kissing, the signals start coming on fast.

Do "beta" males not know how to read these signals that eager women provide?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> It's no less fair than working to achieve AC for the ends you _do_ care about. It's a multi-faceted problem. When you tell a group that you don't care about their concerns, you dismiss them, especially (and this is the important point) when you are advocating a change that might impact upon those concerns, and still don't care. "I don't agree with your assessment" is a whole different ballgame that "I neither think nor care about it".
> 
> If you don't care about dolphins, no one will much notice until you start advocating for change that will affect dolphins. Then dolphin lovers have a right to your attention.
> 
> I'm not trying to tell you what to think, but I can perhaps be accused of trying to persuade you what to think about. We're just different sides of the pot, kettle. You're advocating for AC for good reasons, even if I'm not convinced that you'll achieve your goals. My concerns lie in the unintended consequences.


This is all just your opinion.

If you or anyone here were to tell me they "neither think nor care about" *my* thoughts or *my* position on the AC issue, I'd have no problem with that. I'm quite aware that many don't, and many never will. (Many have never even heard of it).

I have obviously also tried to persuade you what to think about...but the fact that you may or may not be persuaded doesn't matter to me, it doesn't make me think less of you, and it doesn't make me want to try harder to persuade you.

You clearly don't know what my goals in advocating for AC are, just based on the above....and you also don't know what I've achieved on that topic or what my efforts have been...so please don't even bother yourself with it. I don't need anyone else to approve of what I'm up to nor to determine if I'm successful at it or not.

Having said all of that...even though we don't see eye to eye on this issue, I do not for one moment think that makes you a rapist, nor do I think you don't care about any partner you have ever been with or may be with in the future. I also know you are not a misogynist. So at least I can handle a conversation like this one without painting you (and all men) black...unlike some of the others around here.

The whole "women want AC because they don't want to have sex, so men have to push them, but then men are considered rapists for pushing, women just want all the power, blah blah blah" is just too much to take sometimes and leaves me scratching my head. However, I know you are not in that camp, and for that reason, I still like discussing it with you.

Though as I said, I really don't care one way or the other that you think I should change my position, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I would like some discussion about my post #126 on this thread. Richard, what are your thoughts on that? Your fantasy woman you want to take to Venice...are you honestly not going to discuss STI's or birth control or condom use?


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

It's been 20 years but I always used a condom early on, always no exceptions...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Did you also ask if they ever had any STI's or had one now? Or did you just trust they didn't and that conversation never happened?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Tech, do "beta" males not understand the sex signals that women provide? You know, when women are interested, they stare at you intensely; they giggle; they touch their hair; lick their lips; they "invade" your space; touching you more and more; they let you touch them more and more; kissing, of course; they lower their voices, start whispering in your ear more; besides the overtly sexual touches; the sexual inuendo that increases; then the overt expressions of sexual desire; and so on.
> 
> ...


No, that's not the problem. The problem is that they never get those signals.

Not until they learn game, anyway.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> This is all just your opinion.


What is all just my opinion? That there will be legal implications to putting AC into law (this is by definition) or that you don't care what they are, which you have directly admitted, or that others have a reasonable expectation of your passing interest when you advocate for things that will impact them? 

When the time comes to enact a law on this, those In Charge will have done a better job overall having listened to both of us. 

And yes, when you say "I don't care about your concerns", you are dismissing them. That too is not just "my opinion". Neither does it make you anti-male. I can well imagine the hue and cry that would arise if I said "I don't care about the victims of date rape. Their concerns are to me irrelevant." 

Your explicitly stated disinterest comes with a few lumps. Take 'em like a man.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I was imagining that he uses a condom without specifically discussing. She is of course free to ask / discuss if she wants. 

STDs and pregnancy worries do mar some otherwise perfectly nice fantasies. 

I agree that discussion is probably a very practical and wise idea. 






Faithful Wife said:


> I would like some discussion about my post #126 on this thread. Richard, what are your thoughts on that? Your fantasy woman you want to take to Venice...are you honestly not going to discuss STI's or birth control or condom use?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus said:


> What is all just my opinion?


Your entire previous post #171 was just your opinion....that I should care what other's opinions and worries are, just because in your opinion, I should. I don't. But I also don't expect others "should" care about mine, either, nor do I care if they dismiss me.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you also ask if they ever had any STI's or had one now? Or did you just trust they didn't and that conversation never happened?


Mostly but there was an exception or two.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

technovelist said:


> No, that's not the problem. The problem is that they never get those signals.
> 
> Not until they learn game, anyway.


Tech putting all your posts together, I think I see the problem and it is not women, it's you. You lack self-confidence when it comes to women. You may see resistance where there really is none. You are right to be cautious but not to the point where you are reluctant to date. 

There are reliable ways you can stay in the green zone when you are dating. I don't know your story but why don't you start a thread and tell it. There are a lot of members who will be happy to give you advice. If you are willing to listen, give up some of your fixed ideas and talk about your experiences in particular and not generalities, I think you will change your mind. Are you willing to do that?.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> Tech putting all your post together, I think I see the problem and it is not women, it's you. You lack self-confidence when it comes to women and you may see resistance where there really is none. There are reliable ways you can check to make sure you have the green light. I don't know your story but why don't you start a thread and tell it. There are a lot of members who will be happy to give you advice. If you are willing to listen, give up some of your fixed ideas and talk about your experiences in particular and not generalities, I think you will change your mind. Are you willing to do that?.


Thanks for your concern, but I don't have much trouble with women these days. I'm happily married to a very attractive woman who treats me well.

On the other hand, I used to have trouble on occasion with women in the past because I didn't know how to behave toward them. I was just lucky to act highly alpha toward my wife when we met without knowing what I was doing.

A few years ago, I started noticing some deterioration in our relationship and started doing the research to figure out what to do; I'm a nerd, so that's what I do when I notice a problem.

Once I learned what was really going on in sexual relationships, I realized that I had been flying blind and resolved not to make the same mistakes again.

Since then, things have been pretty smooth. But I still remember some of the stupid things I did when I didn't know any better, and would like to help other men avoid making those same mistakes. I also don't want the legal environment tilted even farther toward favoring women at the expense of men.

That's why I'm here.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Im glad you are happily married and know what to do to stay that way. 

I disagree that the system is tilted towards women. The system is tilted towards predators, narcissists, deviants and psychopaths. If a law protects vulnerable women and children from these reptiles then I'll take it. The laws will change behavior but not the way you think. False allegations will not increase, men will be just as cautious as women are now to guard against getting fvucked over. It won't be so bad. The generation that matures under the new norm will not know any other way to behave.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Sorry, but you are completely wrong about *this.* The accused doesn't have to do anything, including testifying; that's what the Fifth Amendment is for. The state has to prove their case without forcing the defendant to testify.
> 
> Of course the jury may assume that he must be guilty if he doesn't testify, but he cannot be compelled to testify, and legally that does not mean that he is guilty.
> 
> ...


Okay, well, I don"t live in the same country as you, and so I suggest you take it up with your government. Maybe get your protest placards at the ready.

In my little corner of the universe, I've never seen a rapw case that didn't involve amassing quite a lot of evidence, including forensics, interviews with witnesses, not of the event, but of people who might have seen them together or will testify as to character of both accuser and accused, and so on. Lots of evidence with both sides, prosecution and defense, offering their interpretation of it. 

Not much would change under AC. The difference I see is this:

Before
Accuser: This happened against my will
Accused: I never heard a "no"

After
Accuser: I did not consent to this
Accused: Yes, there was consent


The rest is in the evidence and interpretation of it


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Some other thoughts about AC...
> 
> Once upon a time, we could hook up with a stranger and stay blissfully ignorant of the dangers of STI's. We knew about pregnancy, and we did our limited best to not get knocked up just because we wanted to knock boots. Still, men rarely wore condoms, and women were typically responsible for their own birth control.
> 
> ...


I assume this is directed at me. So I will respond.

If you must know all the details, no intercourse was involved in my story because we DID have the conversation and neither of us had protection. The topic was about consent - not safe sex - so I didn't feel the need to share all the details. 

Go on and judge. Judge away. But this is a public board where people are entitled to their opinions. The difference being, I don't try to force my opinions on others.

Edit: OK I see you were actually asking Richard this question. It's been a hard, rough day.......so no hard feelings.

BUT - even asking the question about sexual history they CAN lie. So in my case - it's always safe sex or no sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

where_are_we said:


> The difference being, I don't try to force my opinions on others.


Gee thanks, I assume you are meaning I am trying to force my opinions upon others. I'm sure others would agree with you, but I honestly think everyone gets to have their opinion and I know for certain that I cannot force them to change theirs.

You did make some cutting remarks about those who do hold my opinion. Should I interpret that as you trying to shame me or judge me? Because I didn't but...possibly I should have.


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Gee thanks, I assume you are meaning I am trying to force my opinions upon others. I'm sure others would agree with you, but I honestly think everyone gets to have their opinion and I know for certain that I cannot force them to change theirs.
> 
> You did make some cutting remarks about those who do hold my opinion. Should I interpret that as you trying to shame me or judge me? Because I didn't but...possibly I should have.


Nope. It was just my opinion, one that is markedly different than yours. And that's OK. We can have a passionate discussion about it. No big deal. You support the AC Law and I don't. I won't be doing anything to fight it, also my choice. It's coming, so be it. But I don't have to think it's a good law.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

where_are_we said:


> Nope. It was just my opinion, one that is markedly different than yours. And that's OK. We can have a passionate discussion about it. No big deal. You support the AC Law and I don't. I won't be doing anything to fight it, also my choice. It's coming, so be it. But I don't have to think it's a good law.


I actually have no opinion about the AC law, other than that yes it is going to happen. What I advocate is AC as a sex positive best practice.

And yes, we can have a passionate discussion about it. I actually loved your story...it was most certainly passionate.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Richard, I've been thinking about it more and the challenge of your thread is that there is really no way of characterizing what crosses the line until you can get a glimpse into the victim's head.

In your Venice story, for example, you carefully came up with power imbalances, possible isolation, risk, etc, but also made clear that if there were a no, if there were resistance, sex is off the table.

Of course that doesn't cross the line, then, because you've stayed within it.

Take it one step further: your in Venice, you've had a bunch of wine and a nice evening on the canals. Everything is romantically perfect and you go back to the bedroom. Lying on the bed, you are rubbing her body, when you realize that she is drunker than you thought and has fallen asleep. 

What happens next is more of a determinant of whether lines have been crossed than (or not) than anything at all before it.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> I disagree that the system is tilted towards women. The system is tilted towards predators, narcissists, deviants and psychopaths. If a law protects vulnerable women and children from these reptiles then I'll take it. The laws will change behavior but not the way you think. False allegations will not increase, men will be just as cautious as women are now to guard against getting fvucked over. It won't be so bad. The generation that matures under the new norm will not know any other way to behave.


Of course it is, our system was founded under innocent until proven guilty. The scum get the benefit of the doubt. That is how it works. If you don't do it that way, too many innocents go to jail for crimes they didn't commit. Even now, too many innocents go to jail.

Also, how do you know false accusations won't increase, especially when the probability of successful prosecution goes way up? The low success of winning is purported to be the biggest deterrent for filing a rape charge.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Personal said:


> Not stopping in the face of resistance sounds a lot like rape to me. So is rape a beta trait or an alpha trait?


What it is more likely is not understanding the signals you are getting. In my view, most of this is insecurity of the man. Trying to read to much into what is happening.

Simple example. Making out, man touch a body part, woman moves hand, while continually making out. Later, man thinks, is it okay to escalate now or not? due to continually making out, there is some nominal consent to physical touch. But what is too much?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
An interesting add to the scenario.

If I stay within my guidelines of discussing something I personally would do, then I wouldn't do anything but tuck her in bed, and sleep on the sofa. I have absolutely no interest in having sex with a woman who is not fully aware. (after all, sex is partially an ego boost to me - I want my partner to know how awesome I am....:smile2

Assuming it not me - I will still say its wrong for him to continue if she is very drunk, unless they have made some prior agreement. I would though consider it rather rude for her to get so drunk and leave him in that spot.


I'm hoping someone will post a story of what they might actually do that does cross the line in some people's opinions. My scenario was a close as I could imagine ever getting, and it wasn't all that close. 






always_alone said:


> Richard, I've been thinking about it more and the challenge of your thread is that there is really no way of characterizing what crosses the line until you can get a glimpse into the victim's head.
> 
> In your Venice story, for example, you carefully came up with power imbalances, possible isolation, risk, etc, but also made clear that if there were a no, if there were resistance, sex is off the table.
> 
> ...


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

Drunk women are fully capable of saying "NO". Being drunk does not absolve anyone in society of being responsible for themselves in any way. Why do women think being drunk absolves them of responsibility?

There are clubs. Women and men alike go there, dance, drink, and mingle. Then people often go to hotels, to drink more, smoke, and fvvck like rabbits.

In the Marines, I had a crew of five or six Marines that would hang out together all the time. We'd get hotel suites or rooms next to each other and bring women we met at the club to our rooms. To fvvck all night and into the next day. Lots of screaming, giggling, crazy women, all having fun with us. Most of the time, we were all drunk. Drunk women loved having sex with us, every weekend. No one ever said no. Any woman that wasn't interested, I certainly would never have invited back to the hotel.

Drunk women knew exactly what they wanted, and what was going on. I suppose it started before we got drunk. They all knew, just like we did, what we were doing. We're dancing, gonna drink some more, and we have nice hotel rooms we will fvvck in later. 

Drunk women are responsible just as men are. Just because I was drunk, for example, doesn't mean I didn't understand that the women are ready to fvvck. I don't buy the idea that if you're drunk, you're not responsible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
it depends on how drunk. Its very difficult to tell if someone is too drunk to consent - especially if you are drunk yourself.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

That thought just reminded me of something else. I was talking to a girlfriend, and I asked her, aren't you or any of your girlfriends ever concerned about some jerk Marine not backing off if you said "no"? She said "no way. Not a worry at all. If a girl screamed no, you know a bunch of you guys would be there in a second! Marines aren't gentle with other men, even Marines, mistreating a woman." Very true. Lol. Anywhere a group of us were, women always felt safe with us. The Marine environment is highly masculine, sexual, and violent, but also strictly honorable, forthright, and "old school". Any man trying to rape a woman around us would be lucky to see another sunrise. Lol.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Drunk women are fully capable of saying "NO". Being drunk does not absolve anyone in society of being responsible for themselves in any way. Why do women think being drunk absolves them of responsibility?
> 
> ...


If AC is enacted into law, that would be a violation.

Note that it doesn't matter whether the man is also drunk. It is always the man's responsibility not to attempt to have sex with a drunk woman.

Also note that I'm not saying that such a law is a good idea, or makes sense; it isn't, and it doesn't. I'm just stating the consequences as I understand them.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> it depends on how drunk. Its very difficult to tell if someone is too drunk to consent - especially if you are drunk yourself.


Greetings!

No means no. Drunk or sober, they are still responsible for themselves. The law covers people who are unconscious, correct?

That's just fvvcked up to have men fvvcking a woman that's unconscious, you know? How desperate and stupid is that? They should *swing* then!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

technovelist said:


> If AC is enacted into law, that would be a violation.
> 
> Note that it doesn't matter whether the man is also drunk. It is always the man's responsibility not to attempt to have sex with a drunk woman.
> 
> Also note that I'm not saying that such a law is a good idea, or makes sense; it isn't, and it doesn't. I'm just stating the consequences as I understand them.


Greetings!

No, AC doesn't make sense. You're right, Tech. It's total BS. Drunk women fvvcking like rabbits happens all the time. Women love getting drunk, screaming, laughing like crazy, and getting hammered all night. They know exactly what they're doing. If they are conscious, they're responsible. Existing laws are fine, you know?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> I'm hoping someone will post a story of what they might actually do that does cross the line in some people's opinions. My scenario was a close as I could imagine ever getting, and it wasn't all that close.


This is not a story of something I would do, but it is a true story:

So you (not you personally, of course) are at this party where everyone has been drinking and having a good time. You find someone you quite like and invite that person back to your apartment. They agree. You take a cab there, and invite the person up. Show them around. Continue talking. Maybe have another drink or two. You can tell the person is quite wobbly, but so are you, so you don't worry about it too much. Continue laughing, talking, having a good time.

You decide to escalate, and start rubbing the person's thigh. Or shoulder. Offer them a massage. They agree. As you keep massaging the person, you keep getting closer and closer to the erogenous zones. You don't hear any objection, but you don't hear any signs of approval either. You keep going, and escalate more, trying to remove some clothing. The person objects and so you stop, but as they relax again, you try again, telling them that the massage will be better skin against skin. You tell them not to worry, you won't take it any further, just to underwear. But eventually you move the underwear aside and climb aboard for some PIV. The person doesn't scream, doesn't push you away. Just lays there unmoving, and unresponsive. You keep going until you finish.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> That thought just reminded me of something else. I was talking to a girlfriend, and I asked her, aren't you or any of your girlfriends ever concerned about some jerk Marine not backing off if you said "no"? She said "no way. Not a worry at all. If a girl screamed no, you know a bunch of you guys would be there in a second! Marines aren't gentle with other men, even Marines, mistreating a woman." Very true. Lol. Anywhere a group of us were, women always felt safe with us. The Marine environment is highly masculine, sexual, and violent, but also strictly honorable, forthright, and "old school". Any man trying to rape a woman around us would be lucky to see another sunrise. Lol.


Some are honorable; some are not:

Incidents of rape in military much higher than previously reported


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
It isn't something I would do either, and not something I personally think is OK. I wonder if anyone will own up that it is something *they* would do - to meet my criteria for this thread.

That said, my thoughts on it:
It depends a lot on details. How drunk are they. This is a critical, but sadly very subjective (and you are drunk too) evaluation. I think the criteria is whether they are fully aware of what is going on and able to respond coherently.

Then there is the question of how they "object" when you get close to their naughty bits. That can be anything a humorous comment that basically means "not yet". to something that indicates shock / surprise because they hadn't realized where you were going. Where they are on that scale determines what you can and can't do again.

The place I think the line is crossed is when you say you won't go further than their underwear, but do so. At that point there is a defined limit and you cross it without asking.

Lets say you didn't say that you would stop at underwear. Then a lot depends again on details of their response. Just lying there can be lying there enjoying the attention. It can be lying there in a drunken stupor. It can be lying there is fear / shock / horror. 


OK, if the woman was alert enough to make decisions the whole time, I wouldn't call it rape, but I think it is extremely bad behavior. If she passed out it was rape. If her original refusal was strong it was rape. 

This is for me all about the wide gray zone between OK, slimy, and rape. I don't believe that here is a sharp dividing line, but a whole range of "bad" behavior, some of which is criminal. 




I personally would get no where near such a scenario myself for several reasons:

I don't drink

I wouldn't become intimate with anyone who was significantly drunk.

I wouldn't engage in intimate activity with someone who was not giving clear signs (verbal or not) of actively enjoying











always_alone said:


> This is not a story of something I would do, but it is a true story:
> 
> So you (not you personally, of course) are at this party where everyone has been drinking and having a good time. You find someone you quite like and invite that person back to your apartment. They agree. You take a cab there, and invite the person up. Show them around. Continue talking. Maybe have another drink or two. You can tell the person is quite wobbly, but so are you, so you don't worry about it too much. Continue laughing, talking, having a good time.
> 
> You decide to escalate, and start rubbing the person's thigh. Or shoulder. Offer them a massage. They agree. As you keep massaging the person, you keep getting closer and closer to the erogenous zones. You don't hear any objection, but you don't hear any signs of approval either. You keep going, and escalate more, trying to remove some clothing. The person objects and so you stop, but as they relax again, you try again, telling them that the massage will be better skin against skin. You tell them not to worry, you won't take it any further, just to underwear. But eventually you move the underwear aside and climb aboard for some PIV. The person doesn't scream, doesn't push you away. Just lays there unmoving, and unresponsive. You keep going until you finish.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Someone you don't know, absolutely not. 

Serious GF, quite possibly. Had such a gf years ago, dating a long time, sex was never an issue - if we got together sex generally happened every time. She was a very happy drunk on a very occasional basis. She never complained .

Other gf's where the relationship was not as long term and an occasional no was part of the repertoire? No, I'd make sure she got home safely of course but never push it. Funny thing, they'd not get so rip roaring drunk either...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> To me the issue is romance. I think of the Venice trip (for example) as a sort of magic spell that transports us back to the world of 500 years ago (minus the plague and other annoyances). Waking through streets that haven't changed since Galileo, finding little secret nooks with no one else around, seeing moonlight reflecting on the canals. The game of giving non-verbal signals - smiles, comments, just seeing the other person's eye's shining when they look at you.
> 
> If the goal was just sex, you could bring up a checklist of activities you both like, or dislike. Discuss precautions against disease and pregnancy, etc.
> ...


As to the bolded: so you think that Catherine's suggestion to just "ask her if she wants to bone" would be ruin the mood?


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

The whole "laying there, unmoving, unresponsive" would be a total mood killer for me. I just don't get why that right there isn't a moment where you say, "you're obviously not into this. Get dressed. We're done." You get dressed, and walk out. The unresponsive, no verbal feedback, aargh. I've never been into that. I don't know why anyone would proceed.

It's a good thing there are lots of hungry, eager women out there that love sex. A guy with a woman like that should get out, kick her to the curb, and lose her number. Lol. Geez, that would be so creepy to me and a huge turn off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Anon Pink said:


> Just by asking this question demonstrates that you are kind of murky of what consent looks like. It's also concerning that you even have to ask about insufficient enthusiasm, because if your partner isn't demonstrating clear enthusiasm one of two possibilities are true.
> 
> 1. She is a lousy lover and you should not proceed. Do not form attachments, momentarily or other wise, with people who suck at sex.
> 2. She is not into it and you should not proceed. Do not continue to press when you have a clear indication that your pressing is unwelcome.
> ...


My wife and I advised our daughter to clearly say "No". If that doesn't work, scream it at the top of your lungs. Followed, if necessary by yelling "Rape!".

We have told her that "No" should be the default answer unless she has clearly thought through the situation and has decided ahead of time that she wants to have sex with that person.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> This is not a story of something I would do, but it is a true story:
> 
> So you (not you personally, of course) are at this party where everyone has been drinking and having a good time. You find someone you quite like and invite that person back to your apartment. They agree. You take a cab there, and invite the person up. Show them around. Continue talking. Maybe have another drink or two. You can tell the person is quite wobbly, but so are you, so you don't worry about it too much. Continue laughing, talking, having a good time.
> 
> You decide to escalate, and start rubbing the person's thigh. Or shoulder. Offer them a massage. They agree. As you keep massaging the person, you keep getting closer and closer to the erogenous zones. You don't hear any objection, but you don't hear any signs of approval either. You keep going, and escalate more, trying to remove some clothing. The person objects and so you stop, but as they relax again, you try again, telling them that the massage will be better skin against skin. You tell them not to worry, you won't take it any further, just to underwear. But eventually you move the underwear aside and climb aboard for some PIV. The person doesn't scream, doesn't push you away. *Just lays there unmoving, and unresponsive.* You keep going until you finish.


The bolded indicates lack of consciousness. 

Therefore, no ability to object.

It's rape.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Yes - for that particular mood. It wouldn't ruin other moods. It all depends on the fantasy you are fulfilling.





Buddy400 said:


> As to the bolded: so you think that Catherine's suggestion to just "ask her if she wants to bone" would be ruin the mood?


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife and I advised our daughter to clearly say "No". If that doesn't work, scream it at the top of your lungs. Followed, if necessary by yelling "Rape!".
> 
> We have told her that "No" should be the default answer unless she has clearly thought through the situation and has decided ahead of time that she wants to have sex with that person.



Greetings!

Exactly. There's nothing "ambiguous" about "NO". No means no.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

@Buddy400, @technovelist,


I didn't ask how you would talk to you daughter BEFORE it happens, but AFTER it happens. Because the scenario I described HAS happened.

I think it's sad that technovelist believes beta men can't get laid unless they become rapey. Really dude that it totally creepy.


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> @Buddy400, @technovelist,
> 
> 
> I didn't ask how you would talk to you daughter BEFORE it happens, but AFTER it happens. Because the scenario I described HAS happened.
> ...


Greetings!

I believe that Tech is implying that between "yes! Fvvck me hard!" And "NO! Get off me, creep!" That for "beta" males, they enter a confusing grey zone of mixed signals between the two.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Hint, you have to turn her on first.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'm confused as to why anyone would think beta males are less sensitive to social / personal cues. Beta typically includes being sensitive and caring about other people's feelings. By the standard definition someone who is beta is much more likely to be aware of what their partner is thinking.

An alpha on the other hand is traditionally someone who does what they want and doesn't adjust their behavior to please others. If anything they seem more likely to miss signs of lack of consent. 


Its not helpful to define alpha as "all that is good", and beta as "all that is bad". 





Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> I believe that Tech is implying that between "yes! Fvvck me hard!" And "NO! Get off me, creep!" That for "beta" males, they enter a confusing grey zone of mixed signals between the two.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm confused as to why anyone would think beta males are less sensitive to social / personal cues. Beta typically includes being sensitive and caring about other people's feelings. By the standard definition someone who is beta is much more likely to be aware of what their partner is thinking.
> 
> An alpha on the other hand is traditionally someone who does what they want and doesn't adjust their behavior to please others. If anything they seem more likely to miss signs of lack of consent.
> ...


Yes, betas are more sensitive. But they don't understand how arousal works, so they are likely to misconstrue signals, especially when they are mixed.

And while it is true that alphas might be more likely to miss signs of lack of consent, they are also much more likely to say "ok, see you later" when they encounter resistance, as they know they will be able to find another partner who is more into it without too much difficulty.

Betas, on the other hand, have a scarcity mentality, so they tend to get more invested in the current situation instead of dropping it when they meet resistance, thus laying themselves open to trouble.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm confused as to why anyone would think beta males are less sensitive to social / personal cues. Beta typically includes being sensitive and caring about other people's feelings. By the standard definition someone who is beta is much more likely to be aware of what their partner is thinking.
> 
> An alpha on the other hand is traditionally someone who does what they want and doesn't adjust their behavior to please others. If anything they seem more likely to miss signs of lack of consent.
> ...


This is very true. And if you use the typical definitions of "alpha" and "beta", the "beta" is actually much much better at reading signals, and actually cares about them, while the "alpha" is touted as the one who takes whatever he wants, resistance or not. Indeed, many of the alpha-promoters actively argue that rape is what women want, and they aren't to be worrying about whether they are attractive or desirable to her or not.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> This is very true. And if you use the typical definitions of "alpha" and "beta", the "beta" is actually much much better at reading signals, and actually cares about them, while the "alpha" is touted as the one who takes whatever he wants, resistance or not. Indeed, many of the alpha-promoters actively argue that rape is what women want, and they aren't to be worrying about whether they are attractive or desirable to her or not.


Please name some of these "alpha-promoters". I've never seen anyone who is not clearly insane claim that rape is what women want.

I have seen people claim that rape is what women *fantasize* about, but that is far from the same thing.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Why would betas not understand how arousal works? They seem more likely to have read a great deal on the subject rather than just trusting their instincts. I'd expect betas to be very technically skilled lovers - just not as emotionally attractive to some women as alphas are. 

Beta is not the same as "looser" any more than alpha is the same as "wife-beater". 

Many betas have long term stable good jobs, long term stable relationships that include lots of sex. They are generally not the sorts that girls fantasize about, but they are the sort that many women want to marry and live with. 




technovelist said:


> Yes, betas are more sensitive. But they don't understand how arousal works, so they are likely to misconstrue signals, especially when they are mixed.
> 
> And while it is true that alphas might be more likely to miss signs of lack of consent, they are also much more likely to say "ok, see you later" when they encounter resistance, as they know they will be able to find another partner who is more into it without too much difficulty.
> 
> Betas, on the other hand, have a scarcity mentality, so they tend to get more invested in the current situation instead of dropping it when they meet resistance, thus laying themselves open to trouble.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Why would betas not understand how arousal works? They seem more likely to have read a great deal on the subject rather than just trusting their instincts. I'd expect betas to be very technically skilled lovers - just not as emotionally attractive to some women as alphas are.
> 
> Beta is not the same as "looser" any more than alpha is the same as "wife-beater".
> ...


Most betas don't know anything about arousal because they don't even know there is anything to know about it; they just think "women are mysterious".

You are referring only to that tiny fraction of betas who have realized that there is such a subject and have done research to find out what is actually known. I'd say that is less than 1% of the total beta population, although of course it is impossible to know that with any accuracy.

And as for your last paragraph, here's some information on sexual frequency from http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/sex_frequency.htm:

"In one of the largest U.S. studies, the majority of men and women who were living together but unmarried reported having sex 8 to 12 times per month, and the majority of married people reported having sex “a few times per month.”"

So very few married people have "lots of sex". Since most men are betas, we can conclude that although many women want to marry and live with betas, as a source of money and protection against the outside world, they don't want to have sex with them. And as long as betas will put up with that, they get exactly that.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Please name some of these "alpha-promoters". I've never seen anyone who is not clearly insane claim that rape is what women want.
> 
> I have seen people claim that rape is what women *fantasize* about, but that is far from the same thing.



Two examples: 
Close Encounters with Jeffy, Our Local Rape Van-Driving Pickup Artist | The Exhibitionist | San Francisco | San Francisco News and Events | SF Weekly
Pickup guru Roosh V: End rape by making it legal | we hunted the mammoth


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm confused as to why anyone would think beta males are less sensitive to social / personal cues. Beta typically includes being sensitive and caring about other people's feelings. By the standard definition someone who is beta is much more likely to be aware of what their partner is thinking.
> 
> An alpha on the other hand is traditionally someone who does what they want and doesn't adjust their behavior to please others. If anything they seem more likely to miss signs of lack of consent.
> ...


Greetings!

Well, as I understand "beta" males, they may be sensitive and thoughtful--but only after a relationship has been established. In the initial approach, and first few dates, "beta" males are often awkward, socially oblivious. They are often emotionally tortured with apprehensiveness, self doubt, and second-guessing everything the woman says or does. "Beta" males are socially *blind* to the non-verbal signals that women display. "Beta" males are internally socially constipated in recognizing a woman's signals of desire, and stunted and clumsy in knowing how to engage a woman in sensual flirtation, provoking her predatory lust, teasing her, opening her up to her wanting him to devour her! 

Instead of keenly seducing a woman, flirting, teasing, embracing the game with the woman, and inspiring lust and intrigue in her--they often drone on and on about their work, guns, sports or theology for example. Thinking of a friend of mine that does just that. Lol. And then they wonder why the woman dumps them as a romantic interest after one or two dates.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

technovelist said:


> And as for your last paragraph, here's some information on sexual frequency from http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/sex_frequency.htm:
> 
> "In one of the largest U.S. studies, the majority of men and women who were living together but unmarried reported having sex 8 to 12 times per month, and the majority of married people reported having sex “a few times per month.”"
> 
> So very few married people have "lots of sex". Since most men are betas, we can conclude that although many women want to marry and live with betas, as a source of money and protection against the outside world, they don't want to have sex with them. And as long as betas will put up with that, they get exactly that.


How 'bout we look at the Kinsey Report, which is one of the most comprehensive ones, and tells a different story: 

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'm as guilty as others, but could we try to get back to the original topic of realistic "seduction" scenarios that people might actually use where consent might be in question. 

There are other threads on the whole Alpha / Beta issue, and other threads on actions some hypothetical other person might think are acceptable. I'm happy to discuss both on some other thread. (I think they are interesting topics, just not the only topic). Maybe discuss bad at the "importance of alpha"?

I think that often people picture what some "other" person might think or do. I'm not convinced that there is much disagreement among people posting here on what behavior they think is acceptable - but I'm not sure.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Two examples:
> Close Encounters with Jeffy, Our Local Rape Van-Driving Pickup Artist | The Exhibitionist | San Francisco | San Francisco News and Events | SF Weekly
> Pickup guru Roosh V: End rape by making it legal | we hunted the mammoth


I've never heard of the first guy. While he is clearly a scumbag, he isn't representative of "alpha-promoters" any more than virulent man-haters who say men should be exterminated are representative of feminists.

As for Roosh's blog post, that was satire, as should be obvious from the very first paragraph:

"I keep reading in the mainstream media that there is a rape culture in the United States. This issue concerns me since I have a sister who I don’t want to be raped, so I carefully examined the articles on Salon, Buzzfeed, and Huffington Post that were written by professional journalists who pursue truth and justice over mass hysteria and delirium."

Do you have any more examples, preferably from someone who anyone else has heard of?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

always_alone said:


> How 'bout we look at the Kinsey Report, which is one of the most comprehensive ones, and tells a different story:
> 
> The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]


Not really. The mode for married men between ages 25 and 69 is "a few times per month to weekly", which sounds like exactly what I said.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Two examples:
> Close Encounters with Jeffy, Our Local Rape Van-Driving Pickup Artist | The Exhibitionist | San Francisco | San Francisco News and Events | SF Weekly
> Pickup guru Roosh V: End rape by making it legal | we hunted the mammoth


Why are these two examples worth even acknowledging? 

Do we have to start a movement #TheMoonLandingWasReal to counter the people (far more numerous than men who think rape is good) who believe the moon landing was faked?

C'mon, these are the fringiest of the fringe and you think they worthy of your attention.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Personal said:


> Not stopping in the face of resistance sounds a lot like rape to me. So is rape a beta trait or an alpha trait?
> 
> If one is encountering resistance from someone, then they should stop trying to get any with that person. No one including your betas, creepy or otherwise (excepting a financial transaction/prostitution) are entitled to or owed sex regardless of the effort, time and or money they invest.


Quoted

For 

Truth


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> My wife and I advised our daughter to clearly say "No". If that doesn't work, scream it at the top of your lungs. Followed, if necessary by yelling "Rape!".
> 
> We have told her that "No" should be the default answer unless she has clearly thought through the situation and has decided ahead of time that she wants to have sex with that person.


You know what my self defense class advised? Yell fire not rape. People who hear rape will not want to "get involved", but people help with fires. No idea if this is sensible or has any basis in reality.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm as guilty as others, but could we try to get back to the original topic of realistic "seduction" scenarios that people might actually use where consent might be in question.


Using this as your own personal voyeur site?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> You know what my self defense class advised? Yell fire not rape. People who hear rape will not want to "get involved", but people help with fires. No idea if this is sensible or has any basis in reality.


That may be right. I seem to recall that when I toured Hershey's chocolate factory many years ago, they said that if someone saw someone else fall into a vat of chocolate, they should yell "fire", because that would get a faster response than if they yelled "chocolate".


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

I wonder if that is true. 
I'd certainly go to help for any sort of cry for help, "fire", "rape" "thief" etc. OK, maybe not "giant spiders!". 



NobodySpecial said:


> You know what my self defense class advised? Yell fire not rape. People who hear rape will not want to "get involved", but people help with fires. No idea if this is sensible or has any basis in reality.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I don't follow. 

I think real scenarios are better for discussion than hypothetical ones. Too often hypothetical scenarios involved what someone else *might* do, even though the poster would never do it. I think sometimes we create bogiemen / women that don't really exist or who are at least very rare. 






NobodySpecial said:


> Using this as your own personal voyeur site?


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm as guilty as others, but could we try to get back to the original topic of realistic "seduction" scenarios that people might actually use where consent might be in question.


I'll bite.

This is a true, personal story.

I met a man in a restaurant. His piercing blue eyes captured my attention from the moment he said hello. He had a very strong French accent. I am a sucker for eyes and accents so he racked up a lot of brownie points right out the gate. We talked about business, travel, and life in general. The chemistry was there and the flirting ensues. He stepped up his game with some light touches, which I welcomed.

After a few hours of talking, I learned he spoke five different languages, fluently. He used every single one of them during his seduction. He whispered sweet nothings in my ear and asked me if he could take me to his bed and make love to me. Oh. My. God.....the French....his eyes.... the Italian....his eyes....the German....it all got me so red hot.

Later into the evening something in the back of my mind nagged at me to shut him down. He was very romantic. I am not a romantic. I sensed there would be a sexual mismatch. I thought that he would be too nice, too sweet, too soft for me. He asked if he could "make love to me?" Ugh, do people actually do that? ha ha

I told him I needed to leave and we walked out together. At this point I have not told him no, and I have welcomed his advances. He kissed me outside the restaurant. It was a very nice kiss and I am not going to lie, I was holy fired up. I stepped back after the kiss and thanked him for his company. I told him I was very flattered by his attention and very much enjoyed his company, but that I respectfully declined his invitation to join him in his bed. He took the rejection well and was respectful of my decision. He asked for my number and permission to contact me. We exchanged numbers and went our separate ways that night. 

What say you about "consent" in this situation? 

In my opinion, I was consenting to his seduction up until the point I clearly "opted out." This was a classic case of I mean YES until I say NO. 

Some may argue that I was leading him on or should have cut him loose earlier. I was intrigued enough to keep it going, but didn't want to jump in the deep end. There is more to this story...a lot more!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Cletus wrote a pretty good description of the basement make out, try touching here, see what happens, then go for there, see what happens, hope for the best, get hot and sweaty, see what happens scenario that I think most people have experienced at least a few times when they first became sexually active. That was on my AC thread in Ladies Lounge. Did you read that Richard? And what did you think of it?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
that seems completely fine with me. You gave each other positive signals for a while, then you decided that you didn't want to go further and he respected that. All OK in my book. 

I hope the story had a good ending. 




where_are_we said:


> I'll bite.
> 
> This is a true, personal story.
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
What page of the thread? There have been a couple of similar posts. I'll look and comment. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Cletus wrote a pretty good description of the basement make out, try touching here, see what happens, then go for there, see what happens, hope for the best, get hot and sweaty, see what happens scenario that I think most people have experienced at least a few times when they first became sexually active. That was on my AC thread in Ladies Lounge. Did you read that Richard? And what did you think of it?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

It was post number 202 on that thread.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think Cletus's scenario is fine. 

I think that as long as the steps from casual contact to sex are gradual, and as long as the stop when someone is no longer clear consenting (eg actively participating) then its fine. 

For example, if you are french kissing and someone starts to put their hand in your pants, continuing to french kiss I think can be viewed as clear consent.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Centurions said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Drunk women are fully capable of saying "NO". Being drunk does not absolve anyone in society of being responsible for themselves in any way. Why do women think being drunk absolves them of responsibility?
> 
> ...


Greetings 
I have a question for you. What does it matter that you think drunk women who don't say no are therefore saying yes? Your job is to stay on the right side of the law and not skim the margins. A little ethical fortitude might also help but it is not essential. 

It's probably in your best interest not to entertain how you can capaltilize on every chance to get pleasure out of a woman who happens to be on your vicinity, drunk or sober. With the current environment, that is neither smart or safe for you. Rather, if you want sex, actively seek out a woman who clearly wants you. 

If you are having trouble finding a candidate who is sober, awake, sighted, free, and/or conscious etc, you have to look at yourself. Have some pride, you should not have to sneak up on a vj. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> What does it matter that you think drunk women who don't say no are therefore saying yes? Your job is to stay on the right side of the law and don't skim the margins. A little ethical fortitude might also help but is not essential.
> 
> It's probably in your best interest not to entertain how you can capaltilize on every chance to get pleasure out of a woman who happens to be on your vicinity, drunk or sober. With the current environment, that is neither smart or safe for you. Rather, if you want sex, actively seek out a woman who clearly wants you.
> 
> ...



Greetings!

Lol! I've never had trouble finding women that are eager and enthusiastic for sex. No need to "sneak up" on a VJ. Drunk women say "yes" quite eagerly. I don't need them drunk, either. Sober is fine. Just because a woman is drunk, doesn't mean that they can't consent. Where you been? You know what drunk, horny, women do in a club full of Marines? It's called having fun. Sober and drunk women alike get horny, like to drink, dance and fvvck.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Centurions (Jan 31, 2013)

Greetings!

Oh, yeah, I very much believe in getting consent. There's no need to waste time with women that, for whatever reason, drunk or sober, can't say yes. 

If she can't say "yes"--it's simple. Kick her to the curb, and pick from lots of eager, hungry women that don't have a problem saying yes. Eager, hungry women are abundant. For Marines, eager women are everywhere, and fill the clubs every weekend.

If a woman isn't interested, it's very easy to simply move on.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Congratulations - I am not impuning the seat of you masculinity. You feel like a successful man according to your own mearsures and I applaud that are replete with so many horny drunk and sober women. You have no problems with detecting consent or so you claim. Some men have. They may not have your powers of discernment and may get into trouble if they question the wisdom of the law. 

Some men have a more comprehensive definition of masculinity and /or a strong desire to avoid placing their lives into the hands of police, prosecutors and juries.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## where_are_we (May 24, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> Greetings
> I have a question for you. What does it matter that you think drunk women who don't say no are therefore saying yes? Your job is to stay on the right side of the law and not skim the margins. A little ethical fortitude might also help but it is not essential.
> 
> It's probably in your best interest not to entertain how you can capaltilize on every chance to get pleasure out of a woman who happens to be on your vicinity, drunk or sober. With the current environment, that is neither smart or safe for you. Rather, if you want sex, actively seek out a woman who clearly wants you.
> ...



What a nasty response. My opinion only of course. This is NOT even close to how I interpreted his post. You make him out to be a rapist.

Plain and simple: some people just like to have sex and that does not make them bad people. Just because you choose to live a different, quieter sexual lifestyle, does not mean others have to. If I were a young woman clubbing, I would trust a group of marines that I didn't know more than I would trust some of my own friends around liquor.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

where_are_we said:


> What a nasty response. My opinion only of course. This is NOT even close to how I interpreted his post. You make him out to be a rapist.
> 
> Plain and simple: some people just like to have sex and that does not make them bad people. Just because you choose to live a different, quieter sexual lifestyle, does not mean others have to. If I were a young woman clubbing, I would trust a group of marines that I didn't know more than I would trust some of my own friends around liquor.


A group of marines drinking in a bar are more trustworthy than your own friends?? Aren't you concerned that you feel safer with a group of strange men drinking than with people you know and who know you? 

I am sorry you don't like what I wrote. However, you can relax. The poster seems to be able to handle himself in the discussion without having you front for him.


----------

