# How would you defineRAPE...



## Caribbean Man

Based on some threads I've seen here in the past, it appears that men and women have differing, conflicting views about what constitutes rape.

False rape allegations and under aged girls aside, 
Men, what are your personal boundaries regarding the act of sexual intercourse and your sexual interactions with the opposite sex , whether married or single?

Would you have sex with a drunk woman who you just met?

Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's _your_ wife?

The dictionary has a definition for rape , but the dictionary also has a concise definition for love which cannot by any stretch of the imagination fully explain something so complicated.

So, what would you consider as " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?

Women , what would you consider as rape?

IMO, anytime a man has sex with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him , _at that point and time_ or at anytime , that _is_ rape.
I really don't think a woman _needs_ to be convinced to have sex. It's either she wants to have sex with you or not.


----------



## committed4ever

Caribbean Man said:


> Based on some threads I've seen here in the past, it appears that men and women have differing conflicting views about what constitutes rape.
> 
> False rape allegations and under aged girls aside, men, what are your personal boundaries regarding the act of sexual intercourse and your sexual interactions with the opposite sex , whether married or single?
> 
> The dictionary has a definition for rape , but the dictionary also has a concise definition for love which cannot by any stretch of the imagination fully explain something so complicated.
> 
> What would you consider to be " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?
> 
> *Admittedly I have a dark side when it comes to this but coercion CAN be seductive to me.*
> 
> Women , what would you consider to be rape?
> 
> * Rape would begin where I really don't want it but I'm afraid he would physically hurt me if I fight him off.*
> 
> IMO, anytime a man has sex with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him , _at that point and time_ or at anytime , that _is_ rape.
> I really don't think a woman _needs_ to be convinced to have sex. It's either she wants to have sex with you or not.
> Full Stop.
> 
> *Not the case for me. I could be convinced with some extremely sensuous foreplay. *


----------



## Caribbean Man

committed4ever said:


> Admittedly I have a dark side when it comes to this but coercion CAN be seductive to me.
> 
> Rape would begin where I really don't want it but I'm afraid he would physically hurt me if I fight him off.


Do you mean that to you ,coercion is seductive when your body's saying yes but your mind is in a state of dissonance , like between no and yes?

What if both your body and mind says no , would that coercion be considered as seductive to you?


----------



## committed4ever

Caribbean Man said:


> Do you mean that to you ,coercion is seductive when your body's saying yes but your mind is in a state of dissonance , like between no and yes?
> 
> What if both your body and mind says no , would that coercion be considered as seductive to you?


I changed my response to this after thinking about it. If both body and mind said no it is no longer seductive and I would make it known that he is forcing me to continue.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Caribbean Man said:


> Women , what would you consider as rape?


If I say no in a forceful tone and the man still proceeds to attempt intercourse,it's rape.It doesn't matter if that man is my husband or not. If I'm giggling and saying no while still touching him lovingly...it's not rape. 

If I don't want sex I won't do it.I can't be coerced into doing something I don't want to do unless the man uses force which is rape.

It's really not that difficult.There shouldn't even be a shaded area on this.


----------



## alexm

I don't think there's a definitive all-encompassing way of describing what rape is in some cases. I guess the closest you could get to it would be if one person is coerced into a sexual act by the other.

The forced kind of rape is black and white, obviously.

But there are other kinds, which some people (including the victim) may not recognize as technically being rape. It all depends on your own views, I suppose.

But you know, the obvious examples like "come on baby, I spent $100 on dinner and a movie, you owe me". That kind of thing. Is it rape if the victim agrees right away, although reluctantly? Or is it consensual? Is it only rape if the victim attempts to say no several times, yet the aggressor keeps saying "come on" until he/she acquiesces? It's forced, but not "forced", right?

In these cases, the aggressor needs to be cognizant of the fact that your partner isn't necessarily willing, but perhaps only going through with it because they feel pressured, or threatened, or that they somehow owed you something. So is the victim still a victim if they technically agree to it? Or is it still rape?

I can give you a good example that can be a discussion point:

My ex wife used to work with this guy. Same age as her (we'll say 17 or so), and he used to give her a lift home after work. One time, he pulled the car into a parking lot near her house, took out a condom and gave it to her. And that's how she had sex with this guy, the one and only time. She didn't say no, yet when she told me this story (some 10 years after it happened), I asked her if she had wanted to, or if this was a guy she was even interested in. She said no to both counts.

"So why did you do it?" "Because he was nice to me, and he always gave me a ride home." "You realize that's a form of rape, right?" "Yeah, I never thought of it that way."

So to her, at that time, she didn't feel like she was being coerced. I guess you could say she was "easy". To me, that doesn't lessen what he did, in any way. What if she had gone through with it because she was scared? He pulled into an empty parking lot, while in HIS car, and implied what he wanted, by handing her a condom. He held all the power. How would she have known that he wouldn't have just left her there if she refused? How would she have known that he wouldn't have forced himself on her if she refused? Perhaps she "agreed" to it, simply to avoid those scenarios in the first place. She still didn't want to. Sure, she could have said no, drive me home. She could have got out of the car and walked the rest of the way. But who knows what he would have done? Would he have followed her? Beaten her? Gone to work the next day and tell everybody she ****** him, anyway? In the spur of the moment, sometimes the snap decision to avoid any possible negative scenarios is to just go ahead with it. Is that any less of a rape scenario?

So, was that rape, simply because she followed through on something she didn't WANT to do or had any plans or interest to do, but did anyway?

It was obvious to me that she regretted it, all those years later, but even to her, the "victim", she didn't quite put it together that it was a rape-type scenario.


----------



## sinnister

A great deal of my degree focused on studying rape.

But my own ideas is:

If a woman does not want it, a man forces himself upon her, and she never waivers from her unwillingness to do the act.

Even my dumbed down explanation can be interpruted in different ways.


----------



## committed4ever

alexm said:


> My ex wife used to work with this guy. Same age as her (we'll say 17 or so), and he used to give her a lift home after work. One time, he pulled the car into a parking lot near her house, took out a condom and gave it to her. And that's how she had sex with this guy, the one and only time. She didn't say no, yet when she told me this story (some 10 years after it happened), I asked her if she had wanted to, or if this was a guy she was even interested in. She said no to both counts.
> 
> "So why did you do it?" "Because he was nice to me, and he always gave me a ride home." "You realize that's a form of rape, right?" "Yeah, I never thought of it that way."
> 
> So to her, at that time, she didn't feel like she was being coerced. I guess you could say she was "easy". To me, that doesn't lessen what he did, in any way. What if she had gone through with it because she was scared? He pulled into an empty parking lot, while in HIS car, and implied what he wanted, by handing her a condom. He held all the power. How would she have known that he wouldn't have just left her there if she refused? How would she have known that he wouldn't have forced himself on her if she refused? Perhaps she "agreed" to it, simply to avoid those scenarios in the first place. She still didn't want to. Sure, she could have said no, drive me home. She could have got out of the car and walked the rest of the way. But who knows what he would have done? Would he have followed her? Beaten her? Gone to work the next day and tell everybody she ****** him, anyway? In the spur of the moment, sometimes the snap decision to avoid any possible negative scenarios is to just go ahead with it. Is that any less of a rape scenario?
> 
> So, was that rape, simply because she followed through on something she didn't WANT to do or had any plans or interest to do, but did anyway?
> 
> It was obvious to me that she regretted it, all those years later, but even to her, the "victim", she didn't quite put it together that it was a rape-type scenario.


This scenario put a chill up my spine. I think it is safe to say if she didn't consent he probably would have force her. But her first answer to you maybe wouldn't stand up in court because she didn't articulate any fear. It's almost like saying I felt obligated to return a favor. But she probably immediately told herself that because the thought of rape was too traumatic to handle.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> It was obvious to me that she regretted it, all those years later, but even to her, the "victim", she didn't quite put it together that it was a rape-type scenario.


Yes. Any sex that the woman later regrets is rape. However, we will need a great deal many more prisons to house all the "rapists."

It really is unfortunate that we have so many "victims" who don't understand that they were raped, just because they never refused consent. Some of these "victims" believe that, if they willingly participated in sex, it isn't rape. But that's obviously foolish. The possibility of a threat is just as coercive as an actual threat. It's just a shame that the law requires violence, or the actual threat of violence, in order to rise to the level of rape.

Here's hoping we can make the rape laws more progressive to include things that didn't happen, but could have happened. Indeed, we could make other violent crimes more progressive as well. The minority youth walking down the street last night didn't mug me. But he could have. He probably belongs in jail.


----------



## samyeagar

alexm said:


> I don't think there's a definitive all-encompassing way of describing what rape is in some cases. I guess the closest you could get to it would be if one person is coerced into a sexual act by the other.
> 
> The forced kind of rape is black and white, obviously.
> 
> But there are other kinds, which some people (including the victim) may not recognize as technically being rape. It all depends on your own views, I suppose.
> 
> But you know, the obvious examples like "come on baby, I spent $100 on dinner and a movie, you owe me". That kind of thing. Is it rape if the victim agrees right away, although reluctantly? Or is it consensual? Is it only rape if the victim attempts to say no several times, yet the aggressor keeps saying "come on" until he/she acquiesces? It's forced, but not "forced", right?
> 
> In these cases, the aggressor needs to be cognizant of the fact that your partner isn't necessarily willing, but perhaps only going through with it because they feel pressured, or threatened, or that they somehow owed you something. So is the victim still a victim if they technically agree to it? Or is it still rape?
> 
> I can give you a good example that can be a discussion point:
> 
> My ex wife used to work with this guy. Same age as her (we'll say 17 or so), and he used to give her a lift home after work. One time, he pulled the car into a parking lot near her house, took out a condom and gave it to her. And that's how she had sex with this guy, the one and only time. She didn't say no, yet when she told me this story (some 10 years after it happened), I asked her if she had wanted to, or if this was a guy she was even interested in. She said no to both counts.
> 
> "So why did you do it?" "Because he was nice to me, and he always gave me a ride home." "You realize that's a form of rape, right?" "Yeah, I never thought of it that way."
> 
> So to her, at that time, she didn't feel like she was being coerced. I guess you could say she was "easy". To me, that doesn't lessen what he did, in any way. What if she had gone through with it because she was scared? He pulled into an empty parking lot, while in HIS car, and implied what he wanted, by handing her a condom. He held all the power. How would she have known that he wouldn't have just left her there if she refused? How would she have known that he wouldn't have forced himself on her if she refused? Perhaps she "agreed" to it, simply to avoid those scenarios in the first place. She still didn't want to. Sure, she could have said no, drive me home. She could have got out of the car and walked the rest of the way. But who knows what he would have done? Would he have followed her? Beaten her? Gone to work the next day and tell everybody she ****** him, anyway? In the spur of the moment, sometimes the snap decision to avoid any possible negative scenarios is to just go ahead with it. Is that any less of a rape scenario?
> 
> So, was that rape, simply because she followed through on something she didn't WANT to do or had any plans or interest to do, but did anyway?
> 
> It was obvious to me that she regretted it, all those years later, but even to her, the "victim", she didn't quite put it together that it was a rape-type scenario.


Uggh. Your scenario is what makes this issue so difficult. Obviously there are clear cut situations where there is no question. In your case however, people do things they don't really want to do all the time just to avoid possible conflict.

If a stranger dressed all raggedy comes up to you on the street and asks for some money, and you give it to them because you are afraid they might have a gun and just rob you, were you actually robbed if you hand over your last five dollars?

Is duty sex a form of rape? One partner clearly isn't into it, but goes along out of their perception of obligation, and to keep the peace.

If you get a call from a telemarketer using really hard sell tactics, and you buy their product even though you really don't need it, assuming the product works as intended, did they swindle you just because you caved, couldn't say no and hang up the phone?

My STBW has had many partners, and some of them were out of obligation because in her mind, sex was just something you were supposed to do with your boyfriend if he wanted it.

In all those case, the wrongdoing is in the perception of the perceived victim, and even here on this board, some will see the scenarios as wrong, others won't, depending on how we personally empathize with the people involved.


----------



## alexm

committed4ever said:


> This scenario put a chill up my spine. I think it is safe to say if she didn't consent he probably would have force her. But her first answer to you maybe wouldn't stand up in court because she didn't articulate any fear. It's almost like saying I felt obligated to return a favor. But she probably immediately told herself that because the thought of rape was too traumatic to handle.


It still put a chill up my spine just re-hashing it here - and this is a woman who I have little regard for, and haven't seen or heard from in years now.

But if I recall, she never said she felt in any danger, or that if she refused, she might have been in danger. This was a guy she knew well enough.

But yes, I believe she "agreed" to it because she felt obligated. I think THAT would stand up in court, had she spoken up within a few days of this happening. I'd like to think that if this happened in this day and age (and not 1993 or whatever), then he wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in court. Whether he'd spend some time in jail or not, who knows. But perhaps he'd be labelled a sexual predator and have to register as one, now.

Whether she felt any danger or not is irrelevant, IMO. The possibility of it is what matters. If she did not recognize the possibility of violence if she said no shouldn't matter. The victim shouldn't have to be able to read minds in order to be a victim.

Regardless of what this guy intended, it was despicable, simply because she COULD have perceived it as a threat, even if that wasn't his intention.

For all we know, if she refused, he could have said "okay", then driven her home. But the fact that you put somebody in that position in the first place - where it could be perceived as a danger - is the issue.


----------



## MrK

ScarletBegonias said:


> It's really not that difficult.There shouldn't even be a shaded area on this.


My wife will give me sex any time I want it. But I KNOW she hates it. Rape? I don't know. But I pursue it as little as my body will let me.

Is that a shaded area or should I be in jail?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Perceived danger is opening up a whole can of worms for disaster and false accusations.ANY woman can say "I felt like he would take what he wanted so I f**ked him out of obligation". Think of how many wayward spouses would latch onto this and use it.

If you're a man on the date paying for everything yet truly expecting nothing and the woman still says that about you,how would you feel? It would be awful knowing that if you sleep with a woman after you just got finished paying for the whole date that she could feel remorse the next day and have you locked up for rape. 

Instead we should be teaching people to be firm in their desires.If you don't want it,you need to take the proper precautions to make sure you are not in a position of obligation. Drive your own car to the restaurant.Pay for your share.Don't go to his house for drinks afterward.Stay in public places. It may not completely erase the obligated feeling that could be used to coerce you but it would greatly reduce it.The rest is going to have to come from inner strength and realizing you have choices no matter what the other person says.


----------



## alexm

samyeagar said:


> Uggh. Your scenario is what makes this issue so difficult. Obviously there are clear cut situations where there is no question. In your case however, people do things they don't really want to do all the time just to avoid possible conflict.
> 
> If a stranger dressed all raggedy comes up to you on the street and asks for some money, and you give it to them because you are afraid they might have a gun and just rob you, were you actually robbed if you hand over your last five dollars?
> 
> *Your last $5 is not the same as giving up sex. If the stranger came up to you in a dark alleyway, at night, and demanded your money, then sure. It would be implied that they are going to take your money, whether you give it up or not.
> 
> My ex wife was essentially in that situation. In this guy's car, in an empty parking lot, at night, and he did not "ask" for sex. He put a condom in her lap. What he wanted was implied, and the location they were in, certainly implied the possibility that he was not going to take "no" for an answer. How she perceives that is irrelevant, IMO. It is not on the victim to always recognize what is happening WHEN it is happening. Had she gone home afterwards, and THEN realized "holy ****", what if I said "no"? does that then make it worse, somehow?*
> 
> Is duty sex a form of rape? One partner clearly isn't into it, but goes along out of their perception of obligation, and to keep the peace.
> 
> *Being "into it" and being forced are two entirely different things. We all do things every day that we aren't into, or want to do. The person performing the duty sex, is going so because they recognize it's a need, for their partner. Not a co-worker, not some guy they're dating, or just met - their partner. If one partner forces the other, then yes, that's rape.*
> 
> If you get a call from a telemarketer using really hard sell tactics, and you buy their product even though you really don't need it, assuming the product works as intended, did they swindle you just because you caved, couldn't say no and hang up the phone?
> 
> *You can get your money back, and there's really no loss of dignity or self-worth in this scenario. Nor is there a threat of violence. If a salesperson comes to your door and implies that something will happen to you if you do not buy their product - different story.*
> 
> My STBW has had many partners, and some of them were out of obligation because in her mind, sex was just something you were supposed to do with your boyfriend if he wanted it.
> 
> *"Obligation" and "boyfriend" are the two important words here. And it depends on how these boyfriends approached sex with her. If she did it of her own accord, no problem. If she felt like something would happen if she didn't, that's a different story.*
> 
> In all those case, the wrongdoing is in the perception of the perceived victim, and even here on this board, some will see the scenarios as wrong, others won't, depending on how we personally empathize with the people involved.


----------



## tulsy

PHTlump said:


> Yes. Any sex that the woman later regrets is rape....





PHTlump said:


> *Here's hoping we can make the rape laws more progressive to include things that didn't happen, but could have happened.* Indeed, we could make other violent crimes more progressive as well. The minority youth walking down the street last night didn't mug me. But he could have. He probably belongs in jail.


You're kidding, right?
This is a joke.


----------



## samyeagar

I think it is a very slippery slope holding someone accountable for the thoughts of someone else. Your explanations of my above scenarios can just as easily apply to the scenario you gave.

You youself said she felt no danger at the time. Sure, she could have been in danger, but she didn't perceive any. She didn't even feel any real pressure in his tactics. Sure, it was bad taste just throwing a condom in her lap, but he didn't continue to try and talk her into it, wink wink nudge nudge. She did it becase she felt obligated, and why should he be held responsible to the point of criminal conviction because she had such a low threshold of obligation?


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> If the stranger came up to you in a dark alleyway, at night, and demanded your money, then sure. It would be implied that they are going to take your money, whether you give it up or not.


What if the stranger, similar to the boy in your story, didn't say anything? What if he just stood there with his hand out? Do the perceptions of the "victim", or of others who hear the story and assume the worst, always trump the actions of the "criminal?"



> How she perceives that is irrelevant, IMO. It is not on the victim to always recognize what is happening WHEN it is happening.


Given that rape victims shouldn't be relied on to perceive when and where they have been raped, how can we, as a society, catch more rapists? Would cameras monitored by special police units adept at imagining the worst possible outcome be sufficient to convict young men who haven't threatened women with rape? Would we need some sort of "Minority Report" system for anticipating crimes?



> Being "into it" and being forced are two entirely different things. We all do things every day that we aren't into, or want to do. The person performing the duty sex, is going so because they recognize it's a need, for their partner. Not a co-worker, not some guy they're dating, or just met - their partner. If one partner forces the other, then yes, that's rape.


I agree. But forcible rape isn't being discussed. We're discussing the potential of forcible rape. Isn't almost every husband in the world physically capable of beating his wife if she denies him sex? I would think so.

This is quite a can of worms you've opened up here. You're suggesting that we redefine our entire criminal justice system to ignore the actions and intentions of the accused. That's a big 180.


----------



## PHTlump

tulsy said:


> You're kidding, right?
> This is a joke.


Of course not. I'm a feminist. We don't joke.


----------



## ReformedHubby

You certainly don't stray away from controversial topics. I've always been taught that no means no and it was that simple. I was never the creepy guy that kept pushing. However, over time I've come to realize its more complicated than that.

When looking at TAM I'm amazed at how freely the R word is thrown around. On threads where a wife cheats on a GNO there are often posters that will throw out the possibility of rape even when the OP doesn't allude to it. Also, in a fairly recent thread tricking someone into consenting was also described as rape by several posters (I can't say I agreed with that). 

There is also a power dynamic that I haven't thought about before. Hypothetically speaking if I were to aggressively pursue one of my employees that was a single mom with no other job, and she gave in. Is this also a form of rape? It sure seems like it. When you think about it there are a lot of forms of rape that probably would not be prosecutable in court.


----------



## committed4ever

PHTlump said:


> Of course not. I'm a feminist. We don't joke.


The fact that you needed to make the teen a minority and not just a teen makes it sn extremely unfunny joke.


----------



## NextTimeAround

ReformedHubby said:


> You certainly don't stray away from controversial topics. I've always been taught that no means no and it was that simple. I was never the creepy guy that kept pushing. However, over time I've come to realize its more complicated than that.
> 
> When looking at TAM I'm amazed at how freely the R word is thrown around. On threads where a wife cheats on a GNO there are often posters that will throw out the possibility of rape even when the OP doesn't allude to it. Also, in a fairly recent thread tricking someone into consenting was also described as rape by several posters (I can't say I agreed with that).
> 
> *There is also a power dynamic that I haven't thought about before. Hypothetically speaking if I were to aggressively pursue one of my employees that was a single mom with no other job, and she gave in. Is this also a form of rape? It sure seems like it. When you think about it there are a lot of forms of rape that probably would not be prosecutable in court*.


I would agree with that one.


----------



## PHTlump

committed4ever said:


> The fact that you needed to make the teen a minority and not just a teen makes it sn extremely unfunny joke.


Since we are discussing the perceptions of potential victims, as well as uninvolved third parties, it was intentional. For better, or worse, minority youths are perceived by more people as potential criminals than majority youths. Sorry to insensitively point out a fact.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> Based on some threads I've seen here in the past, it appears that men and women have differing, conflicting views about what constitutes rape.
> 
> False rape allegations and under aged girls aside,
> Men, what are your personal boundaries regarding the act of sexual intercourse and your sexual interactions with the opposite sex , whether married or single?
> 
> Would you have sex with a drunk woman who you just met?


Ha! No. I didn't like it with x2 either. I'd try, if she wanted or seemed to want it. As she fell asleep or didn't seem interested, I'd restrict my touch to nonsexual loving and hug and kiss her. Then I'd hold her till my arm fell asleep. 



Caribbean Man said:


> Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's _your_ wife?


No. She did with me, though. It was very traumatic and most men would not think it was. I would be considered a weak man by some. 



Caribbean Man said:


> The dictionary has a definition for rape , but the dictionary also has a concise definition for love which cannot by any stretch of the imagination fully explain something so complicated.
> 
> So, what would you consider as " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?


Generally, if I feel her body tense at any time, if she says, "no", at any time, I stop and ask if she's okay and if she'd like me to do something different or if she'd like to, "do this another time". 



Caribbean Man said:


> Women , what would you consider as rape?
> 
> IMO, anytime a man has sex with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him , _at that point and time_ or at anytime , that _is_ rape.
> I really don't think a woman _needs_ to be convinced to have sex. It's either she wants to have sex with you or not.


Yes. I agree with this last part.


----------



## PHTlump

ReformedHubby said:


> There is also a power dynamic that I haven't thought about before. Hypothetically speaking if I were to aggressively pursue one of my employees that was a single mom with no other job, and she gave in. Is this also a form of rape? It sure seems like it. When you think about it there are a lot of forms of rape that probably would not be prosecutable in court.


Under US law, and I presume most Western law, aggressively pursuing an employee may be civil harassment, but would fall short of criminal rape or sexual assault. Now, if you explicitly threatened her with the loss of her job unless she performed sex acts, then a criminal conviction would be much more likely.


----------



## ReformedHubby

PHTlump said:


> Yes. Any sex that the woman later regrets is rape. However, we will need a great deal many more prisons to house all the "rapists."
> 
> Here's hoping we can make the rape laws more progressive to include things that didn't happen, but could have happened. Indeed, we could make other violent crimes more progressive as well. The minority youth walking down the street last night didn't mug me. But he could have. He probably belongs in jail.


I know you kid but for me this was applicable. I'm a black male that grew up in the deep south. Before I even knew what sex was I was warned to "stay away from those white girls". The implication being that if something were to happen and their parents found out you're pretty much going to jail even if it was consensual. It happens even today. I grew up in a state where there are actually still a handful of locales that have segregated proms.


----------



## samyeagar

ReformedHubby said:


> You certainly don't stray away from controversial topics. I've always been taught that no means no and it was that simple. I was never the creepy guy that kept pushing. However, over time I've come to realize its more complicated than that.
> 
> When looking at TAM I'm amazed at how freely the R word is thrown around. On threads where a wife cheats on a GNO there are often posters that will throw out the possibility of rape even when the OP doesn't allude to it. Also, in a fairly recent thread tricking someone into consenting was also described as rape by several posters (I can't say I agreed with that).
> 
> There is also a power dynamic that I haven't thought about before. *Hypothetically speaking if I were to aggressively pursue one of my employees that was a single mom with no other job, and she gave in. Is this also a form of rape? It sure seems like it*. When you think about it there are a lot of forms of rape that probably would not be prosecutable in court.


The fact that she was a single mom with no other options likely wouldn't play into it much, but the workplace subordinate power differential would. It likely wouldn't be prosecuted as rape, but a form of harassment, and would likely be a violation of federal employment law.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Based on some threads I've seen here in the past, it appears that men and women have differing, conflicting views about what constitutes rape.
> 
> False rape allegations and under aged girls aside,
> Men, what are your personal boundaries regarding the act of sexual intercourse and your sexual interactions with the opposite sex , whether married or single?


If she physically resists me or say's clarifies she does not want to have intercourse, then we won't have intercourse. I've been lucky to have intercourse with women who were attracted to me, so it wasn't hard to have sex.



Caribbean Man said:


> Would you have sex with a drunk woman who you just met?


90% of men have done this. It's a high percentage of the one night stand protocol. Yet in your query, I suspect no one is going to admit it. I never did one night stand sex often, because I had girlfriends...



Caribbean Man said:


> Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's _your_ wife?


You cant. If she says no, I might nudge forward and she clarifies herself and I'm going to stop. 



Caribbean Man said:


> The dictionary has a definition for rape , but the dictionary also has a concise definition for love which cannot by any stretch of the imagination fully explain something so complicated.
> 
> So, what would you consider as " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?


If you rape someone you forcibly take sex against their will. Seduction, you may "coerce" them in the dance, but I'm not using the word "coerce" to mean "force". I mean it as you nudge forward in your affections. If she stops you, you have to stop.




Caribbean Man said:


> Women , what would you consider as rape?
> 
> IMO, anytime a man has sex with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him , _at that point and time_ or at anytime , that _is_ rape.
> I really don't think a woman _needs_ to be convinced to have sex. It's either she wants to have sex with you or not.


Right. Like I said, I've always been lucky to mess with women who liked to have sex with me. So it never was a problem of convincing anyone. I only had issues with this, in the relationship which sent me to TAM.


----------



## PHTlump

ReformedHubby said:


> I know you kid but for me this was applicable. I'm a black male that grew up in the deep south. Before I even knew what sex was I was warned to "stay away from those white girls". The implication being that if something were to happen and their parents found out you're pretty much going to jail even if it was consensual. It happens even today. I grew up in a state where there are actually still a handful of locales that have segregated proms.


I understand. I was using my hypothetical example to illustrate that, sometimes, progressive is actually regressive. I know that, if I were a person of interest in a criminal investigation, I would hope that, first, an actual crime took place. One where the victim, assuming the minimal self-agency required by law, understood herself to be a victim. I would also hope that the criminal justice system viewed me as innocent until proven guilty. And, that the burden of proof was higher than things that didn't happen, but could have.

As you point out, minorities have been mistreated in the past for nothing more than prejudice and vague suspicion. Even today, in the progressive Northeast, "stop and frisk" allows those same practices to continue in the 21st century.

I would define progress as making all people equally innocent in the eyes of the law, not equally guilty. Forcing white men to live with the same fear of false accusations that black men used to live with, and sometimes still do, isn't progress.


----------



## tulsy

ReformedHubby said:


> I know you kid but for me this was applicable. I'm a black male that grew up in the deep south. Before I even knew what sex was I was warned to "stay away from those white girls". The implication being that if something were to happen and their parents found out you're pretty much going to jail even if it was consensual. It happens even today. *I grew up in a state where there are actually still a handful of locales that have segregated proms*.


That's horrible.


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> I know you kid but for me this was applicable. I'm a black male that grew up in the deep south. Before I even knew what sex was I was warned to "stay away from those white girls". The implication being that if something were to happen and their parents found out you're pretty much going to jail even if it was consensual. It happens even today. I grew up in a state where there are actually still a handful of locales that have segregated proms.


Your still worried about that old school stuff. Sounds like back in the slave days and 60's. You should move to another area. In many parts of the country, "interratial" dating is common.


----------



## ReformedHubby

treyvion said:


> Your still worried about that old school stuff. Sounds like back in the slave days and 60's. You should move to another area. In many parts of the country, "interratial" dating is common.


I'm not worried about it. I just wanted to let the poster know that there are people that did and do indeed live with that type of progressive definition of rape hanging over their heads already. I can't say I heeded the warnings even when I was in the south.


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> I'm not worried about it. I just wanted to let the poster know that there are people that did and do indeed live with that type of progressive definition of rape hanging over their heads already. I can't say I heeded the warnings even when I was in the south.


Even among "black" are many "girls" who are "trappers". They are trying to get stuff on someone who is successful to come up off of them. 

You literally can be in the same room with them and nothing happens and rape or assault charges get brought up.

Needless to say about women collecting sperm samples, getting dirt on you, etc.

It's a rough terrain.


----------



## Racer

lol... So did that clear it up for you Caribbeanman? Rape is basically a thought in your head that maybe you don’t want to have sex with this person regardless of words or actions or even doing the deed. So, if someone hits on you, or you think they might, and it’s scary for you, you should feel like a victim and press charges for uncomfortable thoughts and possibilities you create in your head. They are obviously to blame. Stand your ground!


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> You certainly don't stray away from controversial topics. *I've always been taught that no means no and it was that simple. I was never the creepy guy that kept pushing. However, over time I've come to realize its more complicated than that.*
> 
> When looking at TAM I'm amazed at how freely the R word is thrown around. On threads where a wife cheats on a GNO there are often posters that will throw out the possibility of rape even when the OP doesn't allude to it. Also, in a fairly recent thread tricking someone into consenting was also described as rape by several posters (I can't say I agreed with that).
> 
> There is also a power dynamic that I haven't thought about before. Hypothetically speaking if I were to aggressively pursue one of my employees that was a single mom with no other job, and she gave in. Is this also a form of rape? It sure seems like it. When you think about it there are a lot of forms of rape that probably would not be prosecutable in court.


Reformed Hubby,
Again it seems that we have consistent views on this.
I was brought up to understand that No means NO.
My grandfather , all of my older uncles always taught me that it was better to let a woman pursue you for sex, than to pursue a woman for sex.
In fact, there is a saying among older " players" in the Caribbean that goes something like this;
" Two things in life you must never run down [ chase after]
1] Never run down a bus if you've missed it, because you'll look stupid.
2] Never run down a woman, because you look even more stupid. "

I was never the creepy guy trying desperately to get into a woman's pants. A woman_ knows_ when a man wants sex , so sometimes I struggle to understand the rationale I read here sometimes.

I too had a full staff of women when I started my business, and some of them were poor single mothers, even if I was single , I simply can't see myself making a move on any of them simply because they were poor and depended on me for money to pay their rent and purchase their groceries. That would be a form of rape in my mind because they were being put under duress by me. It is sexual harassment.

I'm not saying that none of my employees never offered me sexual favours , but I refused and fired them ,partly because I knew that was a slippery slope with serious legal implications.Even if I was single , I would have done the same thing.

We own a property which we used to rent out to tenants. One particular family , man , woman and daughter , missed out for three months, the agent notified me, so I called them up , woman answered and asked for more time. I told the woman just pay 50% of the arrears , and she would be allowed to stay.
She told me to pass by on a given date.
When I passed by, she told me she didn't have any money but asked if there was any " other payment" I would accept. I told flat out I was only interested in my money , and gave her some more time. She called me up on the phone and tells me she has some of the money. Good I thought.
When I got there her young daughter 
[ looked about 15 or 16 ]came out smiling and introduced herself. I asked for her mom or dad, she told me they weren't at home and asked me to come inside.
I became infuriated , left and put the matter into a bailiff's hands, and had them evicted.
I was infuriated because I see that type of behaviour as beneath me. To assume that I was the type of man that would fall for that kind of crap maddened me.
WTF , do I look desperate for sex? You owe me thousands of dollars and expect to pay me with sex?
What was insidious , was that she actually thought that I would actually have sex with her, worse yet, paid money to have sex with her!
I was pissed.

I remember telling a guy " friend "about the incident and he told me that I was stupid for refusing their proposal.
Sometime later ,his wife kicked him out when she found out that he got an underaged schoolgirl pregnant...
He was blackmailed into paying the family tens of thousands of dollars to avoid getting the police involved.
At least I wasn't _that_ stupid!

But I digress.

I think that there are many shades of grey in the area of sex and submission, and that's what makes it so difficult sometimes to prove rape in a court of law..
However , I firmly believe that every , single man knows exactly when a woman doesn't want to have sex with him.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> If she physically resists me or say's clarifies she does not want to have intercourse, then we won't have intercourse. * I've been lucky to have intercourse with women who were attracted to me, so it wasn't hard to have sex.*
> 
> 
> 
> .


:iagree:
This is my point.
That is why I can't understand the borderline rape scenario.
Sex isn't that hard to get?
Just get with a woman who has the hots fore you, women want sex just as much as men.
No rocket science there!


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> This is my point.
> That is why I can't understand the borderline rape scenario.
> Sex isn't that hard to get?
> *Just get with a woman who has the hots fore you,* women want sex just as much as men.
> No rocket science there!


Sex with anyone who will have you is not hard to get. Does the man want sex with just anyone? There is a little thing called self-respect. 

Are you forgetting that different men are attracted to different types of women, and those women may not be attracted to him? 

It's a sickness to rape. 

I think these men are looking for something other than sex, anyway. Feelings of power are more important than the sharing of love and lust.


----------



## treyvion

2ntnuf said:


> Sex with anyone who will have you is not hard to get. Does the man want sex with just anyone? There is a little thing called self-respect.
> 
> Are you forgetting that different men are attracted to different types of women, and those women may not be attracted to him?
> 
> It's a sickness to rape.
> 
> I think these men are looking for something other than sex, anyway. Feelings of power are more important than the sharing of love and lust.


Some overly dominant men do rape the woman who chose to be with them. Some of them women are afraid to leave, but others chose to be with a dominant and thuggish guy, their choice. I didn't say rape was right. But men don't always rape a woman who won't normally have sex with them or someone they "can't get". Sometimes they rape the woman they are in a situation with.


----------



## 2ntnuf

treyvion said:


> Some overly dominant men do rape the woman who chose to be with them. Some of them women are afraid to leave, but others chose to be with a dominant and thuggish guy, their choice. I didn't say rape was right. But men don't always rape a woman who won't normally have sex with them or someone they "can't get". Sometimes they rape the woman they are in a situation with.


I agree. That was the part of my post about sickness, and power. I'm sure there are many reasons, but I bet power is the most common. 

I could see, a man being a man, who enjoys some of that dom/sub stuff or sado/maso stuff, might if he is the dominant one, be a rapist, since it would be tough to know what stop means if the lines are blurred with the pleasure a woman is receiving in the acts of domination or sadism. 

I doubt there are many women out there who would enjoy being tied and tortured in that manner, but I'm sure there are all kinds. 

I'd be really afraid to do that to a woman. I remember talking about that stuff with my x2 and telling her I had deep reservations about being the dominant one. It would depend on how far she wanted to go. She refused to get into detail, so she never got an answer and it never happened. That's her fault.


----------



## treyvion

2ntnuf said:


> I agree. That was the part of my post about sickness, and power. I'm sure there are many reasons, but I bet power is the most common.
> 
> I could see, a man being a man, who enjoys some of that dom/sub stuff or sado/maso stuff, might if he is the dominant one, be a rapist, since it would be tough to know what stop means if the lines are blurred with the pleasure a woman is receiving in the acts of domination or sadism.
> 
> I doubt there are many women out there who would enjoy being tied and tortured in that manner, but I'm sure there are all kinds.
> 
> I'd be really afraid to do that to a woman. I remember talking about that stuff with my x2 and telling her I had deep reservations about being the dominant one. It would depend on how far she wanted to go. She refused to get into detail, so she never got an answer and it never happened. That's her fault.


You could expirament with that act at her behest. It's not important to you, but you do it for her and later you catch some charges as her feminist buddy was in her ear after she got mad at you.


----------



## 2ntnuf

treyvion said:


> You could expirament with that act at her behest. It's not important to you, but you do it for her and later you catch some charges as her feminist buddy was in her ear after she got mad at you.


Exactly. And beyond even that, I sort of see it like opening a door or crossing a line that can lead to more harmful things. It was the reason I asked when she wanted me to do some things. That takes a huge amount of trust and maybe a signed agreement beforehand. It isn't something you do on a whim. You need to know quite a bit about pain and pleasure and where that line should be drawn. I don't have that knowledge and don't have the need to go there. I was willing to talk about it. She must have been afraid to tell me exactly what she wanted.


----------



## Cosmos

I define rape as having sex with someone who has either said No, or lacks the physical or mental capacity to say Yes or No. The latter can be due to physical / mental intimidation or the inability to make an informed choice due to mental health issues and / or drug / alcohol consumption (eg unconscious or semi-conscious).


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> I define rape as having sex with someone who has either said No, or lacks the physical or mental capacity to say Yes or No. The latter can be due to physical / mental intimidation or the inability to make an informed choice due to mental health issues and / or drug / alcohol consumption (eg unconscious or semi-conscious).


Having sex with someone on GHB would classify as rape whether it's male or female.

And I agree with the drunk one, although in my estimation it happens ALOT at bars. Drunk sex is a common thing.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

PHTlump said:


> Yes. Any sex that the woman later regrets is rape. However, we will need a great deal many more prisons to house all the "rapists."
> /QUOTE]
> 
> And any sex that a man later regrets is rape as well? I can assure you that is a common occurrence. Regret by itself doesn't imply coercion.
> 
> I think your statement needs to add that there is an element of coercion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> Sex with anyone who will have you is not hard to get. Does the man want sex with just anyone? There is a little thing called self-respect.
> 
> Are you forgetting that different men are attracted to different types of women, and those women may not be attracted to him?
> 
> *It's a sickness to rape. *
> 
> *I think these men are looking for something other than sex, anyway. Feelings of power are more important than the sharing of love and lust.*


:iagree:
RIGHT!!!
And that's exactly what I'm thinking.
The rape scenario isn't really about sex, but about using sex as a method of control. So he wants sex from *THIS* woman under *HIS* terms and *HIS* conditions , irregardless of what *SHE* says or how *SHE* feels.

It's about power over another person you don't perceive as your equal.
There also seems to be an element of control in it.

I am wondering if the psychological profile of the rapist is the same as the wife beater, or maybe there might be an area of overlap?


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Reformed Hubby,
> Again it seems that we have consistent views on this.
> I was brought up to understand that No means NO.
> My grandfather , all of my older uncles always taught me that it was better to let a woman pursue you for sex, than to pursue a woman for sex.
> In fact, there is a saying among older " players" in the Caribbean that goes something like this;
> " Two things in life you must never run down [ chase after]
> 1] Never run down a bus if you've missed it, because you'll look stupid.
> 2] Never run down a woman, because you look even more stupid. "
> 
> I was never the creepy guy trying desperately to get into a woman's pants. A woman_ knows_ when a man wants sex , so sometimes I struggle to understand the rationale I read here sometimes.
> 
> I too had a full staff of women when I started my business, and some of them were poor single mothers, even if I was single , I simply can't see myself making a move on any of them simply because they were poor and depended on me for money to pay their rent and purchase their groceries. That would be a form of rape in my mind because they were being put under duress by me. It is sexual harassment.
> 
> I'm not saying that none of my employees never offered me sexual favours , but I refused and fired them ,partly because I knew that was a slippery slope with serious legal implications.Even if I was single , I would have done the same thing.
> 
> We own a property which we used to rent out to tenants. One particular family , man , woman and daughter , missed out for three months, the agent notified me, so I called them up , woman answered and asked for more time. I told the woman just pay 50% of the arrears , and she would be allowed to stay.
> She told me to pass by on a given date.
> When I passed by, she told me she didn't have any money but asked if there was any " other payment" I would accept. I told flat out I was only interested in my money , and gave her some more time. She called me up on the phone and tells me she has some of the money. Good I thought.
> When I got there her young daughter
> [ looked about 15 or 16 ]came out smiling and introduced herself. I asked for her mom or dad, she told me they weren't at home and asked me to come inside.
> I became infuriated , left and put the matter into a bailiff's hands, and had them evicted.
> I was infuriated because I see that type of behaviour as beneath me. To assume that I was the type of man that would fall for that kind of crap maddened me.
> WTF , do I look desperate for sex? You owe me thousands of dollars and expect to pay me with sex?
> What was insidious , was that she actually thought that I would actually have sex with her, worse yet, paid money to have sex with her!
> I was pissed.
> 
> I remember telling a guy " friend "about the incident and he told me that I was stupid for refusing their proposal.
> Sometime later ,his wife kicked him out when she found out that he got an underaged schoolgirl pregnant...
> He was blackmailed into paying the family tens of thousands of dollars to avoid getting the police involved.
> At least I wasn't _that_ stupid!
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> I think that there are many shades of grey in the area of sex and submission, and that's what makes it so difficult sometimes to prove rape in a court of law..
> However , I firmly believe that every , single man knows exactly when a woman doesn't want to have sex with him.


I don't want to take away from the original intent of the thread but I can relate to pretty much all of that post, even the old school player uncles (every boy would be lucky to have at least one). 

Regarding your comments in the workplace. By the time my business got going my head was screwed on straight, so I didn't have any issues. But many of my peers have done some really stupid things. 

Most of these guys were engineers and programmers that started companies and were completely unprepared for what came with it. I hate the term alpha, but being a successful business owner will make a man regardless of his appearance an alpha overnight to the woman that are aware of his status. Many of these guys just weren't prepared for it and gave in to temptation.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> RIGHT!!!
> And that's exactly what I'm thinking.
> The rape scenario isn't really about sex, but about using sex as a method of control. So he wants sex from *THIS* woman under *HIS* terms and *HIS* conditions , irregardless of what *SHE* says or how *SHE* feels.
> 
> It's about power over another person you don't perceive as your equal.
> There also seems to be an element of control in it.
> 
> I am wondering if the psychological profile of the rapist is the same as the wife beater, or maybe there might be an area of overlap?


:iagree:

IMO, rape isn't about sex. It's about domination, power and degradation. Sex is merely the tool used to achieve those ends.


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> I don't want to take away from the original intent of the thread but I can relate to pretty much all of that post, even the old school player uncles (every boy would be lucky to have at least one).
> 
> Regarding your comments in the workplace. By the time my business got going my head was screwed on straight, so I didn't have any issues. But many of my peers have done some really stupid things.
> 
> Most of these guys were engineers and programmers that started companies and were completely unprepared for what came with it. I hate the term alpha, but being a successful business owner will make a man regardless of his appearance an alpha overnight to the woman that are aware of his status. Many of these guys just weren't prepared for it and gave in to temptation.


A baby Alpha. And over time it will become a bigger Alpha.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> I agree. That was the part of my post about sickness, and power. I'm sure there are many reasons, but I bet power is the most common.
> 
> I could see, a man being a man, who enjoys some of that dom/sub stuff or sado/maso stuff, might if he is the dominant one, be a rapist, since it would be tough to know what stop means if the lines are blurred with the pleasure a woman is receiving in the acts of domination or sadism.
> 
> I doubt there are many women out there who would enjoy being tied and tortured in that manner, but I'm sure there are all kinds.
> 
> I'd be really afraid to do that to a woman. I remember talking about that stuff with my x2 and telling her I had deep reservations about being the dominant one. It would depend on how far she wanted to go. She refused to get into detail, so she never got an answer and it never happened. That's her fault.



Yes, 
I think the sub / dom thing is kinda tricky to navigate , implicit trust and communication is the at the very heart of it, so it is understood by all involved.
Definitely, some of the acts in there seem borderline to me,however, if two adult people consent to get involved in it then it's not rape , but it does have serious undertones of power and control.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An interesting side note.
Almost all of the notorious serial killers, guys like Bundy ,Dahmer ,Gacy , etc were known to rape and torture their victims before killing them.
Both male _and_ female.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> RIGHT!!!
> And that's exactly what I'm thinking.
> The rape scenario isn't really about sex, but about using sex as a method of control. So he wants sex from *THIS* woman under *HIS* terms and *HIS* conditions , irregardless of what *SHE* says or how *SHE* feels.
> 
> It's about power over another person you don't perceive as your equal.
> There also seems to be an element of control in it.
> 
> I am wondering if the psychological profile of the rapist is the same as the wife beater, or maybe there might be an area of overlap?


Truthfully? We all have the ability to be abusive. We are all, with the definitions today abusive at some point, in at least the emotional area. 

Wife beaters? Do you mean the guy who is smacked and emotionally, financially and verbally abused an strikes back physically when she strikes him?

Or, do you mean the Hollywood version who just walks in the door of his house after work and punches his wife in the face as she greets him at the door?

Neither is a gentleman. Neither is a man. Neither is right.



I think we all have the tendencies, but crossing a line is what takes things further. We justify our actions, whether we are man or woman, abusive or not. Even cheating is abusive, emotionally. 

I think everyone has limitations, just like in marital infidelity. Where one will never do anything, another will have an EA, but never a PA, and another will go, "balls to the wall", with one or more EAs and PAs. It's just what is within each of us and what we believe will be most effective to control and not go over some internal boundary which is not healthy. 

Similar? I think so.


----------



## Racer

Touchy subject...

My accuser: College, girl I liked and had been partying with all night, she was wasted, helped her home, asked me if I wanted to come in. Making out, undressing, then she got sick. Passed out in bathroom. I carried her to bed and left frustrated. No sex. She thought we did have sex and that I took advantage, undressed her, and had my way. She was pissed that I wouldn’t confess and she couldn’t remember much. So then she spent months bashing me, getting me into fights with guys “who didn’t care for the way I treat women” etc. She did not press charges but still went out her way to make my life hell for awhile; Slashed tires, fights, etc. My guy friends weren’t much better and didn’t believe that I’d carry a naked girl to bed and not do anything. What did I learn?... this was yet another experience to add to my list of what sexual interaction is like for me. I liked that girl, she liked me, and what did I get for being a gentleman? Nothing good. I should have let her stumble home alone to be raped for real....


----------



## treyvion

Racer said:


> Touchy subject...
> 
> My accuser: College, girl I liked and had been partying with all night, she was wasted, helped her home, asked me if I wanted to come in. Making out, undressing, then she got sick. Passed out in bathroom. I carried her to bed and left frustrated. No sex. She thought we did have sex and that I took advantage, undressed her, and had my way. She was pissed that I wouldn’t confess and she couldn’t remember much. So then she spent months bashing me, getting me into fights with guys “who didn’t care for the way I treat women” etc. She did not press charges but still went out her way to make my life hell for awhile; Slashed tires, fights, etc. My guy friends weren’t much better and didn’t believe that I’d carry a naked girl to bed and not do anything. What did I learn?... this was yet another experience to add to my list of what sexual interaction is like for me. I liked that girl, she liked me, and what did I get for being a gentleman? Nothing good. I should have let her stumble home alone to be raped for real....


Sorry to hear of your misfortune. You were probably taking the heat for stuff that was really done to her by others.


----------



## Racer

treyvion said:


> Sorry to hear of your misfortune. You were probably taking the heat for stuff that was really done to her by others.


I'll never know. But I do know I've got two other friends with similar stories... One of them is a woman who did this to another guy to save herself the embarrassment and cruel taunting of her friends. He killed himself a couple years later after she and her clic of friends socially destroyed him HS. Related or not, she carries that massive guilt with her thinking she played a role in his demise.

Oh, and my WW used that as an excuse for one of her OM. Too bad she went back for seconds that sort of makes you go ????


----------



## treyvion

Racer said:


> I'll never know. But I do know I've got two other friends with similar stories... One of them is a woman who did this to another guy to save herself the embarrassment and cruel taunting of her friends. He killed himself a couple years later after she and her clic of friends socially destroyed him HS. Related or not, she carries that massive guilt with her thinking she played a role in his demise.
> 
> Oh, and my WW used that as an excuse for one of her OM. Too bad she went back for seconds that sort of makes you go ????


Some of these OM's prolly rape them. And they enjoy his overwhelming throes of passion. While the husband can't even get a peak or put his hand on her shoulder.

Some dangerous situations. We need to educate our kids that no matter how bad you think it is, people get out of these situations.


----------



## Cosmos

*Summary of Studies on Sexual Assault (College Students)*


Sex offenders comprise an extremely heterogeneous population.


 There is no typical profile of a rapist, but they share some common characteristics.


 Sex offenders are overwhelmingly male, typically have access to consensual sex, and were not sexually or physically abused as children.


 Men are more likely to commit sexual violence in communities where sexual violence goes unpunished.


 Sex offenders are experts in rationalizing their behavior.


 Cross-cultural studies of rape identify the following factors as contributors to sexual violence: sex-role socialization, rape myths, lack of sanctions for abuse, male peer group support, pornography, adversarial sexual beliefs, lack of empathy, and all-male membership groups such as fraternities and sports teams.


 Alcohol abuse has been identified as a strong correlate of college rape.


 In a study on male sexual coercion, 23% of college men admitted to getting a date drunk or stoned to engage in sexual intercourse.


 Alcohol can be a disinhibitor and increase sexual impulsivity, as well as lower women’s detection of risk and impair their ability to resist assault.


 Intercourse cannot be consensual when the woman is incapacitated due to intoxication.


Understanding the Perpetrator | Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center


----------



## 2ntnuf

Racer said:


> Touchy subject...
> 
> My accuser: College, girl I liked and had been partying with all night, she was wasted, helped her home, asked me if I wanted to come in. Making out, undressing, then she got sick. Passed out in bathroom. I carried her to bed and left frustrated. No sex. She thought we did have sex and that I took advantage, undressed her, and had my way. She was pissed that I wouldn’t confess and she couldn’t remember much. So then she spent months bashing me, getting me into fights with guys “who didn’t care for the way I treat women” etc. She did not press charges but still went out her way to make my life hell for awhile; Slashed tires, fights, etc. My guy friends weren’t much better and didn’t believe that I’d carry a naked girl to bed and not do anything. What did I learn?... this was yet another experience to add to my list of what sexual interaction is like for me. I liked that girl, she liked me, and what did I get for being a gentleman? Nothing good. I should have let her stumble home alone to be raped for real....


I think sometimes, it's not worth the effort of doing the right thing. These folks know what is inside themselves and then accuse you, because they know what they would have done. 

There was a girl years ago, when I was a teenager, who got drunk at a party. I was walking past the house with the party and saw her. She was a tomboy and a bisexual. I helped her because she was stumbling and my friend. I almost had to carry her home, not far away. We sat on he front porch with the light on, waiting for her brother to get home. 

I just can't have sex with a woman that is not able to participate. I just can't. If she doesn't want it, I can't see how it could be fun. 

She went inside and asked me in. I was a teenager and thought it would be okay, since her brother, my friend also, was coming home soon. She got sick and left to barf. When he came home, you could hear her barfing. He got angry and started a fight. I could not understand him because of her puking. I asked if he heard it and then asked how he could think so little of me to take advantage of her, my friend and betray him, at the same time. 

He called me names and came at me. I was very angry and when he came at me and struck out. I beat the piss out of him. I felt bad in some ways and good in others. I left and his sister told him I was a gentleman and never did anything. 

What happened to you in college, is very similar to what happened to me, after x2 and I split. It was very abusive, when I was ready to commit suicide from losing the love of my life. I don't care if they had good intentions. They changed me forever because of the amount, the severity, and the timing of their actions.


----------



## ReformedHubby

treyvion said:


> Some of these OM's prolly rape them. And they enjoy his overwhelming throes of passion. While the husband can't even get a peak or put his hand on her shoulder.


No one enjoy's being raped. If you are referring to very aggressive rough sex between consenting parties your post would make more sense.


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> No one enjoy's being raped. If you are referring to very aggressive rough sex between consenting parties your post would make more sense.


I'm saying they allowed themselves to be overwhelmed or done it while drunk or high. That if they chose to, they could say it was rape, and some definitions it is rape.


----------



## alexm

*I'm three pages behind, so bear with me!*



samyeagar said:


> I think it is a very slippery slope holding someone accountable for the thoughts of someone else. Your explanations of my above scenarios can just as easily apply to the scenario you gave.
> 
> You youself said she felt no danger at the time. Sure, she could have been in danger, but she didn't perceive any.
> 
> *She, I assume, felt no physical danger at the time because she knew this guy. And also because she was 16 or 17, and you're invincible at that age.*
> 
> She didn't even feel any real pressure in his tactics.
> 
> *Of course she felt pressure in his tactics, that's why she went through with it.
> 
> He (allegedly) turned the car into a dark and empty lot, parked it, turned it off, then produced a condom, which he put in her lap.*
> 
> Sure, it was bad taste just throwing a condom in her lap, but he didn't continue to try and talk her into it, wink wink nudge nudge.
> 
> *To me, that's not just bad taste, that's an ultimatum - one that many people would perceive as being just that. My ex, apparently, did not perceive it that way, but she was also 16 or 17. Perhaps she did feel it was a ultimatum, but that's pretty much how her experience with men had been to that point. Who knows.*
> 
> She did it becase she felt obligated, and why should he be held responsible to the point of criminal conviction because she had such a low threshold of obligation?
> 
> *Nobody should feel obligated to have sex with someone who is not their partner. And even then. Obligation implies it is not something they WANT to do, yet it is something they will do, because the consequences could be worse.
> 
> Rape does not have to be violent, or even have implied violence. Because my ex did something she did not WANT to do, however did it anyway out of some teenage logic of obligation, or perhaps fear of some sort of workplace retribution if she did not, then it's still making her do something she did not want to do. It's irrelevant whether or not she felt endangered, physically.
> 
> I would agree with you if this situation involved this guy asking her "hey, I'd really like to **** you, wanna pull over here?" (not that that's a classy way of doing that...) as opposed to simply doing that anyway, throwing her a condom and sitting back.
> 
> It's all well and good that you and I can sit here and say "well, I wouldn't have done it. I'd have told him to go **** himself and drive me home." Hindsight is 20/20, and we're also not 16 year old girls in somebody's parked car in a dark lot with nobody else around.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that if he outright asked her if she was into doing that, she would have said no.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

Racer said:


> Touchy subject...
> 
> My accuser: College, girl I liked and had been partying with all night, she was wasted, helped her home, asked me if I wanted to come in. Making out, undressing, then she got sick. Passed out in bathroom. I carried her to bed and left frustrated. No sex. She thought we did have sex and that I took advantage, undressed her, and had my way. She was pissed that I wouldn’t confess and she couldn’t remember much. So then she spent months bashing me, getting me into fights with guys “who didn’t care for the way I treat women” etc. She did not press charges but still went out her way to make my life hell for awhile; Slashed tires, fights, etc. My guy friends weren’t much better and didn’t believe that I’d carry a naked girl to bed and not do anything. What did I learn?... this was yet another experience to add to my list of what sexual interaction is like for me. I liked that girl, she liked me, and what did I get for being a gentleman? Nothing good. I should have let her stumble home alone to be raped for real....



I had a somewhat similar encounter.
There was this girl in college who I really wanted to make out with , not that I was heads over heels in love or anthing. Those were just wild days. I told her exactly what I wanted to do, and she used to flirt a lot with me and tease me.
Invited her to a house party and she came [ alone ].
So we danced had fun and she drank till silly drunk,and asked me to take her home.
I was pissed and made as hell because I couldn't see myself taking advantage of her in that state.
I just laid her on the couch , locked the door to her apartment and left.
Later that week she asked me if anything happened.
I asked her she remembered anything happening.
She said no.
I said well that's because nothing happened.
She then asked me how come nothing happened.
I told her that when it happened I wanted her to be sober so that she could remember exactly what happened...

We never had sex though , I think seeing her drunk and throwing up kinda turned me off.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> I had a somewhat similar encounter.
> There was this girl in college who I really wanted to make out with , not that I was heads over heels in love or anthing. Those were just wild days. I told her exactly what I wanted to do, and she used to flirt a lot with me and tease me.
> Invited her to a house party and she came [ alone ].
> So we danced had fun and she drank till silly drunk,and asked me to take her home.
> I was pissed and made as hell because I couldn't see myself taking advantage of her in that state.
> I just laid her on the couch , locked the door to her apartment and left.
> Later that week she asked me if anything happened.
> I asked her she remembered anything happening.
> She said no.
> I said well that's because nothing happened.
> She then asked me how come nothing happened.
> I told her that when it happened I wanted her to be sober so that she could remember exactly what happened...
> 
> We never had sex though , I think seeing her drunk and throwing up kinda turned me off.


Lucky. It's always the good guy who helps them out who catches hell for something he didn't do. Some of these "girls" just want someone to pin their pasts onto. Some of their perpetrators are "popular" or in the right "frat", and they are cool so he'll never pay. She'll play wolf or shark to some "lower ranking" probably very hard working and ethical guy to make up for it.

Sorry I'm no longer angry, and still getting further out of the tunnel of the situation that brought me to TAM put me in. I'm happy in knowing that I have choices, in who I deal with and if it gets that bad, that theres no one to convince. Someone who is with me HAS to treat me well, HAS to respect me, and HAS to consider my needs. We have to be able to communicate, because I don't expect anything I'm unwilling to give. ( well I don't want to be penetrated ) but other than that...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> *Summary of Studies on Sexual Assault (College Students)*
> 
> 
> [*] Sex offenders are overwhelmingly male, *typically have access to consensual sex, *and were not sexually or physically abused as children.
> 
> [*] * Sex offenders are experts in rationalizing their behavior.*


Very interesting.
Reinforces my belief that it's not really about sex , because they have access to consensual sex.

The second point is frightening on many levels because it makes it harder to determine the truth from fiction [ as a third party] , in cases of alleged rape, especially spousal and date rape , when alcohol is involved.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Very interesting.
> Reinforces my belief that it's not really about sex , because they have access to consensual sex.
> 
> The second point is frightening on many levels because it makes it harder to determine the truth from fiction [ as a third party] , in cases of alleged rape, especially spousal and date rape , when alcohol is involved.


In short this depiction is of rape between someone where they are accustomed to sex, and the couple of times where he's used to getting it and she restricts him and he takes it anyway.

Women rape men too, but I was giving the male on female example.


----------



## alexm

Cosmos said:


> I define rape as having sex with someone who has either said No, or lacks the physical or mental capacity to say Yes or No. The latter can be due to physical / mental intimidation or the inability to make an informed choice due to mental health issues and / or drug / alcohol consumption (eg unconscious or semi-conscious).


What about age? Even if the two parties are legal (say, 17 and 15), is the younger of the two expected to be aware of the dynamics involved, especially when put on the spot like that?

What about employee/employer? As others have mentioned, if the aggressor is the other persons superior in the workplace, are they able to make the same judgements and decisions?

Drunk, mentally challenged, mentally unstable, drug user, etc. sure - 100%. But people are often put into positions where they are not able to make a proper judgement of the situation as it is happening right then and there.

I feel that just because a woman (or a man) is easy to "give it up" while under some sort of pressure, it does not mean that they were not coerced or forced into making that decision. Just because they go along with it does not mean they want to.

It is up to the aggressor to ensure that the object of their pursual is not being put in a position to make a snap decision about something like this. That they are comfortable and able to make a proper decision, rather than being in a situation where they do not have that luxury. In the case of my ex, this is exactly the position she was in.

Did she say "yes" because she went through it? And does that completely clear the aggressor in all ways possible? He is now untouchable according to the law? What exactly is the legal definition of "forced"?

The illusion of them being able to make a decision is just that - an illusion. To me, my ex didn't have much of a choice.

Me ex could have rolled the dice and said no, in the hopes that he wasn't just going to force her physically, anyway. Or she could have just done it (which she did) in order to avoid conflict. That doesn't sound like it's A-Okay for the guy to go that route, does it? Not much of a choice he offered her, imo.


**EDIT* - I should also mention that it was my ex's situation that I think was not "right". If this guy had brought her home, and produced a condom, then asked her if he could come in, and she said yes (even if she didn't want to, but maybe felt compelled) - then it could have been a different story.

The fact that he pulled off the road, turned off the car in a dark parking lot, and produced a condom - not so much. If she had gone through with it, then went home and called police, this guy wouldn't have had a leg to stand on - and rightfully so. Would he have got in major trouble? Likely not, if he had a good lawyer. Would he have learned a lesson about how optics can come into play in these situations? You betcha.

My take on it was that he was a moron, yet probably harmless. Neither my ex, nor I, thought he could have become violent or forceful, but that's not the point. He COULD have, and if his intentions were "good", he obviously didn't think through the optics of his methods.

Do I believe she was raped? No. Well, not really. Date raped? Yes, absolutely, but I understand where she didn't exactly do her utmost to avoid having sex with him, too. It obviously wasn't THAT big a deal to her, and she was more ashamed at how easy she was, after the fact.

That alone is not enough to bring police into the equation, I agree. In her case, leaving it alone was the best thing she could have done.

BUT.. it certainly does not mean she WANTED it. It does not mean there wasn't a form of coercion. It does not mean that the guy was on the up-and-up.


----------



## PHTlump

Cosmos said:


> [*] In a study on male sexual coercion, 23% of college men admitted to getting a date drunk or stoned to engage in sexual intercourse.


Drugs and alcohol on a college campus hardly qualifies as news. I see nothing nefarious about social lubrication.



> [*] Intercourse cannot be consensual when the woman is incapacitated due to intoxication.


That depends on one's definition of incapacitated. If one means that a man drapes an unconscious woman over his shoulder, carries her back to her room and has sex with her, then I agree that it isn't consensual. If one means that intoxicated women can't consent to sex, I disagree. Criminal law usually holds no defense in claiming one was intoxicated. Otherwise, drunk drivers would be off the hook by claiming they were too drunk to intend to hurt anybody.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> Rape does not have to be violent, or even have implied violence.


Actually, it does. The definition of rape is sex obtained through violence, or the express threat of violence. You're trying to expand the definition of rape to include inartful seduction, or seduction that a third party, years later, can find objectionable.

And we're going to need a LOT more prisons to hold rapists that meet your expanded definition.


----------



## Sandfly

PHTlump said:


> Yes. Any sex that the woman later regrets is rape. However, we will need a great deal many more prisons to house all the "rapists."


You are dangerously insane.

There is plenty of sex that I 'regret'. Was I raped?

Fortunately, you are in the minority, possibly a minority of one.


----------



## committed4ever

Are the men posting in this thread really implying they have never had sex with a drunk woman? I have even seen women on TAM suggest that other women get a little tipsy in order to get in the mood. And I've certainly seen many men and women on here who were in very low sex marriages say that the only time their wife would have sex is when they been drinking?

I really not qualified to speak on whether or not someone drunk can consent to sex because except for a few teenage incidents when parent weren't around which didn't involve boys, I have not gotten drunk and really have never drank since I've been of age. But I surely have read of sex while drunk on TAM in many scenarios.

Just curious if guys here are really meaning to say it's rape if the woman is drunk.


----------



## Cosmos

> *Cosmos *
> I define rape as having sex with someone who has either said No, or lacks the physical or mental capacity to say Yes or No. The latter can be due to physical / mental intimidation or the inability to make an informed choice due to mental health issues and / or drug / alcohol consumption (eg unconscious or semi-conscious).





alexm said:


> What about age? Even if the two parties are legal (say, 17 and 15), is the younger of the two expected to be aware of the dynamics involved, especially when put on the spot like that?
> 
> Having sex with a 15 year old in the UK would be considered to be Statutory Rape.
> 
> What about employee/employer? As others have mentioned, if the aggressor is the other persons superior in the workplace, are they able to make the same judgements and decisions?
> 
> Yes they are. As a single mother, I was placed in this situation by my employer. My choice was to have sex with him or risk rendering my son and I homeless. I resigned my job.
> 
> Drunk, mentally challenged, mentally unstable, drug user, etc. sure - 100%. But people are often put into positions where they are not able to make a proper judgement of the situation as it is happening right then and there.
> 
> Personally, I cannot imagine any situation (other than the above and/or the perceived threat of physical/mental intimidation) where I would be incapable of exercising my own judgment.
> 
> I feel that just because a woman (or a man) is easy to "give it up" while under some sort of pressure, it does not mean that they were not coerced or forced into making that decision. Just because they go along with it does not mean they want to.
> 
> 
> I agree. Undue pressure, coercion and force being the salient points.
> 
> It is up to the aggressor to ensure that the object of their pursual is not being put in a position to make a snap decision about something like this. That they are comfortable and able to make a proper decision, rather than being in a situation where they do not have that luxury. In the case of my ex, this is exactly the position she was in.
> 
> Did she say "yes" because she went through it? And does that completely clear the aggressor in all ways possible? He is now untouchable according to the law? What exactly is the legal definition of "forced"?
> 
> The illusion of them being able to make a decision is just that - an illusion. To me, my ex didn't have much of a choice.
> 
> Where choice isn't a consideration, one would have to assume that there had been undue pressure, coercion or force which made the victim feel that saying no wasn't a choice. Therefore, there was no choice and this is my definition of rape.
> 
> Me ex could have rolled the dice and said no, in the hopes that he wasn't just going to force her physically, anyway. Or she could have just done it (which she did) in order to avoid conflict. That doesn't sound like it's A-Okay for the guy to go that route, does it? Not much of a choice he offered her, imo.
> 
> No, it wasn't OK. You ex felt pressured / intimidated / threatened into having sex with him.


----------



## GTdad

Sandfly said:


> There is plenty of sex that I 'regret'. Was I raped?





committed4ever said:


> Are the men posting in this thread really implying they have never had sex with a drunk woman?


Tying the two thoughts together, I have indeed had sex with a woman who was drunk, while I was also drunk and wouldn't have fooled around with her in the first place but for the fact that I was drunk.

Not to lessen the seriousness of situations where a man takes advantage of an incapacitated woman, but I wonder if this "consent" thing can possibly work both ways.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> I define rape as having sex with someone who has either said No, or lacks the physical or mental capacity to say Yes or No. The latter can be due to physical / *mental intimidation *or the inability to make an informed choice due to *mental health issues *and / or *drug / alcohol consumption *(eg unconscious or semi-conscious).


Back to square one then. What is mental intimidation? How drunk is too drunk? Which psychos can and can't someone sleep with - for example, is a depressed person in their right mind, or are they too easy to mentally intimidate, does a nymphomaniac have mental health issues?

I didn't think I was going to post in this thread, because I thought I knew what rape was until I started reading some of the replies on here.


----------



## Sandfly

GTdad said:


> Tying the two thoughts together, I have indeed had sex with a woman who was drunk, while I was also drunk and wouldn't have fooled around with her in the first place but for the fact that I was drunk.
> 
> Not to lessen the seriousness of situations where a man takes advantage of an incapacitated woman, but* I wonder if this "consent" thing can possibly work both ways*.


Precisely what I was driving at.

Without alcohol, half the women in England would _*never *_get laid. This would be a good thing BTW, because many of them would put more effort into their personalities if it wasn't for alcohol, which I shall now be calling: 'the male rape drug'.


----------



## samyeagar

alexm said:


> What about age? Even if the two parties are legal (say, 17 and 15), is the younger of the two expected to be aware of the dynamics involved, especially when put on the spot like that?
> 
> What about employee/employer? As others have mentioned, if the aggressor is the other persons superior in the workplace, are they able to make the same judgements and decisions?
> 
> Drunk, mentally challenged, mentally unstable, drug user, etc. sure - 100%. But people are often put into positions where they are not able to make a proper judgement of the situation as it is happening right then and there.
> 
> I feel that just because a woman (or a man) is easy to "give it up" while under some sort of pressure, it does not mean that they were not coerced or forced into making that decision. Just because they go along with it does not mean they want to.
> 
> It is up to the aggressor to ensure that the object of their pursual is not being put in a position to make a snap decision about something like this. That they are comfortable and able to make a proper decision, rather than being in a situation where they do not have that luxury. In the case of my ex, this is exactly the position she was in.
> 
> Did she say "yes" because she went through it? And does that completely clear the aggressor in all ways possible? He is now untouchable according to the law? What exactly is the legal definition of "forced"?
> 
> The illusion of them being able to make a decision is just that - an illusion. To me, my ex didn't have much of a choice.
> 
> Me ex could have rolled the dice and said no, in the hopes that he wasn't just going to force her physically, anyway. Or she could have just done it (which she did) in order to avoid conflict. That doesn't sound like it's A-Okay for the guy to go that route, does it? Not much of a choice he offered her, imo.
> 
> 
> **EDIT* - I should also mention that it was my ex's situation that I think was not "right". If this guy had brought her home, and produced a condom, then asked her if he could come in, and she said yes (even if she didn't want to, but maybe felt compelled) - then it could have been a different story.
> 
> The fact that he pulled off the road, turned off the car in a dark parking lot, and produced a condom - not so much. If she had gone through with it, then went home and called police, this guy wouldn't have had a leg to stand on - and rightfully so. Would he have got in major trouble? Likely not, if he had a good lawyer. Would he have learned a lesson about how optics can come into play in these situations? You betcha.
> 
> My take on it was that he was a moron, yet probably harmless. Neither my ex, nor I, thought he could have become violent or forceful, but that's not the point. He COULD have, and if his intentions were "good", he obviously didn't think through the optics of his methods.
> 
> Do I believe she was raped? No. Well, not really. Date raped? Yes, absolutely, but I understand where she didn't exactly do her utmost to avoid having sex with him, too. It obviously wasn't THAT big a deal to her, and *she was more ashamed at how easy she was, after the fact.*
> 
> That alone is not enough to bring police into the equation, I agree. In her case, leaving it alone was the best thing she could have done.
> 
> BUT.. it certainly does not mean she WANTED it. It does not mean there wasn't a form of coercion. It does not mean that the guy was on the up-and-up.


And THAT does NOT make someone a rapist.


----------



## totallywarped

alexm said:


> I don't think there's a definitive all-encompassing way of describing what rape is in some cases. I guess the closest you could get to it would be if one person is coerced into a sexual act by the other.
> 
> The forced kind of rape is black and white, obviously.
> 
> But there are other kinds, which some people (including the victim) may not recognize as technically being rape. It all depends on your own views, I suppose.
> 
> But you know, the obvious examples like "come on baby, I spent $100 on dinner and a movie, you owe me". That kind of thing. Is it rape if the victim agrees right away, although reluctantly? Or is it consensual? Is it only rape if the victim attempts to say no several times, yet the aggressor keeps saying "come on" until he/she acquiesces? It's forced, but not "forced", right?
> 
> In these cases, the aggressor needs to be cognizant of the fact that your partner isn't necessarily willing, but perhaps only going through with it because they feel pressured, or threatened, or that they somehow owed you something. So is the victim still a victim if they technically agree to it? Or is it still rape?
> 
> I can give you a good example that can be a discussion point:
> 
> My ex wife used to work with this guy. Same age as her (we'll say 17 or so), and he used to give her a lift home after work. One time, he pulled the car into a parking lot near her house, took out a condom and gave it to her. And that's how she had sex with this guy, the one and only time. She didn't say no, yet when she told me this story (some 10 years after it happened), I asked her if she had wanted to, or if this was a guy she was even interested in. She said no to both counts.
> 
> "So why did you do it?" "Because he was nice to me, and he always gave me a ride home." "You realize that's a form of rape, right?" "Yeah, I never thought of it that way."
> 
> So to her, at that time, she didn't feel like she was being coerced. I guess you could say she was "easy". To me, that doesn't lessen what he did, in any way. What if she had gone through with it because she was scared? He pulled into an empty parking lot, while in HIS car, and implied what he wanted, by handing her a condom. He held all the power. How would she have known that he wouldn't have just left her there if she refused? How would she have known that he wouldn't have forced himself on her if she refused? Perhaps she "agreed" to it, simply to avoid those scenarios in the first place. She still didn't want to. Sure, she could have said no, drive me home. She could have got out of the car and walked the rest of the way. But who knows what he would have done? Would he have followed her? Beaten her? Gone to work the next day and tell everybody she ****** him, anyway? In the spur of the moment, sometimes the snap decision to avoid any possible negative scenarios is to just go ahead with it. Is that any less of a rape scenario?
> 
> So, was that rape, simply because she followed through on something she didn't WANT to do or had any plans or interest to do, but did anyway?
> 
> It was obvious to me that she regretted it, all those years later, but even to her, the "victim", she didn't quite put it together that it was a rape-type scenario.


I had a very similar experience. When I was 15 I cut through some woods with my boyfriend. We found a clearing and he laid down our coats. He brought out a knife and carved our names in a tree. He then came over to me and started kissing me and pulled out a condom. I remember telling him no I don't want my first time in the woods but he persisted (it's fine, no one can find us etc). I remember thinking if I don't go along he may rape me anyways and if course I remembered the knife and something about his demeanor scared me so I just let him... I even kept dating him. I convinced myself I was crazy and irrational and it couldn't have been rape if he still wanted me around. 

Now I still don't know if I consider that rape. I know I felt fear but was it irrational? Idk. A friend of mine told me about a experience she had and I urged her to report it but she wouldn't. She consented to anal but immediately she felt a great deal of pain and screamed stop it hurts but he refused (and even held her in place) and finished despite her cries. That's rape I don't care if she consented she had a right to change her mind.


----------



## PHTlump

Sandfly said:


> You are dangerously insane.


You are very perceptive.



> There is plenty of sex that I 'regret'. Was I raped?
> 
> Fortunately, you are in the minority, possibly a minority of one.


My post was satirical. I appreciate the legal definition of rape, which requires force, or the threat of force. I see no need to expand it. However, there is a substantial minority who want to expand that definition to include many other scenarios, including regretful sex.


----------



## samyeagar

committed4ever said:


> *Are the men posting in this thread really implying they have never had sex with a drunk woman?* I have even seen women on TAM suggest that other women get a little tipsy in order to get in the mood. And I've certainly seen many men and women on here who were in very low sex marriages say that the only time their wife would have sex is when they been drinking?
> 
> I really not qualified to speak on whether or not someone drunk can consent to sex because except for a few teenage incidents when parent weren't around which didn't involve boys, I have not gotten drunk and really have never drank since I've been of age. But I surely have read of sex while drunk on TAM in many scenarios.
> 
> Just curious if guys here are really meaning to say it's rape if the woman is drunk.


The only time I have ever had sex with a drunk woman is in the context of a long term relationship where the issue of sex while intoxicated had actually come up before it happend.


----------



## samyeagar

totallywarped said:


> *I had a very similar experience*. When I was 15 I cut through some woods with my boyfriend. We found a clearing and he laid down our coats. He brought out a knife and carved our names in a tree. He then came over to me and started kissing me and pulled out a condom. I remember telling him no I don't want my first time in the woods but he persisted (it's fine, no one can find us etc). I remember thinking if I don't go along he may rape me anyways and if course I remembered the knife and something about his demeanor scared me so I just let him... I even kept dating him. I convinced myself I was crazy and irrational and it couldn't have been rape if he still wanted me around.
> 
> Now I still don't know if I consider that rape. I know I felt fear but was it irrational? Idk. A friend of mine told me about a experience she had and I urged her to report it but she wouldn't. She consented to anal but immediately felt a great pain and screamed stop it's hurt but he refused (and even held he in place) and finished despite her cries. That's rape I don't care if she consented she had a right to change her mind.


What you described was very different from what the other situation alexm described. You said no, and he obviously had a weapon. Most likely, if you had continued to say no, he would have been pissy about it, but nothing more would have happened, but again, you said no and he had a weapon. It is highly unlikely you would have been able to get a rape conviction out of that, but more likely than alexm's situaiton.


----------



## Sandfly

PHTlump said:


> My post was satirical.


It wasn't funny. There is such a law in Sweden, be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Back to square one then. What is mental intimidation?
> 
> 
> I define mental intimidation as deliberately and intentionally giving someone the impression that if they do not comply with a request that there is the potential threat of physical harm.
> 
> How drunk is too drunk?
> 
> Unconscious or semi-conscious. I would like to add when someone's judgment is obviously impaired, but feel that this would be open to abuse, so won't.
> 
> Which psychos can and can't someone sleep with - for example, is a depressed person in their right mind, or are they too easy to mentally intimidate
> 
> Depressed people aren't "psychos," but they are vulnerable... Unless there's force or intimidation, though, this wouldn't make someone who slept with them rapists, IMO.
> 
> does a nymphomaniac have mental health issues?
> 
> 
> Nymphomania isn't something that is clearly defined by science. The clinical conditions that include the concept of high levels of sexual desire and/or activity are hypersexuality and sexual addiction or compulsivity. Having sex with a sexually aggressive and willing woman could hardly be termed rape.


----------



## PHTlump

Sandfly said:


> It wasn't funny. There is such a law in Sweden, be careful what you wish for.


No wishes from me. I was using reductio ad absurdum. But I agree that some segments of the population want to criminalize more and more interactions. Soon, young men will be required to obtain notarized permission slips before having sex.

In October, there was a case in Ohio of a 20 year-old couple drinking in a bar, then walking home. On the walk, they stop to have sex in public. And not behind a bush or anything. Right out on the street. People stopped and took pictures and video.

The next day, the girl regretted her actions and filed a complaint with the police claiming she had been raped. Fortunately for the boy, plenty of independent pictures and video were available to aid in his defense.

Regardless of how clearly consensual the sex looked, the prosecutor still took the case to a grand jury, which refused to file charges. Also, the school is conducting its own investigation, which may result in expulsion for the boy. Of course, no charges will be brought against the girl for trying to imprison the boy for years in order to excuse her actions.

The world is a scary place.


----------



## Racer

treyvion said:


> Some of these OM's prolly rape them. And they enjoy his overwhelming throes of passion. While the husband can't even get a peak or put his hand on her shoulder.
> 
> Some dangerous situations. We need to educate our kids that no matter how bad you think it is, people get out of these situations.


Pretty close to my WW’s thing. Her LTPA fled the country without a word. So her and his best friend spent a lot of time together trying to figure why he left. That led to deeper friendship. Then he started questioning why she was with the LTPA instead of him. Then one night after drinking, he had to “stop by his house he was selling”. She hasn’t told me, but he made a move and used the same words her rapist (from her college years) used. She claims she went along with it because she triggered and feared that violence she had experienced before. After, she claims to have had nightmares for weeks. And she let him talk her into trying it again where it wasn’t triggery.... shortly thereafter her LTPA returned home and those two started back up again dropping the best friend so who knows where it might have gone.

What annoys me. Her rape in college. Alone, in a car, drunk, with a guy she didn’t know well... So she repeats this with this and two other OM’s I know about. Her excuse is something like she was ‘testing herself’ trying to shed some old fear by putting herself in these situations over and over (as well as other situations related to that old violent rape). The car rides: One resulted in PIV (above), both the others resulted in “kissing” if you are to believe her version (I don’t).

So on one hand, an old rape messed her badly. It was a ‘pure’ rape though; violent, left on the side of the road with broken ribs and bleeding. And nasty because it was her roommates brother, who was also best friends with her sisters boyfriend and the families knew each other well. She didn’t press charges, but fell into binge drinking often and ‘escaping’ her reality. I walked into that mess completely unaware. I was part of that “escape” being a nice guy, gentleman, and known since grade school... And I triggered it again unknowningly during our marriage hauling up those feelings where she placed the source of them on me; I’ve been tortured ever since by her past.

edit; Oh, and for jollies I was the perfect victim. Because of that past accusation and my 'inexperience' I was totally afraid to push the sexual thing with her... Very quickly the marriage became sexless....


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> I define mental intimidation as *deliberately and intentionally *giving someone the impression that if they do not comply with a request that there is the potential threat of physical harm.
> 
> Unconscious or semi-conscious. I would like to add when someone's judgment is obviously impaired, but feel that this would be open to abuse, so won't.
> 
> Depressed people aren't "psychos," but they are vulnerable... Unless there's force or intimidation, though, this wouldn't make someone who slept with them rapists, IMO.
> 
> Nymphomania isn't something that is clearly defined by science. The clinical conditions that include the concept of high levels of sexual desire and/or activity are hypersexuality and sexual addiction or compulsivity.
> 
> Having sex with a sexually aggressive and willing woman could hardly be termed rape.


How do you determine intention? If we could determine by law someone's intention, there'd be no such thing as a distinction between murder and manslaughter. You'd either be 1. innocent, 2. guilty 3. or it would be an accident. Manslaughter therefore exists because we can't prove murder, and we can't prove accident.

Semi-conscious? I always drink to semi-consciousness. I have no personal control when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, pot or anything else. Probably many women and men are the same. I'm drinking right now in fact. Chances are I'll drink myself stupid. Had a long day!

Nymphomania - it exists, why can't it be defined? It's all in the mind. It's therefore a mental illness. A mental illness which affects sexual behaviour must therefore impinge on 'consent'. Would all these nymphos willingly contract clap every month? No! They're not in control! There is even a group for sex addicts. Is encouraging a sex addict to have sex the equivalent of taking advantage?

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that all this is very difficult to police. I don't think it should come before a jury, because I doubt they'd find it easy to judge intent/mental illness.


----------



## Racer

Ugh... I could go on and on and on about how ‘rape’ is defined that has messed me up considerably. Hell, under the right perspective, I was raped repeatedly by girls. Basically, a game of tag between boys and girls we’d play on the playground in gradeschool. If caught, you had to kiss the one who caught you. Girls, were smarter... the group would single out one boy (usually me because I didn’t mind so much and was apparently attractive). Then I’d have to kiss all the girls. I liked this game!

Anyway, the teachers found out and freaked. Did the girls get punished? Nope... I had to write apology letters to each and every one as well as face my mother and a couple days suspension. Can’t remember my Mom doing much, I just remember the fear of it all and the overwhelming shame for not knowing this was so wrong. 

By junior high, same deal but we were playing doctor and exploring. Wasn’t until I got older and shared stories that I came to find out what I and a few neighborhood girls were doing was massively wrong. Further shaming by that girlfriend ensued about how screwed up I was. I had been somewhat ‘proud’ of my early success with girls. But later in life, every single one turned it into some sick perversion if I even broached the subject. Hence why I fear sexual interaction; It’s never led to ‘good things’ beyond the temporary...

So don’t forget that going to far with ‘rapey thoughts’ and accusations can also seriously mess up the supposed culprit too. Some of us weren’t messed up until they met the right woman to shame us deeply and make us question and insecure as hell about even so much as ‘encroaching your personal space’. Made to feel like a creeper.... Multiple ‘rape’ stories here trigger me and haul up that shame. Like waking in the middle of the night horny, and making a move on your sleeping wife (it’s not like she’s going to stay asleep). Some find that hot, others, like my wife, threaten to press charges.... 

Anyway... I’m out of this thread. It puts my head in a very dark and confused place....


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> How do you determine intention? If we could determine by law someone's intention, there'd be no such thing as a distinction between murder and manslaughter. You'd either be 1. innocent, 2. guilty 3. or it would be an accident. Manslaughter therefore exists because we can't prove murder, and we can't prove accident.
> 
> Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits—for example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. The prosecution must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the crime at issue.
> 
> 
> Semi-conscious? I always drink to semi-consciousness. I have no personal control when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, pot or anything else. Probably many women and men are the same. I'm drinking right now in fact. Chances are I'll drink myself stupid. Had a long day!
> 
> That's your prerogative
> 
> Nymphomania - it exists, why can't it be defined?
> 
> Nymphomania is a layperson's term used to label a woman, or a nympho, whose sex drive or sexual activity is subjectively deemed too high. The term "nymphomania," is not scientifically meaningful simply because there are no specific criteria that would define a nymphomaniac. In other words, there isn't a way to determine how much sexual desire or activity is too much.
> 
> 
> It's all in the mind. It's therefore a mental illness. A mental illness which affects sexual behaviour must therefore impinge on 'consent'. Would all these nymphos willingly contract clap every month? No! They're not in control! There is even a group for sex addicts. *Is encouraging a sex addict to have sex the equivalent of taking advantage?*
> 
> At best, I'd say it's possibly aiding and abetting an addict to do what they enjoy doing most!
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong, just that all this is very difficult to police. I don't think it should come before a jury, because I doubt they'd find it easy to judge intent/mental illness.


----------



## Sandfly

Steady now, C!

Nymphomania in women is qualitatively different to having a high sex drive. It involves massively risky behaviour, and a sex drive which a man could not sustain, no matter his T-count.

It's not a quantitative difference.

2. Intent. Do you know what people intend? We'd never be surprised if we did 

It's drifting into the realm of 'thought-crime' and 'sin'.

A bit dizzy now. Got some fried chicken cooking.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Steady now, C!
> 
> Nymphomania in women is qualitatively different to having a high sex drive. It involves massively risky behaviour, and a sex drive which a man could not sustain, no matter his T-count.
> 
> It isn't high sex drive. It's compulsive, addictive bonking.
> 
> It's not a quantitative difference.
> 
> 2. Intent. Do you know what people intend? We'd never be surprised if we did
> 
> Of course I do. But then, I am psychic
> 
> It's drifting into the realm of 'thought-crime' and 'sin'.
> 
> A bit dizzy now. Got some fried chicken cooking.
> 
> Enjoy!


----------



## Caribbean Man

committed4ever said:


> Are the men posting in this thread really implying they have never had sex with a drunk woman? I have even seen women on TAM suggest that other women get a little tipsy in order to get in the mood. And I've certainly seen many men and women on here who were in very low sex marriages say that the only time their wife would have sex is when they been drinking?
> 
> I really not qualified to speak on whether or not someone drunk can consent to sex because except for a few teenage incidents when parent weren't around which didn't involve boys, I have not gotten drunk and really have never drank since I've been of age. But I surely have read of sex while drunk on TAM in many scenarios.
> 
> Just curious if guys here are really meaning to say it's rape if the woman is drunk.


I have N-E-V-E-R had sex with a drunk woman.

The closest I've ever came to that was once when I was drunk and my date was drunk after a night of clubbing.
We were in her car , [ yes , she was drunk and driving , those were my " crazy " days!] and she was horny, she pulled over , and we started fooling around but a most embarrassing thing happened to me.

I couldn't get an erection , because I was drunk. I was feeling what she was doing to me , but I couldn't even get my penis to respond.

However I think there's a huge difference with a woman being piss drunk after an indefinite amount of Tequila_ and_ Flaming shots , and a being bit high and sexually aroused from the nice buzz one gets from a shot of Port or two glasses of Shiraz.


----------



## Caribbean Man

totallywarped said:


> I had a very similar experience. When I was 15 I cut through some woods with my boyfriend. *We found a clearing and he laid down our coats. He brought out a knife and carved our names in a tree. *He then came over to me and started kissing me and pulled out a condom.* I remember telling him no I don't want my first time in the woods but he persisted* (it's fine, no one can find us etc).* I remember thinking if I don't go along he may rape me anyways and if course I remembered the knife and something about his demeanor scared me so I just let him...* I even kept dating him. I convinced myself I was crazy and irrational and it couldn't have been rape if he still wanted me around.
> 
> Now I still don't know if I consider that rape. I know I felt fear but was it irrational? Idk. A friend of mine told me about a experience she had and I urged her to report it but she wouldn't. She consented to anal but immediately she felt a great deal of pain and screamed stop it hurts but he refused (and even held her in place) and finished despite her cries. That's rape I don't care if she consented she had a right to change her mind.


I would definitely classify your case as " date rape."
Here are my reasons;

1] You felt intimidated. You felt as though if you didn't comply he would physically harm you.

2]It was your first time having sex.

3]He walked with a condom which meant that it was premeditated , without your knowledge or consent. He planned it that way so that both of you would be alone in the woods. You were a bit naive.

4]You specifically said NO, that you preferred to do it somewhere else at another time.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Back to square one then. What is mental intimidation? How drunk is too drunk? Which psychos can and can't someone sleep with - for example, is a depressed person in their right mind, or are they too easy to mentally intimidate, does a nymphomaniac have mental health issues?
> 
> I didn't think I was going to post in this thread, because I thought I knew what rape was until I started reading some of the replies on here.


What are your personal boundaries and what do you consider as consensual sex and non consensual sex?


----------



## Runs like Dog

Pretty much the normal way normal people look at it.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Lots of ways to "define" rape, obviously. I have my own definition, of course, but posting it would be just more noise. 

I think everyone, no matter what their definition, would be served to apply the following: 

To avoid committing rape (any definition of) or avoid/greatly reduce your chances of being accused of committing it. 
_Get clear consent from a sober individual. _

To greatly reduce your changes of being raped (any definition):
_Don't party alone with men who you don't want to have sex with, and don't get so wasted you can't remember a thing the next day. _

Will these rules protect everyone, every time? No, but it's a good, solid start.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> What are your personal boundaries and what do you consider as consensual sex and non consensual sex?


For me, sex isn't just about rubbing myself against a slippery surface, so if she's not interested then, neither am I.

I'm not interested in casual sex for a start. This might be where most of the danger is. Shagging people you can't trust.

But what I have noticed, is that left to their own devices, my partners would prefer to never try anything new. 

I dunno, when they say 'this hurts', or 'it's sensitive'. 

I don't know if my partner has ever explicitly said yes or no to sex. Are they supposed to? It just happens.

Crikey, what a controversy you've started, CM !


----------



## Convection

Caribbean Man said:


> Would you have sex with a drunk woman who you just met?


No, but at this point in my life I wouldn't have sex with someone I just met even if she was sober as the Pope. Too much life experience with too many nut jobs to fall into that trap.



Caribbean Man said:


> Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's _your_ wife?


Not quite, but there (often) is some dominance role-play at work and as others have mentioned, it can be tough to delineate the difference. But I have been with her long enough to know her boundaries and read her reactions pretty well (unlike the just-met scenario above). If she ever stridently told me to stop, I would, and have. Besides, if she really wasn't interested, I'd be bored. If she laid there like a dead fish 'cause she was uninterested, I'd have more fun rubbing one out.



Caribbean Man said:


> So, what would you consider as " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?


Getting some kind of direct consent from my wife for each sexual encounter? Well, for one that sounds like a good way to kill intimacy. (As I am the act of pulling her panties off with my teeth, pausing and saying, "Hey hon, this is okay, right? I need a 'yes' to continue." Yeah, that'll go over well.) Two, her body language and actions speak to consent. When she's enthusiastic and moaning and kissing me back, I figure that's consent. Third, and this may get me in some hot water but as I am married to my partner, I consider myself to have a blanket consent. So does she. Rejection has to be explicit. Both of us have pretty much woken the other up to play by performing oral. Is that assault? In the wrong context, it would be. And in the event that I woke up and didn't want to have sex with her, I would be more annoyed that I was losing sleep, not feeling like I had been raped ... because we have that blanket consent.

If one of us clearly said "no" (which has happened for one reason or another), and the other continued, that would be coercion and really not cool. It's cropped up a few times but we've worked it out. Lady Convection can be seduced, she can be dominated - but if she's not into it, she is VERY clear ... and frankly, I'd be risking injury to pursue it past that point.

I guess, like everything, it just comes down to communicating with your partner.

Okay, ramble over.

ETA: I've been with wife so long I have no idea how I would approach this if I were single and dating again. If I were feeling it, I would probably just make a move and see what happened. If she stopped me, I'd stop, evaluate in my mind what happened, then revisit it with her when we were out of the situation, and get her opinion on where our boundaries were. If she couldn't articulate it or honestly discuss it, I'd probably move on.



2ntnuf said:


> Caribbean Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's _your_ wife?
> 
> 
> 
> No. She did with me, though. It was very traumatic and most men would not think it was. I would be considered a weak man by some.
Click to expand...

2ntnuf, I am sorry no one addressed this yet. Being an assault victim does not make you weak.


----------



## Convection

I realize as I read over my own blather that I never answered the basic question. This is what happens when you have beer late at night.

When is it rape? If a person clearly withholds their consent, either verbally or through their direct actions, and the perpetrator forces the issue with 1) violence, 2) threat of violence, 3) emotional abuse, 4) blackmail, or 5) implied threat of consequences due to power relations (the boss/employee angle), then I call that the grounds. It's then up to the victim to decide.

If the person didn't want to have sex but never verbalized or acted on a resistance and didn't feel any of the above, it's a wicked gray area between coercion and seduction.


----------



## CuddleBug

How would I define rape?

Hmmmm......


We'll, having sex with your wife while she is asleep.

Or having anal sex with her when she said no.

Or forcing yourself in your wife when she said no.


That I would considering being rape and a no no.


Now sometimes, when the wife says no, it may mean maybe or yes. You have to really listen and read her body language.


Sometimes, my wife is in the mood and pretty much forces me to the bedroom for sex. At those times, I would rather not have sex but I go along and we have sex anyway. Did she rape me?. Nope. Same goes when I'm in the mood and she isn't. I am aggressive and she comes with me to the bedroom. Is she in the mood? No. But she has sex with me anyway. 

"It goes both ways because when you are married, you are no longer your own anymore and you are to take care of your other halves needs as your own."

I have never forced my wife to have sex with me and she has never forced me to have sex with her either.


If my wife was having a shower, I snuck in and surprised her, started having sex with her. She would freak out, not secure enough yet, more weight loss still and she would want me out of the bathroom!!! By me still proceeding to have sex with her, I would consider that rape. Now if she was secure and lost the weight she wanted to loose, I snuck in the shower with her, she would be surprised to see me but would go with it, being a first time for us in the shower together.


But that can be a tough one.:scratchhead:


----------



## larry.gray

GTdad said:


> Tying the two thoughts together, I have indeed had sex with a woman who was drunk, while I was also drunk and wouldn't have fooled around with her in the first place but for the fact that I was drunk.
> 
> Not to lessen the seriousness of situations where a man takes advantage of an incapacitated woman, but I wonder if this "consent" thing can possibly work both ways.


Yep. That's the problem with calling sex with a drunk but still conscious person rape.

Very often both parties have similar levels of intoxication. If she's being raped by him, he's being every bit as much raped by her. To view it any other way is just a 'men are bad' hyper-feminist double standard.


----------



## Jakobi Greenleaf

*Re: Re: How would you defineRAPE...*



CuddleBug said:


> How would I define rape?
> 
> Hmmmm......
> 
> 
> We'll, having sex with your wife while she is asleep.


That is one hell of a double standard you have going on there.

If my wife wakes me up with sex, I'm the king of the world. 

If I wake my wife up with sex, I'm a rapist? 

Seems a little off to me. Rape is defined by ones personal barriers as much as anything else. 

Who is anyone but my wife to say what would or would not be considered rape against her?


----------



## larry.gray

samyeagar said:


> The only time I have ever had sex with a drunk woman is in the context of a long term relationship where the issue of sex while intoxicated had actually come up before it happend.


Ditto.

We both have given each other consent to do things when intoxicated or asleep.


----------



## CuddleBug

Agreed. There still is a double standard.

Wife has sex with hubby while asleep, wakes up to sex. Awesome.

Hubby has sex with wifee while asleep, she wakes up and freaks out. Terrible

Double standard.


----------



## larry.gray

CuddleBug said:


> Agreed. There still is a double standard.
> 
> Wife has sex with hubby while asleep, wakes up to sex. Awesome.
> 
> Hubby has sex with wifee while asleep, she wakes up and freaks out. Terrible
> 
> Double standard.


No it is not a double standard, it is discussing what each party considers acceptable and respecting those wishes. 

Some women are OK with being woken up that way. More women get that way when they hit their sexual peak. If your wife is OK with that, go for it. If she's not, then don't.


----------



## bravenewworld

Hmm this thread really got me thinking. I've had plenty of times where a guy tried to get me drunk to loosen me up....but I can actually hold my liquor so the joke was kind of on them. I used to think these stories were funny - for example the time a guy kept buying me shots on a date until HE hit the floor and I had to put him in a cab. Now I am wondering if these are the type of people to take advantage of someone. Hell, I'm wondering IF they ever took advantage of someone. It's actually quite scary. 

Sex is a weird thing. One person's coercion to another is seduction. I've definitely "allowed" myself to be coerced but it was like a fun game. No absolutely means no (no matter what activity is going on) and I would hope EVERYONE agrees with that. 

The story about the woods and the girl in the car also sent chills down my spine. I am so grateful to have had a father who taught me how to throw a mean left hook and know exactly where to knee a guy in the junk. He always told me, "Who gives a crap about being a nice agreeable girl? Not you."


----------



## oregonmom

There are a lot of good points in this thread, and from my perspective the line gets blurry because I believe there are two types of rape - somebody takes you at gun point in a dark alley rape and date rape.

I liken it to some other subjects we see quite often here. Is it an affair if you only have an emotional connection but never are together physically? Is it abuse if you are called every name in the book but have never been physically struck? People have different opinions on that, but I think if most were actually in that situation, they would say yes to both. But when we hear the words affair or abuse, our minds generally think physical at first thought.

I think the same can be said for rape. When we hear that word, we think of a physically in danger woman and the act being perpetrated by a stranger. I think totallywarped described what happens many times though, and I personally believe yes, that is rape. In my own case, I was a quite intoxicated 16 year old who was taken to an unknown place with someone I trusted at the time. I was down with fooling around, but was not interested in sex as I was a virgin. I said no, but was held down by a much bigger male and cried the whole time for him to stop. I do take my own responsibility for putting myself in that situation, but I was much too young, naive and drunk to know how to get myself out of it once it was happening. I know some will disagree that I was raped, but quite honestly, I'm not concerned with their opinions. I figure if they were in my shoes, they would probably think differently.


----------



## JCD

I am not touching this thread with a ten foot pole...*I* am not touching a thread because it might be too incendiary.

Tell me Caribbean Man, do you also juggle nitroglycerine for fun?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Convection said:


> No, but at this point in my life I wouldn't have sex with someone I just met even if she was sober as the Pope. Too much life experience with too many nut jobs to fall into that trap.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite, but there (often) is some dominance role-play at work and as others have mentioned, it can be tough to delineate the difference. But I have been with her long enough to know her boundaries and read her reactions pretty well (unlike the just-met scenario above). If she ever stridently told me to stop, I would, and have. Besides, if she really wasn't interested, I'd be bored. If she laid there like a dead fish 'cause she was uninterested, I'd have more fun rubbing one out.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting some kind of direct consent from my wife for each sexual encounter? Well, for one that sounds like a good way to kill intimacy. (As I am the act of pulling her panties off with my teeth, pausing and saying, "Hey hon, this is okay, right? I need a 'yes' to continue." Yeah, that'll go over well.) Two, her body language and actions speak to consent. When she's enthusiastic and moaning and kissing me back, I figure that's consent. Third, and this may get me in some hot water but as I am married to my partner, I consider myself to have a blanket consent. So does she. Rejection has to be explicit. Both of us have pretty much woken the other up to play by performing oral. Is that assault? In the wrong context, it would be. And in the event that I woke up and didn't want to have sex with her, I would be more annoyed that I was losing sleep, not feeling like I had been raped ... because we have that blanket consent.
> 
> If one of us clearly said "no" (which has happened for one reason or another), and the other continued, that would be coercion and really not cool. It's cropped up a few times but we've worked it out. Lady Convection can be seduced, she can be dominated - but if she's not into it, she is VERY clear ... and frankly, I'd be risking injury to pursue it past that point.
> 
> I guess, like everything, it just comes down to communicating with your partner.
> 
> Okay, ramble over.
> 
> ETA: I've been with wife so long I have no idea how I would approach this if I were single and dating again. If I were feeling it, I would probably just make a move and see what happened. If she stopped me, I'd stop, evaluate in my mind what happened, then revisit it with her when we were out of the situation, and get her opinion on where our boundaries were. If she couldn't articulate it or honestly discuss it, I'd probably move on.
> 
> .



Actually Convection,
I think I like your responses above. It kinda reflects what I was thinking , or my personal boundaries regarding this matter.

But I agree that personal boundaries with two people who've been together or married for many years would be vastly different from two people dating , let's say for a couple of weeks or months.
Lol , like you , I've been married for sometime , so it's hard to picture myself in a dating / sex scenario .
I definitely don't think I could do that casuals ex thing again though.
Maybe it's just my age ?


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> I am not touching this thread with a ten foot pole...*I* am not touching a thread because it might be too incendiary.
> 
> Tell me Caribbean Man, do you also juggle nitroglycerine for fun?


No need to be wary JCD , you're in the Men's Clubhouse!
Whatever is discussed in here stays right here.

Nitroglycerine is an interesting compound though. It is very volatile and explosive but is also used medication for your heart..:scratchhead:
Maybe juggling it for fun might not be such a bad idea , it might actually help prevent heart attacks.:rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Jakobi Greenleaf said:


> That is one hell of a double standard you have going on there.
> 
> If my wife wakes me up with sex, I'm the king of the world.
> 
> If I wake my wife up with sex, I'm a rapist?
> 
> Seems a little off to me. Rape is defined by ones personal barriers as much as anything else.
> 
> Who is anyone but my wife to say what would or would not be considered rape against her?


Well, 
I don't think it's really a bad position he's advocating per se .
But for sure , you're right. Rape has a lot to do with a persons personal barriers, and really , a third party outside of the marriage would be way out of depth to cast judgment , if uninvited to do so.

But what if the wife herself is unsure and like most women do , decide to ask a third party ?

I think that right there is where the " blurred lines " in the power balances / exchanges of marital sex begin.

Maybe that's why it so difficult to prove spousal rape?

I know this Japanese couple who are restaurant owners . We became friends through mutual business interests . They invited me to their home a couple of times , but I noticed a few times , that the wife had mild bruises on her wrists and arms . Another time I was in her office and noticed bruises on her knee . I thought to myself her husband beat her or something like that. But to me they always seemed ok.

One time I was in one of their restaurants after closing hours and overheard her laughing and talking with some younger girls from her staff about sex.
She was giving them some " sex tips ".
Apparently she and her husband were into the whole bondage sex thingy.
Hence the bruises on her arms and knees...


----------



## Cosmos

I don't know why some think that this subject could prove controversial... I've always found that the majority of men abhor rape as much as women, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.

Similarly, the majority of women abhor those who lie about rape - which is a form of rape itself. Emotional and character rape, which can scar the falsely accused for the rest of their lives.


----------



## alexm

PHTlump said:


> Actually, it does. The definition of rape is sex obtained through violence, or the express threat of violence. You're trying to expand the definition of rape to include inartful seduction, or seduction that a third party, years later, can find objectionable.
> 
> And we're going to need a LOT more prisons to hold rapists that meet your expanded definition.


Then you just answered CM's original question 

I don't think we're debating the actual dictionary definition of the word - we're discussing the over all feelings behind what it constitutes, including date rape, etc. As in: is it still rape if there is no violence, but perhaps the perceived threat of it?


----------



## alexm

samyeagar said:


> And THAT does NOT make someone a rapist.


After it happened, she declined any further rides home from this guy, and she generally avoided him at work. What does that tell you? That she was ashamed, or that she didn't want it to happen again? Or both?

Nonetheless, she was put into a position that no woman (let alone 17 year old girls) would want to be put into.

For the record, I never said she was raped. Date raped, yes, absolutely. This is almost exclusively a male on female scenario. Yes, it does happen, and can happen, to men, but it's rare, and even when it does happen, it's less likely to affect our psyches the way it does a woman. (or teenage girl).

Bottom line is - and my point with my ex's story - is that we men need to understand how certain scenarios can be perceived by women. Hers in particular was a perfect example, imo. The guy may NOT have done anything had she said no, drive me home, but how was she supposed to know that for certain? Being put into a position where the POSSIBILITY of violence exists (due to the circumstances - nobody around, in his car, dark parking lot, condom handed to her without a word).

And that's what we're debating (I think!) - if a man goes about his "seduction" in a manner that could be construed as "if you don't say yes, it's going to happen anyway", is the severity lessened simply because the woman "consents" so as to avoid any possible trouble? Or does the woman have to roll the dice, possibly with her own life, in order for it to be wrong?


----------



## Caribbean Man

oregonmom said:


> There are a lot of good points in this thread, and from my perspective the line gets blurry because I believe there are two types of rape - somebody takes you at gun point in a dark alley rape and date rape.
> 
> I liken it to some other subjects we see quite often here. Is it an affair if you only have an emotional connection but never are together physically? Is it abuse if you are called every name in the book but have never been physically struck? People have different opinions on that, but I think if most were actually in that situation, they would say yes to both. But when we hear the words affair or abuse, our minds generally think physical at first thought.
> 
> I think the same can be said for rape. When we hear that word, we think of a physically in danger woman and the act being perpetrated by a stranger. I think totallywarped described what happens many times though, and I personally believe yes, that is rape. In my own case, I was a quite intoxicated 16 year old who was taken to an unknown place with someone I trusted at the time. I was down with fooling around, but was not interested in sex as I was a virgin. I said no, but was held down by a much bigger male and cried the whole time for him to stop. I do take my own responsibility for putting myself in that situation, but I was much too young, naive and drunk to know how to get myself out of it once it was happening. I know some will disagree that I was raped, but quite honestly, I'm not concerned with their opinions. I figure if they were in my shoes, they would probably think differently.



Firstly I would say that what happened to you must have been traumatic and I'm sorry that you actually went through this.

But I agree with you 100% that it is rape.
All the ingredients are there, fear intimidation , physical forse, and you crying.

However, I would like to ask you a question.
Given the rather unfortunate circumstances of the past and your naivette at that time, what would advise any younger woman to do in a similar situation , and how would you teach your daughter to recognize the warning signs before it's too late?


----------



## alexm

samyeagar said:


> What you described was very different from what the other situation alexm described. You said no, and he obviously had a weapon. *Most likely, if you had continued to say no, he would have been pissy about it, but nothing more would have happened, *but again, you said no and he had a weapon. It is highly unlikely you would have been able to get a rape conviction out of that, but more likely than alexm's situaiton.


You absolutely, completely, unequivocally can't say that.


----------



## alexm

MrAvg said:


> Anytime a woman does not want to have a PIV and tells the man after that point it can be rape. If a drunk woman was seducing a man and once in bed and having sex if she has 2nd thoughts and requests to stop you stop.
> 
> Sex has to be consensual till completion, if requested and you do not stop after that point I define it as rape. Even if she wanted sex in the beginning.


I agree with everything but the PIV part.

It's still rape/date rape if you force someone to perform other acts.


----------



## samyeagar

oregonmom said:


> There are a lot of good points in this thread, and from my perspective the line gets blurry because I believe there are two types of rape - somebody takes you at gun point in a dark alley rape and date rape.
> 
> I liken it to some other subjects we see quite often here. Is it an affair if you only have an emotional connection but never are together physically? Is it abuse if you are called every name in the book but have never been physically struck? People have different opinions on that, but I think if most were actually in that situation, they would say yes to both. But when we hear the words affair or abuse, our minds generally think physical at first thought.
> 
> I think the same can be said for rape. When we hear that word, we think of a physically in danger woman and the act being perpetrated by a stranger. I think totallywarped described what happens many times though, and I personally believe yes, that is rape. In my own case, I was a quite intoxicated 16 year old who was taken to an unknown place with someone I trusted at the time. I was down with fooling around, but was not interested in sex as I was a virgin. I said no, but was held down by a much bigger male and cried the whole time for him to stop. I do take my own responsibility for putting myself in that situation, but I was much too young, naive and drunk to know how to get myself out of it once it was happening. I know some will disagree that I was raped, but quite honestly, I'm not concerned with their opinions. I figure if they were in my shoes, they would probably think differently.


I think you hit on some very important points here. First, No question in my mind you were ratped, and that had to be just awful. No one should have to go through something like that.

The other points...what you describe is one of the reasons there are things like age restrictions on consumption of alcohol. You put yourself in a position where illegal activity was already taking place, but didn't have the life experience to even know the possible consequences, let alone deal with them. Kids are young and dumb and often dont know better, but at the same time, they know damn well that just being at a party like that is breaking the law. Kids playing adult games, making adult decisions when they are no where near an adult. The situation doesn't care how old they are, the consequences are going to be the same. The law may make exceptions for kids, but the real world doesn't.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> After it happened, she declined any further rides home from this guy, and she generally avoided him at work. What does that tell you? That she was ashamed, or that she didn't want it to happen again? Or both?


Probably both. Although being ashamed of one's behavior and/or not wanting to repeat that behavior is not evidence of a crime. I've done many things that I don't want to repeat that were not against the law.



> For the record, I never said she was raped. Date raped, yes, absolutely.


This is the reason that I hate the term "date rape." It seems nothing more than to expand the definition of what is rape beyond any reasonable bounds, as well as cheapen the entire concept of rape and excuse women from the consequences of their behavior.



> Bottom line is - and my point with my ex's story - is that we men need to understand how certain scenarios can be perceived by women. Hers in particular was a perfect example, imo. The guy may NOT have done anything had she said no, drive me home, but how was she supposed to know that for certain? Being put into a position where the POSSIBILITY of violence exists (due to the circumstances - nobody around, in his car, dark parking lot, condom handed to her without a word).


And that definition of date rape can apply to almost every single sexual interaction that every man has with every woman. 99% of men are physically capable of dominating the women they have sex with. If men are to be held responsible for the state of mind of their sexual partners, then we should just revert our laws to define all fornication, regardless of consent, as rape.



> And that's what we're debating (I think!) - if a man goes about his "seduction" in a manner that could be construed as "if you don't say yes, it's going to happen anyway", is the severity lessened simply because the woman "consents" so as to avoid any possible trouble? Or does the woman have to roll the dice, possibly with her own life, in order for it to be wrong?


I think your standard is unfair to the man. You are expecting the man to be a mind reader. To expect a man to face legal consequences for taking a woman at her word, rather than reading her mind to understand any fear she may have, whether rational or not, is too high a burden.

I support an overt threat as being a criminal act. But to expand a criminal act to the point of saying that the man didn't threaten the woman, BUT HE COULD HAVE, is just nonsensical. I don't think women are so emotionally fragile that they must be protected from nonexistent threats.


----------



## samyeagar

alexm said:


> You absolutely, completely, unequivocally can't say that.


Sure I can, and I just did. There is realy nothing all that extraordinary about that situation, and it often ends just as I described. Sure it can go the other way which is what I think you were getting at, and also why I did qualify what I said, and not say it as an absolute.


----------



## samyeagar

PHTlump said:


> Probably both. Although being ashamed of one's behavior and/or not wanting to repeat that behavior is not evidence of a crime. I've done many things that I don't want to repeat that were not against the law.
> 
> 
> This is the reason that I hate the term "date rape." It seems nothing more than to expand the definition of what is rape beyond any reasonable bounds, as well as cheapen the entire concept of rape and excuse women from the consequences of their behavior.
> 
> 
> And that definition of date rape can apply to almost every single sexual interaction that every man has with every woman. 99% of men are physically capable of dominating the women they have sex with. If men are to be held responsible for the state of mind of their sexual partners, then we should just revert our laws to define all fornication, regardless of consent, as rape.
> 
> 
> I think your standard is unfair to the man. You are expecting the man to be a mind reader. To expect a man to face legal consequences for taking a woman at her word, rather than reading her mind to understand any fear she may have, whether rational or not, is too high a burden.
> 
> I support an overt threat as being a criminal act. But to expand a criminal act to the point of saying that the man didn't threaten the woman, BUT HE COULD HAVE, is just nonsensical. I don't think women are so emotionally fragile that they must be protected from nonexistent threats.


I think the moderators need to ban you now. You obviously have a working keyboard in front of you, and you may be highly vulgar here sometime. Also, since you obviously have a working computer attached to the internet, you should probably be arrested and thrown in jail because you could download kiddie porn if you wanted...not saying you have...but ya could!


----------



## southbound

alexm said:


> For the record, I never said she was raped. Date raped, yes, absolutely. This is almost exclusively a male on female scenario. Yes, it does happen, and can happen, to men, but it's rare, and even when it does happen, it's less likely to affect our psyches the way it does a woman. (or teenage girl).


True. It reminds me of something a guy said to me a few years ago after we had a sexual harassment training at work. He said, speaking of himself, "If I went on a date with a woman a couple of times,went to her apartment, and she and 5 of her female friends overpowered me, tied me up, and all took turns, a little embarrassment is probably the strongest emotion I would have."

He said the women wouldn't be at the top of his list as good people, and he wouldn't go out again, but assuming their motive was just to have fun and no sharp knives were involved, he was sure he wouldn't feel mentally scared or have nightmares.


----------



## treyvion

southbound said:


> True. It reminds me of something a guy said to me a few years ago after we had a sexual harassment training at work. He said, speaking of himself, "If I went on a date with a woman a couple of times,went to her apartment, and she and 5 of her female friends overpowered me, tied me up, and all took turns, a little embarrassment is probably the strongest emotion I would have."
> 
> He said the women wouldn't be at the top of his list as good people, and he wouldn't go out again, but assuming their motive was just to have fun and no sharp knives were involved, he was sure he wouldn't feel mentally scared or have nightmares.


What? Took their turns pegging him with a 9 inch dildo?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

oregonmom said:


> I think the same can be said for rape. When we hear that word, we think of a physically in danger woman and the act being perpetrated by a stranger. I think totallywarped described what happens many times though, and I personally believe yes, that is rape. In my own case, I was a quite intoxicated 16 year old who was taken to an unknown place with someone I trusted at the time. I was down with fooling around, but was not interested in sex as I was a virgin. I said no, but was held down by a much bigger male and cried the whole time for him to stop. I do take my own responsibility for putting myself in that situation, but I was much too young, naive and drunk to know how to get myself out of it once it was happening. I know some will disagree that I was raped, but quite honestly, I'm not concerned with their opinions. I figure if they were in my shoes, they would probably think differently.


To me, that is violent rape. He held you down and continued even while you were saying no and crying. Does not matter that you knew him, had been drinking or gone out with him. I am sorry you had to go through that.

To me, the grey area occurs when a woman says she was too drunk to consent. Certainly that applies when she is passed out or essentially passed out. But many have been in situations where both sides were drinking heavily, both sides were the aggressor and yet neither remembers a whole lot the next morning other than the deed was done. Yet because she was like too drunk to give legal consent, it can be technically called rape. That seems problematic.


----------



## samyeagar

PHTlump said:


> Probably both. Although being ashamed of one's behavior and/or not wanting to repeat that behavior is not evidence of a crime. I've done many things that I don't want to repeat that were not against the law.
> 
> 
> This is the reason that I hate the term "date rape." It seems nothing more than to expand the definition of what is rape beyond any reasonable bounds, as well as cheapen the entire concept of rape and excuse women from the consequences of their behavior.
> 
> 
> And that definition of date rape can apply to almost every single sexual interaction that every man has with every woman. 99% of men are physically capable of dominating the women they have sex with. If men are to be held responsible for the state of mind of their sexual partners, then we should just revert our laws to define all fornication, regardless of consent, as rape.
> 
> 
> I think your standard is unfair to the man. You are expecting the man to be a mind reader. To expect a man to face legal consequences for taking a woman at her word, rather than reading her mind to understand any fear she may have, whether rational or not, is too high a burden.
> 
> I support an overt threat as being a criminal act. But to expand a criminal act to the point of saying that the man didn't threaten the woman, BUT HE COULD HAVE, is just nonsensical. I don't think women are so emotionally fragile that they must be protected from nonexistent threats.


The police need to sit by bars and pull over anyone driving by and arresting them for DUI. I mean, they could have stopped, gone in and gotten drunk then gotten back in their car...


----------



## treyvion

MrAvg said:


> Anytime a woman does not want to have a PIV and tells the man after that point it can be rape. If a drunk woman was seducing a man and once in bed and having sex if she has 2nd thoughts and requests to stop you stop.
> 
> Sex has to be consensual till completion, if requested and you do not stop after that point I define it as rape. Even if she wanted sex in the beginning.


Trust me, in that situation I will be literally jumping out of her. And they can still get you on it...


----------



## treyvion

samyeagar said:


> The police need to sit by bars and pull over anyone driving by and arresting them for DUI. I mean, they could have stopped, gone in and gotten drunk then gotten back in their car...


Alot of times they do get people coming out of bars!

I mean how many times in a bar on a hot night are people stopping drinking at only 2 or 3 drinks?


----------



## ReformedHubby

samyeagar said:


> Kids are young and dumb and often dont know better, but at the same time, they know damn well that just being at a party like that is breaking the law. Kids playing adult games, making adult decisions when they are no where near an adult. The situation doesn't care how old they are, the consequences are going to be the same. The law may make exceptions for kids, but the real world doesn't.


Pre-teen and teen years can be quite perilous from a sexual standpoint. Even for boys. When I was 13 I was taller than most high school seniors and looked much older. I hung out with my older cousins a lot. I won't say the experiences I had were all bad, but when I look back on it I had no business doing that type of stuff with more experienced girls. I wasn't raped per se but I was not at all prepared to become sexually active either. 

I assumed you actually had to have a girlfriend to have sex. I was super naive. I can't specifically point to anything negative as a result of losing my virginity so early but I do wish I had at least waited til I was a little older, and also to do it with someone I was really fond of. I know this sounds sappy coming from a guy.


----------



## Cosmos

southbound said:


> True. It reminds me of something a guy said to me a few years ago after we had a sexual harassment training at work. He said, speaking of himself, "If I went on a date with a woman a couple of times,went to her apartment, and she and 5 of her female friends overpowered me, tied me up, and all took turns, a little embarrassment is probably the strongest emotion I would have."
> 
> He said the women wouldn't be at the top of his list as good people, and he wouldn't go out again, but assuming their motive was just to have fun and no sharp knives were involved, he was sure he wouldn't feel mentally scared or have nightmares.


As another poster suggested, the strongest emotion he was likely to feel would hardly be mere embarrassment had he been repeatedly and forcibly penetrated by 6 large, unlubed dildos...


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> As another poster suggested, the strongest emotion he was likely to feel would hardly be mere embarrassment had he been repeatedly and forcibly penetrated by 6 large, unlubed dildos...


I hope he was joking, because to be violated like this against your will it doesn't matter if it's a male or female doing it.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Wow, what a question. For me, my partner has to be into it 100% or it's a no go, so I don't even come CLOSE the the borders of rape. But I'll respond to the details



Caribbean Man said:


> Men, what are your personal boundaries regarding the act of sexual intercourse and your sexual interactions with the opposite sex , whether married or single?


It has to be 100% mutually wanted, desired and consented to. Now my wife likes me to "just take her" sometimes, but we have a safe word if she's TRULY not in the mood and I stop. 



> Would you have sex with a drunk woman who you just met?


Nope, never, can't. I need an emotional connection with my sexual partner. I've tried to do the ONS thing in college and couldn't do it. Even if I could, I'd never with a drunk woman. I want to be memorable and sought after...after the fact. :smthumbup:



> Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's _your_ wife?


HELL NO!!! I couldn't even get an erection frankly under those situations.



> The dictionary has a definition for rape , but the dictionary also has a concise definition for love which cannot by any stretch of the imagination fully explain something so complicated.
> 
> So, what would you consider as " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?


I've done sales in my life as a profession. I know an reluctant "buyer" when I see one. If there's ANY reluctance...I'm a no go. Again...I want some eagerness and desire from her.



> IMO, anytime a man has sex with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him , _at that point and time_ or at anytime , that _is_ rape.
> I really don't think a woman _needs_ to be convinced to have sex. It's either she wants to have sex with you or not.


I completely agree with you.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> Wow, what a question. For me, my partner has to be into it 100% or it's a no go, so I don't even come CLOSE the the borders of rape. But I'll respond to the details
> 
> 
> 
> It has to be 100% mutually wanted, desired and consented to. Now my wife likes me to "just take her" sometimes, but we have a safe word if she's TRULY not in the mood and I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, never, can't. I need an emotional connection with my sexual partner. I've tried to do the ONS thing in college and couldn't do it. Even if I could, I'd never with a drunk woman. I want to be memorable and sought after...after the fact. :smthumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> HELL NO!!! I couldn't even get an erection frankly under those situations.
> 
> 
> 
> *I've done sales in my life as a profession. I know an reluctant "buyer" when I see one. If there's ANY reluctance...I'm a no go. Again...I want some eagerness and desire from her.*


This^^^ is so true!

I understand and believe in seduction , but based on some of the stories a few female posters are making here , some guys actually think penknives and brute force works well when seducing a hesitant woman.

It has always baffled me when I saw guys trying really hard behind a woman.
Trying hard to get her attention is ok.
But trying hard to get her to say yes to sex or any physical act seems kinda desperate and a bit creepy to me.


----------



## samyeagar

Caribbean Man said:


> This^^^ is so true!
> 
> I understand and believe in seduction , but based on some of the stories a few female posters are making here , some guys actually think penknives and brute force works well when seducing a hesitant woman.
> 
> It has always baffled me when I saw guys trying really hard behind a woman.
> Trying hard to get her attention is ok.
> *But trying hard to get her to say yes to sex or any physical act seems kinda desperate and a bit creepy to me*.


See, I guess this is just something I can't relate to. I have never had to try and get a woman's attention. It's always just happened for me. I've never had to put any kind of pressure or "moves" what so ever to get a woman to sleep with me


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> This^^^ is so true!
> 
> I understand and believe in seduction , but based on some of the stories a few female posters are making here , some guys actually think penknives and brute force works well when seducing a hesitant woman.
> 
> It has always baffled me when I saw guys trying really hard behind a woman.
> Trying hard to get her attention is ok.
> But trying hard to get her to say yes to sex or any physical act seems kinda desperate and a bit creepy to me.


Whether or not it is creepy or not, it is very ineffective. And guys should evaluate the type of attention they are recieving. If they keep basking in the ambiance of someone whose not really feeling you, then that's what you will look like.

I've been lucky in that most of my women wanted me as much as I wanted them. So there was no doing a limbo or jumping hurdles to get sex, we just did it.

Also some of my women DID ENJOY being taken and encourage it. They were overwhelmed by the passions and it flowed into our sexual energy.

If I tried to "take it" and a GF or wife, stopped it or blocked it I would stop immediately, becuase I know they would be so mad at me for the next few days it wouldn't be worth it.

With some peoples of "rape" it's scarey for me to consider even regular consentual intercourse. I definately want to keep my current partner happy, and hopefully not have to deal with any new partners, because it's scarey out there.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Pre-teen and teen years can be quite perilous from a sexual standpoint. Even for boys. When I was 13 I was taller than most high school seniors and looked much older. I hung out with my older cousins a lot. I won't say the experiences I had were all bad, but when I look back on it I had no business doing that type of stuff with more experienced girls. I wasn't raped per se but I was not at all prepared to become sexually active either.
> 
> *I assumed you actually had to have a girlfriend to have sex. I was super naive. I can't specifically point to anything negative as a result of losing my virginity so early but I do wish I had at least waited til I was a little older, and also to do it with someone I was really fond of. * I know this sounds sappy coming from a guy.


My first actual kiss was with a girl about three years older than me, I was around 13 or 14 at that time, but tall and looked a bit older.
She asked me to meet her in an empty classroom during school time and I was a bit nervous, being very naive.
She began to kiss me , I didn't know what to make of it at first, until she took my left hand and placed it on her breast.

Then it became crystal why girls always harassed me and exactly what they wanted me to do but never said.

However , I didn't feel violated or intimidated in any way.
that's one reason why I believe that there are marked psychological differences between men and women.
They both respond differently to sexual situations. In some aspects , our psychology responses are a function of our physiological differences.


First time I actually had sex was around 16 yrs old and the woman was 10 years older than me. That would make her 26 . Now flip the genders around and it starts looking borderline creepy / predatory.


----------



## alexm

PHTlump said:


> Probably both. Although being ashamed of one's behavior and/or not wanting to repeat that behavior is not evidence of a crime. I've done many things that I don't want to repeat that were not against the law.
> 
> *Yes, obviously. But that's only part of the issue. It should never, ever, be the only reason somebody accuses another of this.*
> 
> 
> This is the reason that I hate the term "date rape." It seems nothing more than to expand the definition of what is rape beyond any reasonable bounds, as well as cheapen the entire concept of rape and excuse women from the consequences of their behavior.
> 
> *I disagree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, like absolutely everything in the world, some people will take advantage of rules and laws, and this is no different. It just goes to show that people would be better served waiting until you get to know somebody very well, before they jump into bed with them. It's not that simple, of course, but you know what? It's a legitimate danger of the ONS, casual sex scene, and both parties have to be as sure as possible that what they're doing can't be construed in a negative way OR that the position they're putting themselves couldn't be a set up.*
> 
> And that definition of date rape can apply to almost every single sexual interaction that every man has with every woman. 99% of men are physically capable of dominating the women they have sex with. If men are to be held responsible for the state of mind of their sexual partners, then we should just revert our laws to define all fornication, regardless of consent, as rape.
> 
> *Absolutely not.
> 
> Men AND women have to be responsible for the circumstances in which they are approaching the other, not the state of mind the other is already in.
> 
> Please tell me you don't agree that, while driving a girl/woman home, late at night, that it is an acceptable way of seducing said woman by pulling off the road, into a darkened, empty parking lot, turning off your car, and handing her a condom.
> 
> Not only is that method highly degrading and assumptive, it most definitely can be taken as threatening, or at the very least, that she doesn't have much choice in the matter.
> 
> What the woman decides to do at that point is moot. I know, from my ex's words, that she did NOT want to do it, however she felt that she had little choice. It did not occur to her (she says) that she could have been violently raped or beaten, but that's besides the point.
> 
> Low self esteem, or awareness in these situations, is not a carte blanche for a man to take advantage.
> 
> So what you, and some others here, are saying is that if a woman does not have the wherewithal or experience to handle herself, or stand her ground, in a situation like this, that therefore nothing bad happened?
> 
> If she WAS frightened for her safety, yet did not make this clear to the man, and still went through with it, is she still to blame, because she "agreed"? Because she didn't want to show her fear, or that she thought that compliance and "getting it over with" would be the better alternative? It still doesn't make it right.*
> 
> I think your standard is unfair to the man. You are expecting the man to be a mind reader. To expect a man to face legal consequences for taking a woman at her word, rather than reading her mind to understand any fear she may have, whether rational or not, is too high a burden.
> 
> *Why are you insisting on only using the male side of things for this?
> 
> And it doesn't take a mind reader to understand that an empty parking lot at night, or the middle of a forest, or any other such situation could or would be taken as even mildly threatening.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the aggressors plans are, whether he or she WOULD take no, or not. It's how it comes across to the other party that matters, and ALL people have to be aware of how, especially in sex, things can be construed or taken, especially as men.*
> 
> I support an overt threat as being a criminal act. But to expand a criminal act to the point of saying that the man didn't threaten the woman, BUT HE COULD HAVE, is just nonsensical. _I don't think women are so emotionally fragile that they must be protected from nonexistent threats._
> 
> *Are you a woman?*


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> Whether or not it is creepy or not, it is very ineffective. And guys should evaluate the type of attention they are recieving. If they keep basking in the ambiance of someone whose not really feeling you, then that's what you will look like.
> 
> I've been lucky in that most of my women wanted me as much as I wanted them. So there was no doing a limbo or jumping hurdles to get sex, we just did it.
> 
> *Also some of my women DID ENJOY being taken and encourage it. They were overwhelmed by the passions and it flowed into our sexual energy.*
> 
> If I tried to "take it" and a GF or wife, stopped it or blocked it I would stop immediately, becuase I know they would be so mad at me for the next few days it wouldn't be worth it.
> 
> With some peoples of "rape" it's scarey for me to consider even regular consentual intercourse. I definately want to keep my current partner happy, and hopefully not have to deal with any new partners, because it's scarey out there.



I think every woman dreams and fantasizes of being taken , but not against their will.
A woman constructs and entire fantasy of the type of man , the surroundings and exactly how she wants to be seduced or " taken."
Every girl fantasizes about her " _first time_" and exactly how she wants it to be. But some guys apparently don't understand and refuse to accept that they aren't part of her fantasy.

Men and women view the physical aspect of sex differently. The physical act of intercourse is intrusive for women , hence it is only logical that she has the final say.


----------



## oregonmom

Caribbean Man said:


> Firstly I would say that what happened to you must have been traumatic and I'm sorry that you actually went through this.
> 
> But I agree with you 100% that it is rape.
> All the ingredients are there, fear intimidation , physical forse, and you crying.
> 
> However, I would like to ask you a question.
> Given the rather unfortunate circumstances of the past and your naivette at that time, what would advise any younger woman to do in a similar situation , and how would you teach your daughter to recognize the warning signs before it's too late?


Thanks CM, I'm sorry it happened too, but like most things in life you can wallow in pity or learn from it, and I have learned a great deal.

As for your question, there are a lot of things I would advise. First and foremost, don't get drunk that young . In many ways, I was very mature at that age. I travelled all over the country by myself, was very motivated and responsible. I was also very naive. Because I had been very self sufficient, I thought I knew it all, but I had not really encountered "bad" people. I had drank before and nothing bad happened, so why would it?

Second, don't think you know someone just because you know their friends. I was visiting a college and the others who were there had been my friends since I was 10 or 11 years old. I felt a false sense of security because this guy was one of my closest friends roommate. But my friend only knew him for a month or so, and that is not nearly long enough to really "know" someone.

Third, don't leave somewhere with anyone, period! Never ever ever. Always know your surroundings. I did not know where I was or how to get back to my friends and that was a big reason why I didn't fight more. It was a typical traumatic fight or flight scenario, I could have chose to try and kick and hit him and run away, but then I'd be a drunk kid roaming the streets of a town I didn't know at 1am, who knows what could happen then. Even if I had run into someone who wanted to help, I wasn't sure where I was returning to. My mind thought pleading was safer than running. 

Keep your cell phone handy at all times (kids my age didn't have them back then, but they sure do now). If I had a daughter, I'd have her carry mace. Don't be afraid to use force. Most of all, love and respect yourself. I didn't. I remember feeling concerned about my reputation and what people would think of me if they found out. That it only happened to stupid people. Would my parents ever let me leave the house again? Would I be forcing my friends to take sides? I know now that stuff just doesn't matter. Save yourself first, and the people who really matter in your life will support you.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> I think every woman dreams and fantasizes of being taken , but not against their will.
> A woman constructs and entire fantasy of the type of man , the surroundings and exactly how she wants to be seduced or " taken."
> Every girl fantasizes about her " _first time_" and exactly how she wants it to be. But some guys apparently don't understand and refuse to accept that they aren't part of her fantasy.
> 
> Men and women view the physical aspect of sex differently. The physical act of intercourse is intrusive for women , hence it is only logical that she has the final say.


Yeah, you just can't "kick the door in".


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Sorry, don't see this as rape at all. He made no threats according to your story. He merely tried his luck and she gave it up.
> 
> He didn't even say "my way or the highway" he just pulled out a durex and asked if she fancied it.
> 
> He gave her a lift from work each day. If he had made threats or even veiled threats, used force or drugged her, got her drunk by spiking drinks then yes.
> 
> But a type of rape?
> 
> No.


The condom example WAS NOT rape. But it was a form of game. He put her on the spot without asking, knowing in her mind that he probably felt she "owed" him for the dinner.

He never had to ask and get rejected and he was gambling that she would know what to do with it, she could've said "what's this for?", he says "you know", she says "oh, I wasn't even thinking like that" and give it back.

Alot of the game is short circuiting the thoughts and "jacking" someone mentally to get what you want out of them.

So she fell for some game.

The condom game sounds like a "good move" for a player.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Well I suppose if you are the confident player type it soon whittles down the field to the ones who will, the ones who won't and the ones who might.


the player doesn't waste a single lick of time on the ones he knows who won't... he may check on them after some long period of time to see if it's changed. but he's not going to let his player swag get get messed with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> I don't think there's a definitive all-encompassing way of describing what rape is in some cases. I guess the closest you could get to it would be if one person is coerced into a sexual act by the other.
> 
> The forced kind of rape is black and white, obviously.
> 
> But there are other kinds, which some people (including the victim) may not recognize as technically being rape. It all depends on your own views, I suppose.
> 
> But you know, the obvious examples like "come on baby, I spent $100 on dinner and a movie, you owe me". That kind of thing. Is it rape if the victim agrees right away, although reluctantly? Or is it consensual? Is it only rape if the victim attempts to say no several times, yet the aggressor keeps saying "come on" until he/she acquiesces? It's forced, but not "forced", right?
> 
> In these cases, the aggressor needs to be cognizant of the fact that your partner isn't necessarily willing, but perhaps only going through with it because they feel pressured, or threatened, or that they somehow owed you something. So is the victim still a victim if they technically agree to it? Or is it still rape?
> 
> I can give you a good example that can be a discussion point:
> 
> My ex wife used to work with this guy. Same age as her (we'll say 17 or so), and he used to give her a lift home after work. One time, he pulled the car into a parking lot near her house, took out a condom and gave it to her. And that's how she had sex with this guy, the one and only time. She didn't say no, yet when she told me this story (some 10 years after it happened), I asked her if she had wanted to, or if this was a guy she was even interested in. She said no to both counts.
> 
> "So why did you do it?" "Because he was nice to me, and he always gave me a ride home." "You realize that's a form of rape, right?" "Yeah, I never thought of it that way."
> 
> So to her, at that time, she didn't feel like she was being coerced. I guess you could say she was "easy". To me, that doesn't lessen what he did, in any way. What if she had gone through with it because she was scared? He pulled into an empty parking lot, while in HIS car, and implied what he wanted, by handing her a condom. He held all the power. How would she have known that he wouldn't have just left her there if she refused? How would she have known that he wouldn't have forced himself on her if she refused? Perhaps she "agreed" to it, simply to avoid those scenarios in the first place. She still didn't want to. Sure, she could have said no, drive me home. She could have got out of the car and walked the rest of the way. But who knows what he would have done? Would he have followed her? Beaten her? Gone to work the next day and tell everybody she ****** him, anyway? In the spur of the moment, sometimes the snap decision to avoid any possible negative scenarios is to just go ahead with it. Is that any less of a rape scenario?
> 
> So, was that rape, simply because she followed through on something she didn't WANT to do or had any plans or interest to do, but did anyway?
> 
> It was obvious to me that she regretted it, all those years later, but even to her, the "victim", she didn't quite put it together that it was a rape-type scenario.


Well I don't really see this as rape per se.
Based on how she described it to you.
She wasn't under aged or anything , and the guy was the same age as her.
I wouldn't condone his actions , but , she thought he was 
" a nice guy" and she decided to reward him when he asked for sex.
There is an old Latin proverb which goes like this : 
"_Qui tacet consentire videtur _" , translation ;
" silence gives consent."
She never resisted , verbally or physically , and probably never reported it afterwards.
She said he handed her the condom, did she put it on him?
Was she forced to remove her clothing?
They were in his car , did he threaten?

I'm not saying that the man is innocent in all of this because his actions does seem a bit creepy and " rapey ."
Maybe he was a social misfit , or maybe a predator? We don't know, and none of us were there , not even you were there ,and the information does seem sketchy.

This would have been a very difficult case to prove even if she had reported it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Well I suppose if you are the confident player type it soon whittles down the field to the ones who will, the ones who won't and the ones who might.


No really.
The losers try those tactics or what we used to call " scatter shots " long ago in my single days.

The player is more like a sniper, he studies women at a social level unlike the other men around him . 
He knows exactly who would say yes ,takes aim , and doesn't wast time on the " maybe's " or " no's."


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> You are no doubt right. I'm certainly no expert on women and 'picking them up'.
> 
> I suppose a good 'player' can detect conscious and subconscious signals.


90% of the communication is non-verbal, it really is.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> I disagree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, like absolutely everything in the world, some people will take advantage of rules and laws, and this is no different. It just goes to show that people would be better served waiting until you get to know somebody very well, before they jump into bed with them. It's not that simple, of course, but you know what? It's a legitimate danger of the ONS, casual sex scene, and both parties have to be as sure as possible that what they're doing can't be construed in a negative way OR that the position they're putting themselves couldn't be a set up.


I agree that casual sex scene can be dangerous. Women can, and do, get victimized. It's more rare for men to be directly victimized by women, but false criminal accusations are a threat to men.

I also agree that waiting for a relationship, or best of all, marriage, can eliminate almost all of that kind of risk. But, people like sex and they're going to continue to pursue it.



> Men AND women have to be responsible for the circumstances in which they are approaching the other, not the state of mind the other is already in.


I agree with this statement. However, I disagree with your conclusion that, if a woman infers that she is in danger, even though the man has made no threats toward her, the man is at fault and, potentially, guilty of a crime.



> Please tell me you don't agree that, while driving a girl/woman home, late at night, that it is an acceptable way of seducing said woman by pulling off the road, into a darkened, empty parking lot, turning off your car, and handing her a condom.


I don't find it elegant or sophisticated. But I don't find anything objectionable about it. Teenagers frequently have sex in cars in deserted places.



> Not only is that method highly degrading and assumptive, it most definitely can be taken as threatening, or at the very least, that she doesn't have much choice in the matter.


I think you're reading too much into the advance. Sexual advances in public are rarely successful. Isolation is one of the key aspects to a successful sexual strategy. There's nothing inherently threatening about being alone with a friend. She didn't mind being alone with him most nights when he was driving her home.



> What the woman decides to do at that point is moot. I know, from my ex's words, that she did NOT want to do it, however she felt that she had little choice. It did not occur to her (she says) that she could have been violently raped or beaten, but that's besides the point.


What you seem to be trying to do is to remove the issue of a woman's consent from the crime of rape. But it's impossible. The woman's consent is the essential element of the crime. If a woman consents, you can't just dismiss her decision and insist that a crime still occurred.



> So what you, and some others here, are saying is that if a woman does not have the wherewithal or experience to handle herself, or stand her ground, in a situation like this, that therefore nothing bad happened?


I'm saying that, if a man suggests sex to a woman without violence, or the threat of violence, and the woman consents, then no crime has been committed. If the woman doesn't want to have sex, it's unreasonable for her to say "yes," but expect the man to read her mind and know that she meant, "no." Especially when prison time is a potential consequence of incorrect mind reading.



> If she WAS frightened for her safety, yet did not make this clear to the man, and still went through with it, is she still to blame, because she "agreed"? Because she didn't want to show her fear, or that she thought that compliance and "getting it over with" would be the better alternative? It still doesn't make it right.


I wouldn't say it is right, or wrong. I wouldn't say anyone is to blame. I would say it is an unfortunate miscommunication. One certainly can't hold the man responsible for the woman's actions, or lack of actions.



> Why are you insisting on only using the male side of things for this?


The crime of rape is usually perpetrated by men. Your example was of a man pursuing a woman. Your recommendations also fall more heavily on men than women.



> And it doesn't take a mind reader to understand that an empty parking lot at night, or the middle of a forest, or any other such situation could or would be taken as even mildly threatening.


It is a reality that sex generally happens in private. I'm sure that women would feel safer is men approached them for sex during church, or in the middle of a parade. But most people frown on public sex. It's going to happen while people are alone.

Teenagers want sex, but generally live with their parents, who also frown on sex under their roofs. As such, teenagers usually have sex in cars, forests, and wherever there are no other people. That's not evidence of evil intent. It's evidence of horniness and a desire not to get caught having sex.



> It doesn't matter what the aggressors plans are, whether he or she WOULD take no, or not. It's how it comes across to the other party that matters, and ALL people have to be aware of how, especially in sex, things can be construed or taken, especially as men.


Again, I disagree. Current rape statutes basically state that violence, or the threat of violence, rises to the level of rape. There are some other exceptions for children, mentally handicapped people, etc. But that's the crime that people usually think of when rape is discussed. Expanding that to include things that ANY person COULD construe to be threatening would be nonsensical. Under that standard, we are all guilty of rape. Or date rape.



> Are you a woman?


No.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Perhaps in Alexm's ex wifes case the guy picked up on some signals that maybe she would acquiesce?


She was happy, she enjoyed her time, and she was open.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Perhaps in Alexm's ex wifes case the guy picked up on some signals that maybe she would acquiesce?


I think the average man knows when a woman is insecure or has weak boundaries.
Potential rapists tend to sniff that out very easily too and take advantage of it.
In Alex case I don't get the sense that the guy was a pervert or anything , because as you pointed out in your first post , she was accustomed riding home with him , and like I said before ,she thought she was a nice guy , which in my mind , she meant she felt obligated to have sex with him. I have heard of such scenarios before, it's called " pity sex."
Also ,they were both the same age , so a power differential didn't really exist.

Alex's case is kinda tricky one , but I'm leaning and agreeing with you on this. 
Doesn't sound like rape to me.


----------



## samyeagar

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the average man knows when a woman is insecure or has weak boundaries.
> Potential rapists tend to sniff that out very easily too and take advantage of it.
> In Alex case I don't get the sense that the guy was a pervert or anything , because as you pointed out in your first post , she was accustomed riding home with him , and like I said before ,she thought she was a nice guy , which in my mind , she meant she felt obligated to have sex with him. I have heard of such scenarios before, it's called " *pity sex."*Also ,they were both the same age , so a power differential didn't really exist.
> 
> Alex's case is kinda tricky one , but I'm leaning and agreeing with you on this.
> Doesn't sound like rape to me.


Pity sex, yes, obligation sex, yes, rape, no.


----------



## oregonmom

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the average man knows when a woman is insecure or has weak boundaries.
> Potential rapists tend to sniff that out very easily too and take advantage of it.


You are dead on with this. In my case, I had met this guy about a month earlier at a moment I was feeling very vulnerable. I was involved emotionally with another guy who had a gf (insecurity right there) and his gf showed up, all over him, giving me the haha stare down and I was pretty upset. Who consoled me? My best friend and this guy I didn't even know (the eventual rapist). He for sure knew how to play on my insecurity when I was having a weak moment. What a nice guy I thought to myself, but I can see it clear as day now how he was setting it up - I'm so pretty and nice and deserve better. He can't wait to see me when I come visit soon. Total manipulation of someone who doesn't really respect herself. If I had confidence in myself about men and respected myself, I would have seen right through it.


----------



## treyvion

samyeagar said:


> Pity sex, yes, obligation sex, yes, rape, no.


I don't think she gave him pity sex. I think she guilted herself and thought it was the "cool" thing to do so she did it.


----------



## GutPunch

Here's my story. I meet a woman where I work at the grocery store. We develop a friendship when she comes in. I'm only 16 mind you. 

One day I'm cutting class and she sees me out. Tells me to hop in and we'll go do something. I say sure. We ride around and she says let me show you my place. I say ok. 

We get to her apartment and she says she wants to f***. I know she's married and I refuse because I'm weird like that. Probably felt like I was losing control of the situation. She knows I need to get back to school and says to me "if you don't you can walk back to your car". 

I caved ...... never thought of it as rape though. Just me not wanting to walk seven miles or get caught cutting class.


----------



## treyvion

GutPunch said:


> Here's my story. I meet a woman where I work at the grocery store. We develop a friendship when she comes in. I'm only 16 mind you.
> 
> One day I'm cutting class and she sees me out. Tells me to hop in and we'll go do something. I say sure. We ride around and she says let me show you my place. I say ok.
> 
> We get to her apartment and she says she wants to f***. I know she's married and I refuse because I'm weird like that. Probably felt like I was losing control of the situation. She knows I need to get back to school and says to me "if you don't you can walk back to your car".
> 
> I caved ...... never thought of it as rape though. Just me not wanting to walk seven miles or get caught cutting class.


She gamed you


----------



## samyeagar

GutPunch said:


> Here's my story. I meet a woman where I work at the grocery store. We develop a friendship when she comes in. I'm only 16 mind you.
> 
> One day I'm cutting class and she sees me out. Tells me to hop in and we'll go do something. I say sure. We ride around and she says let me show you my place. I say ok.
> 
> We get to her apartment and she says she wants to f***. I know she's married and I refuse because I'm weird like that. Probably felt like I was losing control of the situation. She knows I need to get back to school and says to me "if you don't you can walk back to your car".
> 
> I caved ...... never thought of it as rape though. Just me not wanting to walk seven miles or get caught cutting class.


Oh my...if the genders were reversed...


----------



## Caribbean Man

oregonmom said:


> You are dead on with this. In my case, I had met this guy about a month earlier at a moment I was feeling very vulnerable. I was involved emotionally with another guy who had a gf (insecurity right there) and his gf showed up, all over him, giving me the haha stare down and I was pretty upset. Who consoled me? My best friend and this guy I didn't even know (the eventual rapist). He for sure knew how to play on my insecurity when I was having a weak moment. What a nice guy I thought to myself, but I can see it clear as day now how he was setting it up - I'm so pretty and nice and deserve better. He can't wait to see me when I come visit soon. Total manipulation of someone who doesn't really respect herself. If I had confidence in myself about men and respected myself, I would have seen right through it.


I understand how you feel, but I don't htink it's usefull or helpful to your psyche to blame yourself. 
It doesn't matter how insecure you were or whatever. That's separate and aside from the evil that man did to you back then. It is not your fault, he chose to do that to you. That's on him , not on you.He's a predator who's probably accustomed doing that to other women.
In the meantime keep your head up.
You're a surrvivor.


BTW, I like the precautionary list you gave in the post before this one in response to my questions.
Sounds positive to me.
You are


----------



## alexm

samyeagar said:


> Oh my...if the genders were reversed...


I hope that isn't sarcasm  I honestly can't tell with some of you...

If it wasn't, then I totally agree.

A lot of the responses here seem to be definitive, but they're mostly from men. I realize this is the Men's Clubhouse, so that's who the majority of responses are going to come from, but all the same.

I'd like to say I'm shocked at how some of you feel certain situations don't qualify as anything but the woman/girl being easy, or having low self esteem, but I'm not. It was half expected. Like that's reason enough to take advantage or something. I hate to see that kind of attitude from so many 

I do agree that my ex was not technically "raped", but it was definitely -something-. Maybe there's no word for it? I do believe she was date raped, but some of you don't even agree with that.

What sets me off are the comments from one or two of you that imply, or say outright, that she was just easy and didn't mind. That infuriates me. And this is a woman I have zero interest in defending, trust me.

Those words are one step away from saying "she deserved it".

Men don't, and can't, understand the dynamics of being a woman in day to day life, let alone being a woman who is put in situations like these. It's VERY easy for you, a man, to sit behind your screen and say "she could have/should have just said no."

We men are rarely, if ever put in these situations, and even when we are, we have a COMPLETELY different mindset about it more often than not. Some of us would even think it's pretty awesome to have a woman be so forceful, especially at the age of 16 or 17. Women and girls are MUCH less apt to feel that way, and it's not nearly as simple to deal with those situations being a woman.


----------



## Sandfly

alexm said:


> We men are rarely, if ever put in these situations, and even when we are, we have a COMPLETELY different mindset about it more often than not.* Some of us would even think it's pretty awesome to have a woman be so forceful, especially at the age of 16 or 17.* Women and girls are MUCH less apt to feel that way, and it's not nearly as simple to deal with those situations being a woman.


Well I had some creepy female teachers, so I can't agree with you.

Second, it's awesome right up until you find out they're pregnant, and fully intended to get themselves pregnant.

I think women should face the same penalties as men for paedophilia, abusing their position, blackmail.

Equality and 'free love' should be a two way street.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> I hope that isn't sarcasm  I honestly can't tell with some of you...
> 
> If it wasn't, then I totally agree.
> 
> A lot of the responses here seem to be definitive, but they're mostly from men. I realize this is the Men's Clubhouse, so that's who the majority of responses are going to come from, but all the same.
> 
> I'd like to say I'm shocked at how some of you feel certain situations don't qualify as anything but the woman/girl being easy, or having low self esteem, but I'm not. It was half expected. Like that's reason enough to take advantage or something. I hate to see that kind of attitude from so many
> 
> *I do agree that my ex was not technically "raped", but it was definitely -something-. Maybe there's no word for it? I do believe she was date raped, but some of you don't even agree with that.
> *
> What sets me off are the comments from one or two of you that imply, or say outright, that she was just easy and didn't mind. That infuriates me. And this is a woman I have zero interest in defending, trust me.
> 
> Those words are one step away from saying "she deserved it".
> 
> Men don't, and can't, understand the dynamics of being a woman in day to day life, let alone being a woman who is put in situations like these. It's VERY easy for you, a man, to sit behind your screen and say "she could have/should have just said no."
> 
> We men are rarely, if ever put in these situations, and even when we are, we have a COMPLETELY different mindset about it more often than not. Some of us would even think it's pretty awesome to have a woman be so forceful, especially at the age of 16 or 17. Women and girls are MUCH less apt to feel that way, and it's not nearly as simple to deal with those situations being a woman.


Well
You've got to remember that we are are all trying to put ourselves in his and maybe even her position.

That something was wrong with his approach ,is understood .
That it was tactless , is understood., but most of us had situations in the past which were probably not as crude but a bit similar.
Some of us were rejected and some of us were " successful."

Now rape is a serious matter and no right thinking male wants to be labeled a rapist , simply because he bungled or made a few bloopers whilst approaching a woman he desires for a sexual encounter. 

In matters of this nature , the odds are stacked heavily against men. A man could face a sexual harassment suit if he bumps into a woman and makes contact with any part of her anatomy. A woman does the exact , same thing, the man decides to make a complaint, he would be pilloried and made the laughingstock of the workplace.
I'm not debating or questioning the politics of it , but simply showing you the idiosyncratic approach to this issue which is a function of gender based differences.
Of course men don't and can't fully grasp the dynamics of being a woman in day to day life , facing these circumstances. But that doesn't mean that men don't face their own peculiar risks. 

Every single time a man has sex with a woman , he runs the risk of being accused of rape.

The cases mentioned by the women on the thread were clearly rape, because physical force , weapons , intimidation was involved , and they clearly did not want to have sex even though they knew the guy or were friends with him. The only thing your ex wife's case had in common with the other women was that she knew the guy and thought he was a nice guy. After that part of her account , everything gets questionable on her part.

So , not only his actions were questionable , but also,hers.

I think that's where her experience differs in principle ,with the others.

But I guess it's all a matter of perspective or vantage point.

I'll give an example.

Let's say an old woman , feeling depressed about life , decides to join a church. After a " fire & brimstone " sermon from the pastor , she decides to donate her house and all her life savings to the church and it's pastor , which he gladly accepts.

The pastor didn't rob her nor did he con her ,legally , he did nothing wrong. She felt a depressed about life and joined the church , he peached a sermon , offering " eternal life or hellfire " and she chose to respond the way she did.

Was it unethical for the church and pastor to accept her money and only property without first doing a background check?
Yes , most definitely.
Was it illegal ?
No.
Quite a lot of sane , right thinking people are known to donate large sums of money and properties to their favorite religious causes.

The parallel I'm trying to establish is that it has always been 
" normal " and still is , for two 17 yr olds to have sex in a car for any given number of reasons , some ok , some not ok . Your ex wife's case probably falls within the " not ok " group. 
But not because it " not ok " means that it automatically should be considered rape.
Just like not every time one person kills another , it's automatically murder. There are peripherals called circumstances.

In your ex wife's case , the circumstances are nebulous and questionable.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Let's say an old woman , feeling depressed about life , decides to join a church. After a " fire & brimstone " sermon from the pastor , she decides to donate her house and all her life savings to the church and it's pastor , which he gladly accepts.
> 
> The pastor didn't rob her nor did he con her ,legally , he did nothing wrong. She felt a depressed about life and joined the church , he peached a sermon , offering " eternal life or hellfire " and she chose to respond the way she did.
> 
> Was it unethical for the church and pastor to accept her money and only property without first doing a background check?
> Yes , most definitely.
> Was it illegal ?
> No.
> Quite a lot of sane , right thinking people are known to donate large sums of money and properties to their favorite religious causes.


I get your point, CM, but I think the difference here is the isolation that Alex' ex found herself in with the guy... 

Whether or not the pastor put pressure on the old woman to donate all her money to the church (through his sermon or personally), there were, presumably, others around for her to turn to before making her decision... Being coerced, as part of a group, into making unwise decisions is a little different to this happening on a one to one basis in isolation...

I found myself in sticky situation when I was around that age, and actually proceeded to throw myself out of a moving car because the guy took a turn down an isolated road leading the beach, ignoring all requests from me to stop the car. I don't know what his intentions were, but his actions terrified me enough to endanger my life.

I'm not saying whether or not Alex' ex was raped, but the perceived threat of rape has the potential to make a young girl like that act in one of two ways, IMO. Do what I did, or give in out of fear.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I get your point, CM, but I think the difference here is the isolation that Alex' ex found herself in with the guy...
> 
> Whether or not the pastor put pressure on the old woman to donate all her money to the church, there were presumably others around for her to turn to before making her decision...
> 
> I found myself in sticky situation when I was around that age, and actually proceeded to throw myself out of a moving car because the guy took a turn down an isolated road leading the beach, ignoring all requests from me to stop the car. I don't know what his intentions were, but his actions terrified me enough to endanger my life.
> 
> I'm not saying whether or not Alex' ex was raped, but the perceived threat of rape has the potential to make a young girl like that act in one of two ways, IMO. Do what I did, or give in out of fear.


I agree fully with you , that's why I said that what the guy did was " not ok." In other words , he had absolutely no right to do that .
But I also take into account both of them were the same age, and she didn't protest , at least in your case, you did !
I know its a fine line here , but Alex case seems dubious to me, and different to yours and many other women's case.

I'm thinking that if the guy was older than her and probably her superior on the job , the I'd be more inclined to say it was rape. But she said she thought he was a nice guy , who catered to her needs for transport etc.
She could have also felt that she " owed him" that favour . Another important issue could have been , what were her views on sex back then?
Some women would be repulsed at the idea of having sex with a man they are not attracted to in any way.
Some women would , if they thought they would benefit.

But anyway we look at it ,the guy was wrong .
However I don't think it was rape.


Aside from that ,
You mentioned your story about the guy wanting to take you to the beach , and I remembered an unfortunate incident a male friend of mine experienced.
He took his girlfriend to the beach early one morning, where they had sex and fun in the water.
After they sat in his van just talking , joking , play fighting and goofing around. He pinned her to the drivers seat.
She began to toot the van horn , and jokingly shouted " rape , rape." 
The beach wasn't a crowded one and it was early in the day. But there were some workers on a construction site nearby who came running , pulled the boyfriend out of the van and started beating him, in the confusion, she was trying to tell them no , stop, but they continued.

Only when they started dragging him away , and one of them tried to " comfort " her , did they realize it was a mistake.

Apparently , there was an actual rape on that area of the beach before.

Rape is a very sensitive issue that affects both men and woman, but in different ways.
Both ways can be traumatic.

As for my friend ,I think he and that girl eventually got married.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree fully with you , that's why I said that what the guy did was " not ok." In other words , he had absolutely no right to do that .
> But I also take into account both of them were the same age, and she didn't protest , at least in your case, you did !
> I know its a fine line here , but Alex case seems dubious to me, and different to yours and many other women's case.
> 
> I'm thinking that if the guy was older than her and probably her superior on the job , the I'd be more inclined to say it was rape. But she said she thought he was a nice guy , who catered to her needs for transport etc.
> She could have also felt that she " owed him" that favour . Another important issue could have been , what were her views on sex back then?
> Some women would be repulsed at the idea of having sex with a man they are not attracted to in any way.
> Some women would , if they thought they would benefit.
> 
> But anyway we look at it ,the guy was wrong .
> However I don't think it was rape.
> 
> 
> Aside from that ,
> You mentioned your story about the guy wanting to take you to the beach , and I remembered an unfortunate incident a male friend of mine experienced.
> He took his girlfriend to the beach early one morning, where they had sex and fun in the water.
> After they sat in his van just talking , joking , play fighting and goofing around. He pinned her to the drivers seat.
> She began to toot the van horn , and jokingly shouted " rape , rape."
> The beach wasn't a crowded one and it was early in the day. But there were some workers on a construction site nearby who came running , pulled the boyfriend out of the van and started beating him, in the confusion, she was trying to tell them no , stop, but they continued.
> 
> Only when they started dragging him away , and one of them tried to " comfort " her , did they realize it was a mistake.
> 
> Apparently , there was an actual rape on that area of the beach before.
> 
> Rape is a very sensitive issue that affects both men and woman, but in different ways.
> Both ways can be traumatic.
> 
> As for my friend ,I think he and that girl eventually got married.


I hoped she learned her lesson about jokes that could put a bad or dangerous light on someone.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> I hoped she learned her lesson about jokes that could put a bad or dangerous light on someone.


Well, it wasn't intentional on her part and couldn't have been because they thought they were alone on the beach , as that spot is a secluded spot.
Higher up on a hill, there were some villas being built by a construction crew . Based on the place , [ I know the location] the wind probably carried the sound of her voice and the van's horn so , the workers heard.
The immediately came running.

Can't fault them for that!

Funny thing is, she and boyfriend thought the guys were running ,coming to attack them and probably rape her, so he started to fight with them.

Can't fault him for that either!

The entire situation was very unfortunate. It was a big misunderstanding on both sides.

I think the bigger lesson here is that we all hate rape and rapist , we are ALL victims, because we are connected. 

All men have mothers, sisters , aunts , lovers so they are all potential rape victims.
All women have fathers , brothers , uncles ,lovers and they all can be wrongly accused of rape , tried and sentenced to jail for a henious crime they didn't commit.

Legally, it an be a " catch 22" situation , because in some cases, much evidence relies on intent and feelings ,before , during and after . 
Both are a function of perception.

It all comes down to which is better, to free a rapist because of lack of evidence, and he continues raping while the victims suffers more , or jail an innocent man even though there isn't enough evidence , whilst the "victim" who is the real perpetrator continues with her malfeasance.

Not all cases of rape are simple as lack and white.

But surely , every man is supposed to have his own behavioral code with respect to sexual interactions with the opposite sex.
Sadly, many men have no such behavioral code, and are fully contented with exploiting the grey areas of sex for their benefit ALONE.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Well, it wasn't intentional on her part and couldn't have been because they thought they were alone on the beach , as that spot is a secluded spot.
> Higher up on a hill, there were some villas being built by a construction crew . Based on the place , [ I know the location] the wind probably carried the sound of her voice and the van's horn so , the workers heard.
> The immediately came running.


Personally I think she needs to be more careful with her jokes and what comes out of her mouth. Jokes can greatly damage someones image, and this guy got beat down for it. I don't completely blame her, but what if she made another insensitive crazy joke and something else happened behind?

Jokes cast someone in a certain light or to recieve a certain type of attention warrented by the joke, at least for a moment while the viewer ponders the joke. Some jokes can put you in a certain light on you for a very long time, and waste alot of your time defending yourself from the joke.




Caribbean Man said:


> Can't fault them for that!
> 
> Funny thing is, she and boyfriend thought the guys were running ,coming to attack them and probably rape her, so he started to fight with them.
> 
> Can't fault him for that either!
> 
> The entire situation was very unfortunate. It was a big misunderstanding on both sides.





Caribbean Man said:


> I think the bigger lesson here is that we all hate rape and rapist , we are ALL victims, because we are connected.
> 
> All men have mothers, sisters , aunts , lovers so they are all potential rape victims.
> All women have fathers , brothers , uncles ,lovers and they all can be wrongly accused of rape , tried and sentenced to jail for a henious crime they didn't commit.
> 
> Legally, it an be a " catch 22" situation , because in some cases, much evidence relies on intent and feelings ,before , during and after .
> Both of which are a function of perception.
> 
> It all comes down to which is better, to free a rapist because of lack of evidence or jail an innocent man even though there isn't enough evidence?
> 
> Not all cases of rape are simple as lack and white.
> 
> But surely , every man is supposed to have his own behavioral code with respect to sexual interactions with the opposite sex.
> Sadly, many men have no such behavioral code, and are fully contented with exploiting the grey areas of sex for their benefit ALONE.


We all have to be alot more careful as men. I think these allegations should cut down on promiscuity because it can be fatal to your life.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> We all have to be alot more careful as men. I think these allegations should cut down on promiscuity because it can be fatal to your life.


Yes, I agree , but everyone, both male and female need to be more cognizant of certain facts.

Historically , rape was seen and treated as a more heinous crime than at present, especially if the victim was a virgin.
I think the penalty was death in some societies , especially theocratic ones.

But many things have changed and what we are now experiencing are the effects of those changes. How we deal with it would be interesting to see.


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> This worries me a little now. I hope I don't have a blind spot here. I would hate to think that I would condone coerced sex/rape let alone outright rape.
> 
> I see your situation as totally different. From the outset you made your alarm obvious. And you asked him to stop the car. He should have apologised, turned the car round and continued the journey.
> 
> Unless we are missing something from alexm's ex's story she did nothing by action or word to indicate she was concerned. And from the sound of it she wasn't.
> 
> I hope I'm not being an arse.:scratchhead:


I doubt you're being an arse, Wysh (not your style!), in fact I'm going to go back and try to find Alex' original post again. I don't know why, but I had the impression that previously the guy had been (casually) talking about a knife he had with him? I don't know - will re-read his post


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes, I agree , but everyone, both male and female need to be more cognizant of certain facts.
> 
> Historically , rape was seen and treated as a more heinous crime than at present, especially if the victim was a virgin.
> I think the penalty was death in some societies , especially theocratic ones.
> 
> But many things have changed and what we are now experiencing are the effects of those changes. How we deal with it would be interesting to see.


:iagree: Also, we need to educate our children to know that they shouldn't place themselves in compromising situations - both male and female.

In my case I DID know better than to accept lifts from men I barely knew, and that was the first and last time I ever made that mistake.

When I first went to South Africa, it was the death penalty for rapists, and rumour has it that (with a rape occurring every 24 seconds) it might be reinstated there.


----------



## RandomDude

When NO means NO
In other words, when NO doesn't mean "NOOO DONT STOP!"

Easy to tell the difference, besides I love a good ramming every now and then


----------



## NextTimeAround

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes, I agree , but everyone, both male and female need to be more cognizant of certain facts.
> 
> *Historically , rape was seen and treated as a more heinous crime than at present, especially if the victim was a virgin.*
> I think the penalty was death in some societies , especially theocratic ones.
> 
> But many things have changed and what we are now experiencing are the effects of those changes. How we deal with it would be interesting to see.


Where do you get that from? Rape has traditionally been treated as either not so serious or as the fault of the woman. In a lot of Asian cultures, rape victims are expected to marry the rapist if the victim was single. Of course, because since she is no longer a virgin she is worthless on the open market. 

the things that I read about in India over the past year sound just pathetic. 

It wasn't until the '70s in the US that laws treating rape became more favorable to the victim. Previously, the reputation of the rape victim was discussed during the trial. But not the reputation of the defendant. I understand that that has changed.

Date rape gained currency around the early '90s. At one time, it was believed that a woman could not be raped by someone she already knew. So the concept date rape was instituted.

I do get tired of feminists saying that "even if a woman runs down the street naked, she still does not deserve to be raped." Ok, but I have learned that my life is much easier when I communicate more often in non verbal ways that in verbal ways. ie, "No means no."


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> :iagree: Also, we need to educate our children to know that they shouldn't place themselves in compromising situations - both male and female.
> 
> In my case I DID know better than to accept lifts from men I barely knew, and that was the first and last time I ever made that mistake.
> 
> When I first went to South Africa, it was the death penalty for rapists, and rumour has it that it might be reinstated there.


So in S.A. rape could be fatal, and allegations of rape would be equally as fatal. I wonder how many indigenous S.A.'s were blamed for rapes uncommitted and put to death...


----------



## NextTimeAround

One problem with giving out the death penalty for rape is that fewer jury members would vote for that level of punishment. 

That doesn't help much.


----------



## PHTlump

Cosmos said:


> I doubt you're being an arse, Wysh (not your style!), in fact I'm going to go back and try to find Alex' original post again. I don't know why, but I had the impression that previously the guy had been (casually) talking about a knife he had with him? I don't know - will re-read his post


That wasn't Alex. That story was from totallywarped. Even there, I don't think it was criminal. Her boyfriend brought the knife to carve their names in a tree. She did say, "no" when he proposed sex. But, he simply argued and never threatened her. She said that his demeanor, along with the fact that he had a knife, even though he never threatened her, contributed to her consenting.

I do believe that gut feelings can play an important role in keeping people safe. Perhaps the boy would have become violent if she had steadfastly refused sex. But, we'll never know. Given that the boy didn't use, or threaten, violence, he didn't break the law. It looks like a miscommunication.

Alex's story was even more innocent. The boy had given his ex rides home. One night, he pulled into a parking lot and produced a condom. His ex wasn't attracted to him, but felt obligated because of the favors the boy had done for her. The boy never threatened her and she never felt threatened or afraid. Alex was the first one, years later, to suggest that what happened was criminal, or kind of criminal.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> I'd like to say I'm shocked at how some of you feel certain situations don't qualify as anything but the woman/girl being easy, or having low self esteem, but I'm not. It was half expected. Like that's reason enough to take advantage or something. I hate to see that kind of attitude from so many


We're in a post-feminist age. Many people, including many of the men and women here, see women as having sufficient self-agency to be responsible for their own actions. I think that's the most fair method to handle sexual situations. If a woman consents, then she consents. If you want to argue that she only consented because of low self-esteem, so therefore the man should be held more accountable for her actions than she should be, I would disagree.



> I do agree that my ex was not technically "raped", but it was definitely -something-. Maybe there's no word for it? I do believe she was date raped, but some of you don't even agree with that.


The reason many of us would disagree is because the definitions are so vague. Legal rape is clear. If one wants to define date rape as a legal rape that occurs on a date, or is perpetrated by a person the victim knows, then date rape is the same as plain old rape. But that's not the way the term is being used here. Date rape is being used to describe something unseemly, yet not illegal. And it's an ugly term to be throwing around so cavalierly.

If a man has a naturally good rapport with children, but has never been accused, or even suspected of hurting them, it would be grossly unfair of me to refer to such a man as "kind of" a child molester. He doesn't belong in jail, he should just be viewed as "molester-ish."



> What sets me off are the comments from one or two of you that imply, or say outright, that she was just easy and didn't mind. That infuriates me. And this is a woman I have zero interest in defending, trust me.
> 
> Those words are one step away from saying "she deserved it".


That interests me. Your wife's own story was that she wasn't threatened. That she never felt threatened. And that she only had sex with the guy because he had been spending his gas money on taking her home. Her quid pro quo was sex for rides. I don't understand your investment in seeing her as a victim. A victim of what? Her own decisions?



> It's VERY easy for you, a man, to sit behind your screen and say "she could have/should have just said no."


So, to relieve women from the unreasonable burden of communicating their consent, or lack thereof, during sex, we should burden men with reading minds and knowing when "yes means no?" You're arguing that a man reading minds is easier than a woman using her words? :scratchhead:


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> Well
> You've got to remember that we are are all trying to put ourselves in his and maybe even her position.
> 
> *Yes of course, no worries. I'm trying as well.*
> 
> I'm not debating or questioning the politics of it , but simply showing you the idiosyncratic approach to this issue which is a function of gender based differences.
> Of course men don't and can't fully grasp the dynamics of being a woman in day to day life , facing these circumstances. But that doesn't mean that men don't face their own peculiar risks.
> 
> *Yep, I know these idiosyncrasies already, and although I don't agree with them, they are what they are, and they're there for a reason, fortunately or unfortunately. Men ARE different from women, therefore, imo, the rules DO have to be different.*
> 
> Every single time a man has sex with a woman , he runs the risk of being accused of rape.
> 
> *I understand where you're coming from with this, and it's unfortunate this is what it's become.*
> 
> The cases mentioned by the women on the thread were clearly rape, because physical force , weapons , intimidation was involved , and they clearly did not want to have sex even though they knew the guy or were friends with him. The only thing your ex wife's case had in common with the other women was that she knew the guy and thought he was a nice guy. After that part of her account , everything gets questionable on her part.
> 
> So , not only his actions were questionable , but also,hers.
> 
> *How so? Because she accepted rides home from someone she thought of as a workplace acquaintance, this means she must be interested in having sex with him?
> 
> I think THIS is the part where we're having the disagreement. I've read this a couple of times in this thread now. That the woman (girl) has put herself in a position that the guy will make assumptions, and therefore it's (almost) her fault for doing so, and "what did she expect?".
> 
> How come a girl can't accept a favor from a guy without it turning into a tit-for-tat arrangement?*
> 
> The parallel I'm trying to establish is that it has always been
> " normal " and still is , for two 17 yr olds to have sex in a car for any given number of reasons , some ok , some not ok . Your ex wife's case probably falls within the " not ok " group.
> 
> *Yes, we agree there, thank you!*
> 
> But not because it " not ok " means that it automatically should be considered rape.
> Just like not every time one person kills another , it's automatically murder. There are peripherals called circumstances.
> 
> *Right, I didn't say it was "rape". Just as murder 1 is different from manslaughter or self defense, so is rape different from date rape.*
> 
> In your ex wife's case , the circumstances are nebulous and questionable.
> 
> *Absolutely, thank you.
> 
> I'm just... upset... at the responses from a few people in regards to how she handled it, and that is was on her, or that she was easy and probably liked it. Ugh.
> 
> This guy probably had his sights set on her from the start, so he devised a way to spend some time with her. She likely saw it as a guy being nice, as well a ride home for her.
> 
> And that's the main problem I see with this. A girl shouldn't HAVE to view every instance of a guy being nice to her as having a sexual outcome. But some of you feel that she should have known better, and that it's her fault for accepting these rides home, and that it wasn't unexpected that he wanted something in return. Maybe because she laughed and joked with him, too.
> 
> And I still maintain very strongly that his methods were very shady. Was she still given a choice to follow through? Sure, I guess. But not as much as if he simply posed the question. Pulling one's car into a deserted parking lot at night with a female passenger, without asking or telling her you're going to do so, then handing her a condom isn't exactly a "choice" in the greatest sense of the word.
> 
> I'd love to hear from any women reading this post as to how they see this situation, exactly as I described.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

NextTimeAround said:


> Where do you get that from? Rape has traditionally been treated as either not so serious or as the fault of the woman. In a lot of Asian cultures, rape victims are expected to marry the rapist if the victim was single. Of course, because since she is no longer a virgin she is worthless on the open market.
> 
> the things that I read about in India over the past year sound just pathetic.
> 
> It wasn't until the '70s in the US that laws treating rape became more favorable to the victim. Previously, the reputation of the rape victim was discussed during the trial. But not the reputation of the defendant. I understand that that has changed.
> 
> Date rape gained currency around the early '90s. At one time, it was believed that a woman could not be raped by someone she already knew. So the concept date rape was instituted.
> 
> I do get tired of feminists saying that "even if a woman runs down the street naked, she still does not deserve to be raped." Ok, but I have learned that my life is much easier when I communicate more often in non verbal ways that in verbal ways. ie, "No means no."


You are partly correct but there is a much deeper historical context. 

Back then women were viewed as the property of men , ie their fathers or husbands property and personal rights and equal status as men weren't afforded to women , the rape of a virgin was considered as robbing a father of the fair price of his daughter because hardly any man would marry her if she wasn't a virgin.

The History of Rape Laws 
(from Chapter 1, Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller).

The penalty was often times death , or the " rapist " had the option to pay the dowry to the father and marry the victim, thus restoring her " honor." He could not divorce her, ever.

Also rape wasn't only violent sex against a woman's will. If a girl was a virgin , any man who had sex with her outside of marriage or engagement to be married , even if she consented ,would be considered as defiling her , and automatically labelled a rapist or something equivalent.
A " good man" worthy of marriage ,was often a man who didn't go around trifling with virgin females , " women of ill repute" , prostitutes , and divorced women.


I tend however, to agree with the feminist view that even if a woman walked down the streets stark naked she doesn't deserved to be raped because it is HER body and only SHE could and should give consent. 
A woman cannot make a man rape her, it doesn't matter how careless she was , if she got stupid drunk or anything.
If she didn't want to have sex with that particular man and he proceeds to do so, then it is rape and he is entirely responsible for his actions.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> *How come a girl can't accept a favor from a guy without it turning into a tit-for-tat arrangement?*
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I agree fully with you on this part.
> But the sad truth is , that is what it has come down to.
> 
> Sex is viewed as hard currency by many men.
> Now there is always some sort of exchange in sex , because there is always a negotiation in consensual sex.
> 
> But lots of guys take that concept way too far to mean if they pay for your dinner or whatever on a date or any other favour , the woman " owes " them a sexual favour.
> The whole casual sex concept makes it even more tricky, everyone's in a mad rush to " get laid ", and sex is viewed as a conquest by both sexes.


----------



## Cosmos

treyvion said:


> So in S.A. rape could be fatal, and allegations of rape would be equally as fatal. I wonder how many indigenous S.A.'s were blamed for rapes uncommitted and put to death...



Far too many, I would say And far too many families destroyed because of rape and unimaginably brutal murders.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Far too many, I would say And far too many families destroyed because of rape and unimaginably brutal murders.



That's why I said in an earlier post this morning that legally, it's a 
" catch 22 " situation .


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> alexm said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How come a girl can't accept a favor from a guy without it turning into a tit-for-tat arrangement?*
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I agree fully with you on this part.
> But the sad truth is , that is what it has come down to.
> 
> Sex is viewed as hard currency by many men.
> Now there is always some sort of exchange in sex , because there is always a negotiation in consensual sex.
> 
> But lots of guys take that concept way too far to mean if they pay for your dinner or whatever on a date or any other favour , the woman " owes " them a sexual favour.
> The whole casual sex concept makes it even more tricky, everyone's in a mad rush to " get laid ", and sex is viewed as a conquest by both sexes.
> 
> 
> 
> Most guys aren't going to take a woman on infinate dinner dates, help her with her life if she isn't going to be intimate with him. At some point he will friendzone her and treat her as such.
Click to expand...


----------



## richie33

Was the ex wife traumatized by this event?


----------



## Caribbean Man

richie33 said:


> Was the ex wife traumatized by this event?


This^^is what I'm also asking myself.
Based on what alex says, he feels that she was traumatized by the event.
But the narrative ,seems to contradict what he's trying to say.


----------



## Shazz1991

Rape is when she says 'No!'


----------



## PHTlump

WyshIknew said:


> Well she can.
> 
> When he tries it on she says "sorry, you're just a friend" or some such phrase.


Exactly. In Alex's ex's situation, the boy wasn't even the one imposing the tit for tat arrangement. He simply parked the car and produced a condom. She was the one who rationalized that the sex was a fair exchange for the rides he was giving her.

It's not really fair to blame him for her rationalizations.


----------



## PHTlump

richie33 said:


> Was the ex wife traumatized by this event?


Apparently not. She told Alex that she didn't feel unsafe, or threatened at the time. She never considered it wrong until Alex insisted it was.

She did tell Alex that she wasn't attracted to the boy and didn't particularly want sex with him. And that she stopped riding home with him after they had sex. But, given that she always felt safe, I think she just rationalized that her arrangement with the boy was sex for rides, and she didn't want to continue that arrangement.


----------



## alexm

PHTlump said:


> Apparently not. She told Alex that she didn't feel unsafe, or threatened at the time. She never considered it wrong until Alex insisted it was.
> 
> She did tell Alex that she wasn't attracted to the boy and didn't particularly want sex with him. And that she stopped riding home with him after they had sex. But, given that she always felt safe, I think she just rationalized that her arrangement with the boy was sex for rides, and she didn't want to continue that arrangement.


I didn't insist anything! Perhaps my wording here was not exactly how I remembered it (I'm going back 15+ years now). I sort of wish I still had contact with her, so she could clarify how she felt at the time, but that won't happen.

What I DO remember are two things, clearly - everything she told me about that night and how she felt while telling me. The details were enough for me to feel some anger, and how she felt while talking about this was enough for me to be sure that it wasn't some sort of embarrassment or shame coming out, rather that it was a situation she did not like being in.

Feeling safe with someone you know is very common. Up to that point, she had no reason not to feel safe. She had worked with this guy for some time, people knew he gave her rides home (including her sister, who also worked at this place), and she apparently had no indication that he was interested in her this way. She was 15 (my mistake, I think I repeatedly said 17 here, but it occurred to me that we started dating when she was 16, and this was before me... sorry). He also had a girlfriend, who worked at this same place.

So she was young and naïve to trust somebody like that, I guess. That doesn't condone his actions, and I won't believe anything other than she was put in a position to be taken advantage of. This was pre-meditated, and she was perhaps even groomed for some time, and brought to a point where her guard was let down completely.

Unfortunately, not all men or women are properly taught to protect themselves against such scenarios, and many have to learn the hard way, just like my ex did. To her, at that particular time, she may or may not have been scared, but that doesn't matter. Oftentimes this feeling comes afterwards. The "oh my god, what if I had said no?" feeling. So it didn't occur to her right then and there, but it clearly did afterwards, or SOMETHING did. She avoided him after that night, never took another ride from him, never spent any more time alone with him, and refused all his advances (of which there were several).

I just don't remember getting the impression at that time that she felt bad or guilty for doing it, rather that she didn't want to but felt that she didn't have much choice. 15 year old girls are not quite mature enough in some situations to realize the gravity of their actions, especially regarding sex. You keep hearing on the news about how "X" % of teenage girls don't consider oral sex on a guy to be sex. It's just something they're supposed to do. I clearly remember being at a party, where one girl - who I had known for a couple of years - asked for a ride home. I said maybe, depends on what time, and which direction you're going. Her response? I'll give you a blowjob in the car if you give me a ride home. I couldn't believe what she just said, like it was nothing. I'll perform a sexual act on you, I don't care what you, or anybody else here, thinks of me, because I need a favor in return for you. Sad. I didn't give her a ride home (or accept her offer). This is not uncommon in teenagers, especially girls. It's almost like they're being taught by the teenage guys that this is perfectly acceptable behavior and does not make one a *****.

I do recall her saying that she really wanted to tell this guys girlfriend, as well, but was very aware of how it would appear, not to mention that he could very easily deny, or twist the situation (ie. make it appear that she jumped him, for example).

So what I came away with was that she FELT the situation was sketchy and uncomfortable, yet did it anyway, as "giving it up" isn't the worst thing one can do as a teenager. It's not at all uncommon, when the young mind doesn't have the experience or understanding of the gravity of it all. It's only a few years later (when she told me) that she had come to the realization that it was more serious than just "giving it up" because she got rides from the guy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> However she remembers it after x years. So even if not traumatised the incident affected her enough to remember it.


Yes.
That is what I was trying to say in my last post but words eluded me. lol.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> I didn't insist anything! Perhaps my wording here was not exactly how I remembered it (I'm going back 15+ years now). I sort of wish I still had contact with her, so she could clarify how she felt at the time, but that won't happen.
> 
> What I DO remember are two things, clearly - everything she told me about that night and how she felt while telling me. The details were enough for me to feel some anger, and how she felt while talking about this was enough for me to be sure that it wasn't some sort of embarrassment or shame coming out, rather that it was a situation she did not like being in.
> 
> Feeling safe with someone you know is very common. Up to that point, she had no reason not to feel safe. She had worked with this guy for some time, people knew he gave her rides home (including her sister, who also worked at this place), and she apparently had no indication that he was interested in her this way. She was 15 (my mistake, I think I repeatedly said 17 here, but it occurred to me that we started dating when she was 16, and this was before me... sorry). He also had a girlfriend, who worked at this same place.
> 
> So she was young and naïve to trust somebody like that, I guess. That doesn't condone his actions, and I won't believe anything other than she was put in a position to be taken advantage of. This was pre-meditated, and she was perhaps even groomed for some time, and brought to a point where her guard was let down completely.
> 
> Unfortunately, not all men or women are properly taught to protect themselves against such scenarios, and many have to learn the hard way, just like my ex did. To her, at that particular time, she may or may not have been scared, but that doesn't matter. Oftentimes this feeling comes afterwards. The "oh my god, what if I had said no?" feeling. So it didn't occur to her right then and there, but it clearly did afterwards, or SOMETHING did. She avoided him after that night, never took another ride from him, never spent any more time alone with him, and refused all his advances (of which there were several).
> 
> I just don't remember getting the impression at that time that she felt bad or guilty for doing it, rather that she didn't want to but felt that she didn't have much choice. 15 year old girls are not quite mature enough in some situations to realize the gravity of their actions, especially regarding sex. You keep hearing on the news about how "X" % of teenage girls don't consider oral sex on a guy to be sex. It's just something they're supposed to do. I do recall her saying that she really wanted to tell this guys girlfriend, as well, but was very aware of how it would appear, not to mention that he could very easily deny, or twist the situation (ie. make it appear that she jumped him, for example).
> 
> So what I came away with was that she FELT the situation was sketchy and uncomfortable, yet did it anyway, as "giving it up" isn't the worst thing one can do as a teenager. It's not at all uncommon, when the young mind doesn't have the experience or understanding of the gravity of it all. It's only a few years later (when she told me) that she had come to the realization that it was more serious than just "giving it up" because she got rides from the guy.


Ok,

Well this changes a few things.

1]He already had a girlfriend
2]She was quite young . 
3]Everyone knew and trusted him.
4]He walked with the condom , which means he planned it.
5]After the serx , the rides stopped.

Conclusion;

He might have well been grooming her on all the other rides, and probably offered her these rides home specifically for the sex.
She was too young to fully understand the implications of her actions, she went through with the sex, because she trusted him. He dumped her after the because he already had a girlfriend.

He groomed her and used her for the sex.
And BTW, since she was also below the age of consent , that is also called carnal knowledge or statutory rape.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> 
> Well this changes a few things.
> 
> *Yeah, I suppose. A bit.*
> 
> 1]He already had a girlfriend
> 
> *The only thing I didn't mention. I can see how the perception changes, but it doesn't (shouldn't) matter.*
> 
> 2]She was quite young .
> 
> *Whether she was 15 or 17, doesn't really matter? It's under 18 (or 19, or 21, or whatever is an "adult" these days)*
> 
> 3]Everyone knew and trusted him.
> 
> *I said that from the beginning! It's also kind of implied.*
> 
> 4]He walked with the condom , which means he planned it.
> 
> *Said that from the beginning, too.*
> 
> 5]After the serx , the rides stopped.
> 
> *Pretty sure I said that from the start (or at least the second follow up post)*
> Conclusion;
> 
> He might have well been grooming her on all the other rides, and probably offered her these rides home specifically for the sex.
> 
> *Yup.*
> 
> She was too young to fully understand the implications of her actions, she went through with the sex, because she trusted him. He dumped her after the because he already had a girlfriend.
> 
> *There was no "dumping". As I said (also earlier), she put a stop to the rides, and being alone with him. He apparently still tried to hit on her while at work. So it's clear that she didn't want it to happen again.*
> 
> He groomed her and used her for the sex.
> And BTW, since she was also below the age of consent , that is also called carnal knowledge or statutory rape.
> 
> *Age of consent here is 14, as long as the other person is under 18. So she could have been 14, and him 17.*


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> I didn't insist anything!


Fine. My point was that she didn't consider it criminal until you told her that you considered it criminal.



> She was 15 ...


Depending on the year, and your state, it is likely that she was under the age of consent. Depending on the boy's age, it is possible that having consensual sex with her was a crime.

However, I won't dwell on that because we've been discussing consent and seduction. And neither element matters when one of the subjects is underage.



> So she was young and naïve to trust somebody like that, I guess. That doesn't condone his actions, and I won't believe anything other than she was put in a position to be taken advantage of. This was pre-meditated, and she was perhaps even groomed for some time, and brought to a point where her guard was let down completely.


That may be the case. But, I can say that teenage boys can be just as naive as teenage girls. When I was a teenage boy, I carried a condom around (the same condom) for quite a while. Just in case. It became a joke among my friends. I shudder to think that my joke of carrying a weathered old condom that I was given could be used as evidence of premeditated evil.



> To her, at that particular time, she may or may not have been scared, but that doesn't matter.


I think it really does. Rape is a crime of violence, fear, and intimidation. A sexual encounter that includes no violence, no fear, and no intimidation just isn't rape. It might be many other things. But it's not rape.



> Oftentimes this feeling comes afterwards. The "oh my god, what if I had said no?" feeling. So it didn't occur to her right then and there, but it clearly did afterwards, or SOMETHING did.


And it's reasonable to wonder about how things might have played out differently. Especially in terms of personal safety. But I think it's unreasonable to wonder about how things could have gone, assume the worst, and then hold the male responsible, in whatever way, for things that didn't happen, but could have.



> 15 year old girls are not quite mature enough in some situations to realize the gravity of their actions, especially regarding sex.


Agreed. We can say the same for teenage boys.



> I clearly remember ... one girl ... [said] I'll give you a blowjob in the car if you give me a ride home. ... This is not uncommon in teenagers, especially girls. It's almost like they're being taught by the teenage guys that this is perfectly acceptable behavior and does not make one a *****.


While I'm sure most teenage boys very much appreciate a steady supply of no-strings-attached oral sex from teenage girls, I don't think we can assign responsibility for the girls' behavior to the boys. I'm sure that teenage boys' appreciation for oral sex hasn't changed much throughout human history.


----------



## alexm

PHTlump said:


> Fine. My point was that she didn't consider it criminal until you told her that you considered it criminal.
> 
> *I never said "criminal".*
> 
> Depending on the year, and your state, it is likely that she was under the age of consent. Depending on the boy's age, it is possible that having consensual sex with her was a crime.
> 
> *Just went through this above. Age of consent is 14 where I live, as long as the other party is under 18. It was the same at that time, as I was 17/18 around that period, and that type of information was good to know. Just in case.*
> 
> However, I won't dwell on that because we've been discussing consent and seduction. And neither element matters when one of the subjects is underage.
> 
> 
> That may be the case. But, I can say that teenage boys can be just as naive as teenage girls. When I was a teenage boy, I carried a condom around (the same condom) for quite a while. Just in case. It became a joke among my friends. I shudder to think that my joke of carrying a weathered old condom that I was given could be used as evidence of premeditated evil.
> 
> *I don't see how this guy was being anything other than shady and that the whole thing was pre-meditated. However I'm not him, and I wasn't there, so maybe he was just a complete and utter moron.*
> 
> 
> I think it really does. Rape is a crime of violence, fear, and intimidation. A sexual encounter that includes no violence, no fear, and no intimidation just isn't rape. It might be many other things. But it's not rape.
> 
> *I agreed with this about 2 pages back.
> 
> But possible date rape, very likely, had she said no.
> 
> Look, I GET where you guys are coming from on this. I never said what he did was criminal, but some of you are saying that it's more or less okay, and I disagree. If she said no, drive me home, he might just have done that. MAYBE. But most of us here know that likely would not have been the end of it. He may not have physically assaulted her, but we all know damn well that he probably would have tried to guilt her, shame her, or otherwise coerce her into doing it. It's not enough to do anything about, but I also never said that it should be.
> 
> My point from the beginning on this was that this type of situation does not have to be physical, or even threatened to be physical, to be damaging to a girls psyche. There are other ways to force someone to do something they don't want to. But apparently it's moderately okay to behave like this, especially with raging teenage boy hormones.*
> 
> 
> And it's reasonable to wonder about how things might have played out differently. Especially in terms of personal safety. But I think it's unreasonable to wonder about how things could have gone, assume the worst, and then hold the male responsible, in whatever way, for things that didn't happen, but could have.
> 
> *She didn't, and neither did I. When it was discussed, long after the fact, between us, we both felt the same way - sick to our stomachs - and rightfully so. She didn't "hold him responsible" any more than she held herself responsible. It was a situation she wishes she had never been in, period. And she didn't believe she put herself IN that position. A girl shouldn't HAVE to be wary of this happening every time she's alone with a guy. It's because of guys like that, that women, unfortunately, DO have to be suspicious and vigilant about going anywhere, alone, with a guy. Sad.
> 
> But it's attitudes like this that some of you are apparently fighting FOR. The "what does she expect?" defense. As a guy saying that about other guys, and defending them is questionable. We, as men, should be taking the opposite stance, and saying that this situation is NOT okay, and it's NOT just "boys being boys".
> 
> We need to be wary about putting a woman in any situation such as the one described above, because these types of situations CAN end up badly. Saying you're going to drive a girl home, then instead pulling into a parking lot late at night, and shutting off the car, does not make for a "feeling safe" kind of vibe, in anybody's eyes. So my ex didn't apparently feel like she was going to be murdered. Maybe she was stupid, naïve, young, all of the above. What if this guy tries this exact same manoeuver with the next girl and she freaks out and runs away, and then calls the police as soon as she gets home? Guy will be getting a visit, for sure, and some questions asked. The next girl might very well assume she was about to be raped, and rightfully so, regardless of his actual intentions.*
> 
> Agreed. We can say the same for teenage boys.
> 
> 
> While I'm sure most teenage boys very much appreciate a steady supply of no-strings-attached oral sex from teenage girls, I don't think we can assign responsibility for the girls' behavior to the boys. I'm sure that teenage boys' appreciation for oral sex hasn't changed much throughout human history.
> 
> *The irony here is that had I agreed to this girl's proposition of oral sex in exchange for a ride home, it very well could have been construed as a date rape or sexual harassment issue. Or at the very least, made me look like a complete a-hole if and when it got out. This is pretty much the type of situation us guys need to learn to avoid, no?*


----------



## Caribbean Man

Alex,
I think I get exactly what you're saying , and basically on a visceral level , we share the same values / ideals on this issue , especially with the example you gave.

I too , on a deep level ,feel that women shouldn't have to go around being in constant fear of becoming a victim of sexual attacks from a man , whether he is a stranger or friend.

But that is an ideal.

There are many different shades of grey in this area of sexual integrity. The culture of casual sex also complicates everything. Sometimes the signals can be confusing to both sexes.

When I was a boy ,My mother taught me stuff like boys should 
" _keep their hands to themselves _." Then when I hit high school , girls wanted me to touch them and they would laugh at me or spread rumors about me because I refused to respond to their overt sexual advances. 
When I was 13 yrs old I remember one of the popular girls in my class ,trying everything under the sun to get me to kiss her i didn't , then she invited me come home with her after school . Again I refused because I was taught that sex only happened between adult people in love , and I was taught that I shouldn't have sex with a girl if I didn't love her , that would mean I was using her .
Mind you , that 14 yr old girl had condoms...
She started spreading rumors about me , that I was gay , that I didn't know how to treat a woman , blah , blah, blah.
In order for the rumors to stop , I set her up with my cousin. He was the same age as me ,I told her he liked her .
She got together with him and they used to have sex on a regular basis . I know this because he told me , and one time she missed her period , they were both panicking and he asked me what to do.

But she wasn't the only girl to approach me for sex , which I refused ,when I was in the age of innocence . 

I think , whereas , men are supposed to hold themselves to certain ideals , and women too , the reality is that " others " are having all kinds of sexual liaisons without any baggage , and fully enjoying it.

In your ex wife's example , she was traumatized . Both you and I know that there are other 15 yr old girls who wouldn't have been traumatized , and would gladly gone along with it , even though that guy had a girlfriend and only wanted sex.
I know of cases where 15 and 16 yr old daughters pursue and have sex willingly with their divorced or single mothers lovers.

While I fully agree with you in principle , the reality is that we might be in the minority because the rules have been compromised and changed drastically. There are over 50 shades of grey in this issue so it's like everyone for himself / herself.
It seems the ideals of sexual integrity either no longer exist , or can be applied to any demographic , male or female.

When I was a teenage boy , my mother , seeing that girls were attracted to me and always calling on the phone , told me that " good respectable men " only date one girl at a time...
But by then I'd gotten much wiser , even some girls I knew , were dating and having sex with three , four guys at the same time.

People no longer have ideals , they only seem hold themselves responsible to themselves.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> But it is also a sad state of affairs if a guy can't indicate his desire to have sex with a particular girl (and vice versa) without being thought of as some kind of potential rapist.
> 
> For all we know, in alexm's ex's case, if she had said "Oh sorry, but no, I hope I haven't led you on but I'm not interested."
> The guy in question might have got very embarrassed, apologised and taken her home.
> We are not privy to his thought processes, he may have just got the wrong end of the stick and thought she was interested in him.
> I think the pulling off into a dark parking area move was a bit dodgy, personally I would have asked her out if I was interested in her before I made any sexual moves.
> 
> That difference is probably why some guys get laid a lot and some don't.


:iagree:

I agree with you, lol, so now you see why I say there are 
"50 shades of grey " in this issue.
I can see Alex point of view , I can see PHTlump point of view and I can see your point of view!

But we can all agree that the guy pulling into a dark spot could be interpreted as shady and creepy . We can also agree that she could have simply said no.

I imagine that the average woman wouldn't like the thought that she had to have sex with a man just because he gives her a lift home , or because he took her out on a date and paid for everything, or because he helped her in some sort of situation.
But yet, most women are wary of these things , unless it's someone they trust. In any event , even those women who posted stories of their unfortunate rape / sexual assault incidents earlier in life , on this thread , said that they trusted the perpetrator.


That's why I think maybe its best every man has his own boundaries , and let it be known. If he's interested in having sex with a woman , then let her know up front , that was my code when I was single.
Not ok to pretend , being all nice and gentlemanly etc.
But that was just my personal code.
Maybe like you said , some men had success with women by being indirect like the guy in Alex's ex wife's case , and in hindsight , yes , you are right.
Some women respond positively to that , they like being " taken " in that manner , the only caveat being , that they don't feel threatened , traumatized or threatened by the man.

I've never done the car thing , but I've sprung surprise moves on women and they were always receptive. But I am the type of person who was upfront about my intentions. If I wanted sex , she damn well knew from upfront. I guess timing , and being able to read body language and between the lines , helped .
It's a risky thing , but a man should be prepared to accept rejection if he goes that route.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> We are not privy to his thought processes, he may have just got the wrong end of the stick and thought she was interested in him.
> I think the pulling off into a dark parking area move was a bit dodgy, personally I would have asked her out if I was interested in her before I made any sexual moves.
> 
> That difference is probably why some guys get laid a lot and some don't.


A bit dodgy? Unless he expressly talked to her about the change in route, it's downright frightening. And then he throws a condom in her lap and you want to interpret that as just a clumsy way of coming on to her? Seriously? And this is just how guys are supposed to get more sex?

What many here aren't seeing is just how dangerous and frightening it is for a woman to be alone, cut off from help, with a man. And that it really isn't okay to use these fear tactics to get laid. 

Because that's exactly what it is. Using fear to get laid.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> A bit dodgy? Unless he expressly talked to her about the change in route, it's downright frightening. And then he throws a condom in her lap and you want to interpret that as just a clumsy way of coming on to her? Seriously? And this is just how guys are supposed to get more sex?
> 
> What many here aren't seeing is just how dangerous and frightening it is for a woman to be alone, cut off from help, with a man. And that it really isn't okay to use these fear tactics to get laid.
> 
> Because that's exactly what it is. Using fear to get laid.


Whilst we have no idea what the real situation was with Alex' ex, I do agree with you that it can be frightening for a woman (a young one in particular) when a man makes a move like this. Personally, that fear wouldn't have induced me to have sex with him, but it would have caused me to go into flight or fight mode, and people can do strange things when in a state of panic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it caused me to start alighting from a moving car...


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> Personally, that fear wouldn't have induced me to have sex with him, but it would have caused me to go into flight or fight mode, and people can do strange things when in a state of panic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it caused me to start alighting from a moving car...


Agreed. I was in a similar situation, and he decided that he wasn't going to let me out because he "wanted to show me something". I protested, he didn't listen. I tried to run,not fast enough. Tried to fight, he choked me close to death.

I pressed charges, and the courts and popular opinion agreed that he was being unfairly accused for just being horny and wanting a bit of sex. And of course I was consenting because he said so. Never mind the bruises.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> I never said "criminal".


You said that it was "a form of rape." Rape is a crime. It is a serious crime. And I'm uninterested in playing word parsing games where you make up several different grades of rape, some criminal and some not. Whether you want to call it "date rape" or "rape rape" or "rapey" or [blank] rape [blank], is not something I'm interested in debating.



> I don't see how this guy was being anything other than shady and that the whole thing was pre-meditated. However I'm not him, and I wasn't there, so maybe he was just a complete and utter moron.


Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps he carried condoms because he had a girlfriend and was sexually active. Perhaps he was like me and carried one LONG before he was sexually active, just so he would be ready. His behavior suggests that he was sexually active. I doubt a virgin would have had the confidence to wordlessly produce a condom as a seduction technique. But I wouldn't say he was a moron. He wanted sex and it sounds like he got it easily and without complaint. Perhaps, in this case, ignorance is bliss.



> If she said no, drive me home, he might just have done that. MAYBE. But most of us here know that likely would not have been the end of it. He may not have physically assaulted her, but we all know damn well that he probably would have tried to guilt her, shame her, or otherwise coerce her into doing it. It's not enough to do anything about, but I also never said that it should be.


I think this is our main point of disagreement. You claim that you know how he was likely to act, if something different had occurred. I doubt it. Rape, real, forcible rape, isn't as common as you seem to believe. Most males, when refused sex, don't resort to violence or the threat of violence. They accept it. Some may argue. Some may whine. Some may try to guilt trip the female. But those behaviors aren't rape.

I think females, even 15 year-old girls, are strong enough that the notion of a man complaining about not getting sex isn't enough to override their free will.



> My point from the beginning on this was that this type of situation does not have to be physical, or even threatened to be physical, to be damaging to a girls psyche. There are other ways to force someone to do something they don't want to. But apparently it's moderately okay to behave like this, especially with raging teenage boy hormones.


Well, I certainly agree with you. Awkward teenage sexual experiences can have long-lasting effects for both sexes. And those effects are rarely positive. I'm simply not seeing why boys should be more to blame for these awkward experiences than girls. It takes two to tango.



> A girl shouldn't HAVE to be wary of this happening every time she's alone with a guy. It's because of guys like that, that women, unfortunately, DO have to be suspicious and vigilant about going anywhere, alone, with a guy. Sad.


It is sad that women are at risk of being hurt. But, it is what it is.



> But it's attitudes like this that some of you are apparently fighting FOR. The "what does she expect?" defense. As a guy saying that about other guys, and defending them is questionable. We, as men, should be taking the opposite stance, and saying that this situation is NOT okay, and it's NOT just "boys being boys".


The situation you described is a teenage boy proposing sex with a teenage girl, and her accepting. He wasn't violent or threatening. And you find it questionable to defend a boy proposing sex with a girl in a nonviolent, nonthreatening manner? Hokay.



> We need to be wary about putting a woman in any situation such as the one described above, because these types of situations CAN end up badly. Saying you're going to drive a girl home, then instead pulling into a parking lot late at night, and shutting off the car, does not make for a "feeling safe" kind of vibe, in anybody's eyes.


It's reasonable to be slightly apprehensive when the car pulls over. Maybe the boy wants to kill her and wear her skin. Maybe the boy wants to have sex. Maybe he wants to drink beer. Maybe he wants to talk, or listen to the radio, or any of a number of things. Once it becomes clear that he wants sex, the apprehension lowers and the girl can deal with the situation as it is. Not as it might have been.



> The irony here is that had I agreed to this girl's proposition of oral sex in exchange for a ride home, it very well could have been construed as a date rape or sexual harassment issue. Or at the very least, made me look like a complete a-hole if and when it got out. This is pretty much the type of situation us guys need to learn to avoid, no?


No. I'm just not as dismissive of the abilities and choices of girls as you are. If a girl proposes sex to a boy, even in exchange for services, I don't see how anyone can possibly view that as the boy victimizing the girl. She made a choice of her own free will.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> So again, where was this fear that you speak about?


I honestly don't know what she was thinking. 

But he deliberately, and it sounds like without consultation, put her in a very compromising position. Then, again apparently without consultation or the usual niceties, threw a condom in her lap.

She probably didn't know what to think, given that she trusted him. But it's clearly a fear-based tactic.

Anytime I've seen similar behaviour, it's been a clear signal of danger.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Agreed. I was in a similar situation, and he decided that he wasn't going to let me out because he "wanted to show me something". I protested, he didn't listen. I tried to run,not fast enough. Tried to fight, he choked me close to death.
> 
> I pressed charges, and the courts and popular opinion agreed that he was being unfairly accused for just being horny and wanting a bit of sex. And of course I was consenting because he said so. Never mind the bruises.


That's appalling, AA. I'm sorry that you experienced this, and even sorrier that this man got away with it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> A bit dodgy? Unless he expressly talked to her about the change in route, it's downright frightening. And then he throws a condom in her lap and you want to interpret that as just a clumsy way of coming on to her? Seriously? And this is just how guys are supposed to get more sex?
> 
> What many here aren't seeing is just how dangerous and frightening it is for a woman to be alone, cut off from help, with a man. And that it really isn't okay to use these fear tactics to get laid.
> 
> Because that's exactly what it is. Using fear to get laid.


Permit me to ask something.

Let's say you were Alex's ex wife at 15 years of age in that car with that 17 year old guy , in the exact position , but he was a guy that you were sexually attracted to, and definitely had the hots for him. Lets assume you never said anything about that attraction to him.
Then he puts down a move like that on you.

How do you think you would have responded ?


----------



## treyvion

How would a male ensure that he doesn't put a woman in a position that may be construed as rape by a "non maliscious" female?


----------



## Cosmos

treyvion said:


> How would a male ensure that he doesn't put a woman in a position that may be construed as rape by a "non maliscious" female?


Communication. 

The best way a man can protect himself from allegations of rape is by ensuring that they're both on the same page before assuming that sex is on the menu.


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> Communication.
> 
> The best way a man can protect himself from allegations of rape is by ensuring that they're both on the same page before assuming that sex is on the menu.


Well I don't sleep around multi dating and all... But I do have a fear of being out there because people don't care about you.

Most of the time in my engagements when they first started up, it was through reciprocal dirty talk.

More than half the time they initiated with a crotch grab or zipper pull down.

Sometimes we progressively got into it from a kiss on the mouth, and worked our way to the real thing.

There was always many steps that had to be performed to get to the sex, and it was always a green light or they were the one controlling the process.

In my long term girl friends and ladies I have been with many times, many time we did not speak. I would be allowed to initiate the act or "take" it. She would not resist and also be going into lust while I am getting closer to the gold.

On any girlfriend or wife where I "take" it, and she wasn't into it, she would say no or a stiff body language would let me know not to attempt to proceed. Because she would be mad enough at me, that it wouldn't be worth it.

I love having sex!:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> That's appalling, AA. I'm sorry that you experienced this, and even sorrier that this man got away with it.


I was warned explicitly by the prosecutors that the most likely outcome would be his acquittal and my humiliation. Essentially the mindset was that whatever he does in the pursuit of sex is pretty much fair game, and that if I excited him so much that he lost control, well that was my failing, not his. 

I pursued it as a matter of principle, not because I was expecting justice. And I'm very happy to see that time and consistent efforts from women standing up for their right not to be raped has gradually changed sentiments, and that courts do recognize that greyer areas like spousal and date rape should also be prosecuted.

However, I'm also independent, outspoken, and not afraid of a fight. I can only but imagine what it would've been like if I wasn't


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Permit me to ask something.
> 
> Let's say you were Alex's ex wife at 15 years of age in that car with that 17 year old guy , in the exact position , but he was a guy that you were sexually attracted to, and definitely had the hots for him. Lets assume you never said anything about that attraction to him.
> Then he puts down a move like that on you.
> 
> How do you think you would have responded ?


I can barely wrap my mind around this question because no guy I've ever had the hots for has ever tried to take me anywhere secluded without my express consent, and certainly has never come onto me by throwing a condom in my lap.

The first action I might be forgiving about, if, say, it was meant as -- and actually was -- a pleasant surprise. The second, though, would've killed it for me, for sure and forever.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I can barely wrap my mind around this question because no guy I've ever had the hots for has ever tried to take me anywhere secluded without my express consent, and certainly has never come onto me by throwing a condom in my lap.
> 
> The first action I might be forgiving about, if, say, it was meant as -- and actually was -- a pleasant surprise. The second, though, would've killed it for me, for sure and forever.


Alright.

I must say I find your response quite interesting.

I asked because I remember when I was around 17 - 19 , especially when I entered college, sometimes I would be hanging out with a my friend in his car [ didn't have my own yet]especially on a Friday or Saturday night and sometimes would just show up by a couple of girls who we either of us had some attraction to or vice versa , they attracted to one of us etc, and they would come with us not knowing where we were going. 
Most times we would show up at these girl's home well into the night 11.00 pm , 12.00 midnight, telling them we're going to have fun and if they were interested they were welcomed aboard.
Girls were always open to going anywhere with us.[ probably because I selected carefully.] Most times it would be drag racing , clubbing or to the beach , sometimes skinny dip when the water was warm.
It was all part of the whole dating and seduction scene.
Sometimes this would end up in some kissing and fondling , but never all the way to sex. Sex came later if she invited me inside or some days later if she invited me home.

Basically that was considered " normal " behavior for us and ladies went along with it. Those who didn't want to come hang out with us , didn't. Those who hung out with us never complained, in fact the only time I remember complaints was if we invited another car with guys whom the girls didn't dig, like a blind date gone bad.

My point is a lot of adults here could relate to that scenario I just painted. Some girls, actually a lot of girls around that age were into that stuff and probably still are.
Just like quite a lot of girls today are making short vids of themselves doing all sort of stuff in the nude , or taking nude still pics of themselves and sending it to guys phone whom they hardly even know.
If you were a teenaged girl , would you send nude cellphone pics and clips of yourself to a guy you fancied?
Would you think a 17 yr old guy sending pics of his junk to you was creepy
Most likely you'd say no , to the first and yes to the second.

That's why I say there are many different shades here. 
You don't seem to like that type of surprise and said that you must first know where you're being taken.
But I also know quite a few women who prefer it teh other way around.
They absolutely love the idea of being surprised and seduced by someone they like.
The problem comes in if it's someone they _don't_ like , which is her right.
But I don't think we could honestly paint any man who makes a surprise move on a woman he thinks has the hots for him and whom he also likes with the broad rapist brush.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Easy, it is called enthusiastic consent.


What do we teach our sons about situations where there actually was consent, but she lies after the fact and attempts to pin a rape or attempted rape upon him?

I think I would tell my sons, to first, not talk to her because she's making maliscious claims. And secondly we would have to run it through the local police.

When someone is maliscious they attempt to get statements out of you which can be used against you. They want to damage you and hook you for personal gain.


----------



## alexm

WyshIknew said:


> I don't know, I'm probably coming at this from a mans point of view. It's difficult sometimes to put yourself in someone elses shoes especially if they are the opposite sex.
> 
> Don't forget that this was not a mature man, not making excuses for him but maybe with the benefit of maturity he may have behaved differently.
> 
> This was not some random girl he picked up and tried it on with.
> 
> Where on earth was the fear? She said herself that she wasn't scared, how do you interpret fear from that?
> 
> At the worst it may have been getting laid from a sense of obligation but that's all.
> 
> Show me in alexm's post where his ex wife said she was scared. Can you do that?
> 
> 
> alexm's own testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> So again, where was this fear that you speak about?


Well, if I can comment on this, feeling danger and feeling fear are not one and the same. I think I said she told me she didn't feel like she was in danger.

I got the impression she didn't feel like she was going to be murdered or anything, but I also did get the impression that she felt pressured. Remember, I only heard this story several years after it had happened, and her own fear or sense of endangerment had long passed.

However, it was an important enough story that she didn't just file it away. It was something I remember her coming to me about.

Regardless, the women who have commented have had the opposite viewpoint of the majority of men who have commented. I am not saying that to "prove myself right", rather as a very valid point that we guys don't see these things the way women do, and therefore a lot of our (mine included) comments are off.

I don't completely disagree with most of the men's points made here, it's the ones that are saying "what did she expect?" and "she probably wanted it" etc. that absolutely blow my mind. I will stop short of completely saying that it is THAT mindset that allowed this type of stuff to happen, as I would like to believe that the men who are saying this stuff likely don't actually DO this type of thing.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> We should give all of our kids, both genders, stacks of "enthusiastic consent forms" and tell them that both parties should sign before getting sexual. Problem solved. Get a verbal statement of consent on video. Whatever it takes. Everyone should be protected and enthusiastic consent is the answer.


That would end any doubt. In real life how do these scenarios go down?


----------



## Cosmos

treyvion said:


> What do we teach our sons about situations where there actually was consent, but she lies after the fact and attempts to pin a rape or attempted rape upon him?
> 
> I think I would tell my sons, to first, not talk to her because she's making maliscious claims. And secondly we would have to run it through the local police.
> 
> When someone is maliscious they attempt to get statements out of you which can be used against you. They want to damage you and hook you for personal gain.


If false allegations of rape are made, swift legal action is the best recourse.

IMO, allegations of rape which are _proven to be malicious and false_ should carry the same hefty sentence as rape itself.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> There are lots of resources to learn more about it and how to apply it in real life, treyvion. Just do some searches, you'll find it.
> 
> I think we should point out, that the Mens Right's Activists are AGAINST enthusiastic consent and instead they promote the idea of "seduction"...which really just means "get her from no to yes". They continually mock the very idea of enthusiastic consent...but you have to wonder why ANYONE would mock such a concept? If they are so worried about false rape charges, why don't they want signed waivers of consent? Perhaps because they know they might not get laid if they have to get enthusiastic consent.


Women are going to seduce or attempt to seduce those who they wish to, and so will men, unless they become too fearful.

Seduction isn't bullying someone into sex. It is carrying on the physical consumation dance until the sex act is performed. If at any time, there is a strong resistance, you can't carry it on.

I think it would be rediculous to say women can seduce but men are not allowed to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> Well, if I can comment on this, feeling danger and feeling fear are not one and the same. I think I said she told me she didn't feel like she was in danger.
> 
> I got the impression she didn't feel like she was going to be murdered or anything, but I also did get the impression that she felt pressured. Remember, I only heard this story several years after it had happened, and her own fear or sense of endangerment had long passed.
> 
> However, it was an important enough story that she didn't just file it away. It was something I remember her coming to me about.
> 
> Regardless, the women who have commented have had the opposite viewpoint of the majority of men who have commented. I am not saying that to "prove myself right", rather as a very valid point that we guys don't see these things the way women do, and therefore a lot of our (mine included) comments are off.
> 
> I don't completely disagree with most of the men's points made here, it's the ones that are saying "what did she expect?" and "she probably wanted it" etc. that absolutely blow my mind. I will stop short of completely saying that it is THAT mindset that allowed this type of stuff to happen, as I would like to believe that the men who are saying this stuff likely don't actually DO this type of thing.



I'll give you an interesting little anecdote.
When I was in college , I used to hang out with my pal who owned a nice car , and like I said in my last post , we always took girls with us.
I remember one time we were in the cafeteria having lunch with some other girls , and we began comparing notes about our past weekend.
One of the blurted out that her Saturday night sucked because this new guy she dated for the first time came to pick her up in his 
> insert type of car here < and initially the had lots of fun talking , eating, making jokes etc.
She said she'll never go on another date with him again because he was a " NATO " officer, and they all started laughing hysterically.

Well I was confused.
I asked them what does " NATO " mean?
She replied; No Action Talk Only.
Apparently she was mad because he didn't make a move on her and she was hoping he did.

The difference between your ex wife's situation and other guys ,is that the women involved welcome being taken by surprise in sometimes similar manner . They call it " unpredictability " in a guy they fancy.
However if they don't fancy the guy , they call him creepy. 

Ask any woman here if any of their lovers have ever surprised them with sex at a public venue , and how did it go down , or how did they feel .
The answers might surprise you.

People having sex in vehicles isn't anything new , and they have been doing so since Henry Ford invented it...
And it's hardly ever " planned."

I think that's what Wysh was getting in his post.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> I'll give you an interesting little anecdote.
> When I was in college , I used to hang out with my pal who owned a nice car , and like I said in my last post , we always took girls with us.
> I remember one time we were in the cafeteria having lunch with some other girls , and we began comparing notes about our past weekend.
> One of the blurted out that her Saturday night sucked because this new guy she dated for the first time came to pick her up in his
> > insert type of car here < and initially the had lots of fun talking , eating, making jokes etc.
> She said she'll never go on another date with him again because he was a " NATO " officer, and they all started laughing hysterically.
> 
> Well I was confused.
> I asked them what does " NATO " mean?
> She replied; No Action Talk Only.
> Apparently she was mad because he didn't make a move on her and she was hoping he did.
> 
> The difference between your ex wife's situation and other guys ,is that the women involved welcome being taken by surprise in sometimes similar manner . They call it " unpredictability " in a guy they fancy.
> However if they don't fancy the guy , they call him creepy.
> 
> Ask any woman here if any of their lovers have ever surprised them with sex at a public venue , and how did it go down , or how did they feel .
> The answers might surprise you.
> 
> People having sex in vehicles isn't anything new , and they have been doing so since Henry Ford invented it...
> And it's hardly ever " planned."
> 
> I think that's what Wysh was getting in his post.


I'm sure they were doing it in chariots and stage coaches too.


----------



## Cosmos

treyvion said:


> Women are going to seduce or attempt to seduce those who they wish to, and so will men, unless they become too fearful.
> 
> Seduction isn't bullying someone into sex. It is carrying on the physical consumation dance until the sex act is performed. If at any time, there is a strong resistance, you can't carry it on.
> 
> I think it would be rediculous to say women can seduce but men are not allowed to.


:iagree: But seduction is a far cry from placing someone in a situation where No might not be perceived as an option. For example, taking a woman to an isolated location and then being overly 'assertive.' Nothing wrong, of course, in being assertive, but body language, cues and responses should be well observed.


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> :iagree: But seduction is a far cry from placing someone in a situation where No might not be perceived as an option.


You don't have to explain that to me. I've had women drive me out to the desolate spot and pull the zipper down. And since I was game for it, it was ok.


----------



## naiveonedave

won't ever happen. Men asking for consent come across as weak. heat of the moment is how this goes down. To expect a contract of any kind other than marriage is nearing lunacy. I expect in the next 100 years, the pendulum swings back a lot on this. esp after the Duke Lax scandal a few years back. enough of those (which are more common than you think) and society will push back, imo.

Rape is wrong, but 2nd thoughts the morning after might actually be worse, ethically.


----------



## firebelly1

Interesting discussion. I think it's dangerous to go down the slippery slope of making intent criminal. Condom-throwing guy wasn't a rapist, in my opinion. But he was an a**hole. I don't agree that any sex with a woman who doesn't really feel like it is rape. It may be wrong or immoral or mean on the part of the man. It may be uncomfortable, scary or feel like pressure to the woman, but it isn't necessarily rape. 

Sometimes we do it even if we don't feel like it because there are other things we do want. And sometimes, as is being implied here, we say yes because we're afraid of saying no or we feel obligated. And there are different levels of afraid and obligated. I think we also can be seduced. One minute we don't feel like it but with a little sweet talk, we do. But sweet talk isn't coercion. 

What we really need is to empower women to speak up. We shouldn't be jailing men because they couldn't read a woman's mind. Although, as Caribbean points out, maybe men always really do know when a woman wants to have sex with them and the rapist's mentality is one where what she wants just doesn't matter. 

I've accused a poster on these forums of promoting rape. He'd suggested that a man who was trying to reconcile with his wife DEMAND that she have sex with him because, after all, she was his wife. That to me is rapist mentality. But in my opinion technically rape wouldn't happen until the husband held her down and forced her. Until then, he is just a colossal a**hole.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> What happened in previous generations is exactly why we have all these issues today.
> 
> Get enthusiastic consent from both parties, and we won't have these issues.
> 
> Rape will still occur because rape will always occur. But these "fuzzy" gray areas will be cleared up.
> 
> Educate kids about enthusiastic consent.
> 
> The old days are over and too much rape happened...that is why it is such a big social issue now. Those who have been raped won't keep quiet like they did previously.


No matter if the old days are over or not, women and men will still opt to seduce each other.

Also "bar game" will happen and some of it will occur due to being inebriated or close to it. 

But it is obvious people need to protect themself from dangerous outcomes, that's why I'm just a fan of no cheating, people taking care of their partners needs and low sex partner counts. It's just too much risk.

Just find someone who works well with you and take care of that.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> But seduction is a far cry from placing someone in a situation where No might not be perceived as an option.


How does a creature, as deaf and blind as a man, know how someone else is perceiving things?

They don't know why you're upset (on your birthday, which they've forgotten) what you're trying to indirectly say (in an argument) they can't tell when you're having an affair at work (even though all his friends can see it).

So whence the extra-ordinary mindreading skills when it comes to how a woman perceives the situation?

Complicate this with comments from the women on here such as these:



committed4ever said:


> (Replying to this comment: ) IMO, anytime a man has sex with a woman who isn't interested in having sex with him , at that point and time or at anytime , that is rape.
> I really don't think a woman needs to be convinced to have sex. It's either she wants to have sex with you or not.
> Full Stop.
> 
> C4ever replies by saying:
> 
> Not the case for me. I could be convinced with some extremely sensuous foreplay.


And:



ScarletBegonias said:


> Perceived danger is opening up a whole can of worms for disaster and false accusations.ANY woman can say "I felt like he would take what he wanted so I f**ked him out of obligation". Think of how many wayward spouses would latch onto this and use it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> If false allegations of rape are made, swift legal action is the best recourse.
> 
> IMO, allegations of rape which are _proven to be malicious and false_ should carry the same hefty sentence as rape itself.


The problem is they hardly ever do.

I know at least two cases that after the " victim" confessed ,all they received was a reprimand.

One of the worst cases I've seen happened down here a few years ago.
An 12 yr old girl testified in court against her neighbor and accused him of having sex with her on a regular basis.

The girl was proven to be sexually active via doctors examination.
The man was sentenced to 20 years.
He was murdered in prison.
His wife and daughter fled the neighborhood.
Eight years later , a young woman walked into one of our leading Newspapers and said she had a confession. She had become a 
" born again Christian " and felt guilty.
Apparently , he mother and the " rapist " family had a land dispute for many years, and her mother fabricated the entire story.

Her lies caused a man his life, but she was on the front of the newspaper begging that mans wife and daughter for forgiveness...


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> The problem is they hardly ever do.
> 
> I know at least two cases that after the " victim" confessed ,all they received was a reprimand.
> 
> One of the worst cases I've seen happened down here a few years ago.
> An 12 yr old girl testified in court against her neighbor and accused him of having sex with her on a regular basis.
> 
> The girl was proven to be sexually active via doctors examination.
> The man was sentenced to 20 years.
> He was murdered in prison.
> His wife and daughter fled the neighborhood.
> Eight years later , a young woman walked into one of our leading Newspapers and said she had a confession. She had become a
> " born again Christian " and felt guilty.
> Apparently , he mother and the " rapist " family had a land dispute for many years, and her mother fabricated the entire story.
> 
> Her lies caused a man his life, but she was on the front of the newspaper begging that mans wife and daughter for forgiveness...


Had his life completely made worthless and killed behind it.

Reasons like this make me want to get it all on tape with a verbal consent at the beginning. Hell may as well be on porn so everyone know what's going down.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Rape is when one party has not consented to sex. This also includes if one party was not able to give consent.


----------



## NovellaBiers

treyvion said:


> Reasons like this make me want to get it all on tape with a verbal consent at the beginning. Hell may as well be on porn so everyone know what's going down.


If the girl is 12 it is rape even with a verbal consent and a camera.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> The problem is they hardly ever do.
> 
> I know at least two cases that after the " victim" confessed ,all they received was a reprimand.
> 
> One of the worst cases I've seen happened down here a few years ago.
> An 12 yr old girl testified in court against her neighbor and accused him of having sex with her on a regular basis.
> 
> The girl was proven to be sexually active via doctors examination.
> The man was sentenced to 20 years.
> He was murdered in prison.
> His wife and daughter fled the neighborhood.
> Eight years later , a young woman walked into one of our leading Newspapers and said she had a confession. She had become a
> " born again Christian " and felt guilty.
> Apparently , he mother and the " rapist " family had a land dispute for many years, and her mother fabricated the entire story.
> 
> Her lies caused a man his life, but she was on the front of the newspaper begging that mans wife and daughter for forgiveness...


I once had a 14 year old stalker coming into my workplace, finding any excuse to talk to me, making sexual comments, following me at lunchtime and waiting for me when I finished work.

I discussed everything she was doing with my boss, to let her know what was happening. She could see it anyway, but, you have to be sure don't you!

My boss did nothing about it for quite a while, other than to say "why don't you leave out the back door" and telling her "he's not here today." after which she'd let me know she was gone.

One of my colleagues - a woman, naturally said: "it sounds like you're leading her on". Charming... 

So eventually I insisted that my boss chat and tell her straight to get lost. She didn't do it, because you know 'poor girl, she's confused, she's young, it's not a nice thing to do to a young girl' etc. 

So I had to do it in front of witnesses, colleagues and public AT WORK, just to make sure there was no false accusation, no possibility of the "you've been leading her on", no nothing. She exploded, with the kind of rage you'd expect for a stalker - "I thought you were my friend... you're an effing A-hole..." and all the rest of it.

Right now the women on here probably still "suspect" that I was 'leading her on'... it's part of my job to be welcoming and friendly, but I never made any suggestion which could be misinterpreted as interest.

And some people want to make it _easier _to claim rape?

No, no, no... no way!

Things are dangerous enough as it is, thanks.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NovellaBiers said:


> Rape is when one party has not consented to sex. This also includes if one party was not able to give consent.


What is one person said nothing and just went along?


----------



## treyvion

NovellaBiers said:


> If the girl is 12 it is rape even with a verbal consent and a camera.


You don't have to say that to me. I have a 13 years old daughter for crying out loud.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> The problem is they hardly ever do.
> 
> I know at least two cases that after the " victim" confessed ,all they received was a reprimand.
> 
> One of the worst cases I've seen happened down here a few years ago.
> An 12 yr old girl testified in court against her neighbor and accused him of having sex with her on a regular basis.
> 
> The girl was proven to be sexually active via doctors examination.
> The man was sentenced to 20 years.
> He was murdered in prison.
> His wife and daughter fled the neighborhood.
> Eight years later , a young woman walked into one of our leading Newspapers and said she had a confession. She had become a
> " born again Christian " and felt guilty.
> Apparently , he mother and the " rapist " family had a land dispute for many years, and her mother fabricated the entire story.
> 
> Her lies caused a man his life, but she was on the front of the newspaper begging that mans wife and daughter for forgiveness...


Shocking, CM. This is the sort of thing that I meant. The mother should have been sent to jail - for a long time...


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> What is one person said nothing and just went along?


I don't think that's rape Caribbean. I'm not saying it's RIGHT, but I don't think it's rape.


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> If the girl is 12 it is rape even with a verbal consent and a camera.


What a flippant comment.

Do you sincerely believe he was talking about the 12 year old? I read it as he was talking about all sexual situations with _adults_.

Funny how paedophilia wasn't the first thing I thought of when I read his post, and yet for you, it was.

You assume all men are paedophiles. Nice!

Can I now assume all rape-claimants are liars/exaggerators? Thought not. 

I will continue to believe that the truth is more important than *who *the accuser *or *the defendant are.


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> Shocking, CM. This is the sort of thing that I meant. The mother should have been sent to jail - for a long time...


Unfortunately a good percentage of the population is CORRUPT and LIES enough to consider this a normal thing to do. They do it like you breathe air. It's not 1%, maybe 20%.

Evil and corrupt and just wants to hurt someone.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Caribbean Man said:


> What is one person said nothing and just went along?


It depends. Do they know each other? Is the person conscious ie. not sleeping, blacked out drunk, drugged?

Usually there is verbal consent given if the person is willing. If not then it's better to just ask. It's like when you ask for permission to take that last bite of the grandma's delicious pie.


----------



## COGypsy

Caribbean Man said:


> Alright.
> 
> I must say I find your response quite interesting.
> 
> I asked because I remember when I was around 17 - 19 , especially when I entered college, sometimes I would be hanging out with a my friend in his car [ didn't have my own yet]especially on a Friday or Saturday night and sometimes would just show up by a couple of girls who we either of us had some attraction to or vice versa , they attracted to one of us etc, and they would come with us not knowing where we were going.
> Most times we would show up at these girl's home well into the night 11.00 pm , 12.00 midnight, telling them we're going to have fun and if they were interested they were welcomed aboard.
> Girls were always open to going anywhere with us.[ probably because I selected carefully.] Most times it would be drag racing , clubbing or to the beach , sometimes skinny dip when the water was warm.
> It was all part of the whole dating and seduction scene.
> Sometimes this would end up in some kissing and fondling , but never all the way to sex. Sex came later if she invited me inside or some days later if she invited me home.
> 
> Basically that was considered " normal " behavior for us and ladies went along with it. Those who didn't want to come hang out with us , didn't. Those who hung out with us never complained, in fact the only time I remember complaints was if we invited another car with guys whom the girls didn't dig, like a blind date gone bad.
> 
> My point is a lot of adults here could relate to that scenario I just painted. Some girls, actually a lot of girls around that age were into that stuff and probably still are.
> Just like quite a lot of girls today are making short vids of themselves doing all sort of stuff in the nude , or taking nude still pics of themselves and sending it to guys phone whom they hardly even know.
> If you were a teenaged girl , would you send nude cellphone pics and clips of yourself to a guy you fancied?
> Would you think a 17 yr old guy sending pics of his junk to you was creepy
> Most likely you'd say no , to the first and yes to the second.
> 
> That's why I say there are many different shades here.
> You don't seem to like that type of surprise and said that you must first know where you're being taken.
> But I also know quite a few women who prefer it teh other way around.
> They absolutely love the idea of being surprised and seduced by someone they like.
> The problem comes in if it's someone they _don't_ like , which is her right.
> But I don't think we could honestly paint any man who makes a surprise move on a woman he thinks has the hots for him and whom he also likes with the broad rapist brush.


The difference between the situations is the intent though. You were inviting girls to go have fun, an adventure-- to flirt and end up doing whatever you could find to do. That's very, very different than agreeing to give someone a ride home from work and taking them to a deserted dark parking lot instead.

I'd say yes to the first and call 911 for the second every time.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> How does a creature, as deaf and blind as a man, know how someone else is perceiving things?
> 
> They don't know why you're upset (on your birthday, which they've forgotten) what you're trying to indirectly say (in an argument) they can't tell when you're having an affair at work (even though all his friends can see it).
> 
> So whence the extra-ordinary mindreading skills when it comes to how a woman perceives the situation?


Fortunately, my SO and just about every man I've ever dated has not required "extraordinary mind reading skills" with which to understand or interact with me. Some things are just common sense...


----------



## treyvion

NovellaBiers said:


> It depends. Do they know each other? Is the person conscious ie. not sleeping, blacked out drunk, drugged?
> 
> Usually there is verbal consent given if the person is willing. If not then it's better to just ask. It's like when you ask for permission to take that last bite of the grandma's delicious pie.


NOBODY ASKS "So can I have sex with you"?

It's just not how it's done.


----------



## COGypsy

No but "are you sure you want to do this" isn't uncommon if you're hooking up for the first time, especially if drinking or other revelry has been involved.


----------



## NovellaBiers

treyvion said:


> NOBODY ASKS "So can I have sex with you"?
> 
> It's just not how it's done.


Why not? If the person just "goes along with it" and not really participating I would ask if they are OK with it.


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> Why not? If the person just "goes along with it" and not really participating I would ask if they are OK with it.


So you admit, you'd have already made a start _*before *_asking "if it's OK"?

You're guilty of sexual assault then. Possibly false imprisonment if it happens in a car...

I don't think I've ever 'asked permission' BTW. It just happens. No-one has complained...

But you assume all men are rapists anyway, so that's your problem.


----------



## firebelly1

Faithful Wife said:


> TREYVION....YES THEY DO. This is changing rapidly, and it needs to. YES PEOPLE ARE saying that. It is a movement, and it is called enthusiastic consent. The kink community has ALWAYS used and understood this concept. Now the rest of the world is coming onboard. Get used to it, it is happening...and it will solve many problems.


I get where you're going FW, believe me I do, but enthusiastic verbal consent I think sounds kind of annoying. Having to give it...the man asking...buzz kill. Are you including non-verbal enthusiastic consent? Does that count?

I'm not trying to be flippant. I think rape is a deadly serious thing, but body language and verbal cues other than language are communication.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Faithful Wife said:


> TREYVION....YES THEY DO. This is changing rapidly, and it needs to. YES PEOPLE ARE saying that. It is a movement, and it is called enthusiastic consent. The kink community has ALWAYS used and understood this concept. Now the rest of the world is coming onboard. Get used to it, it is happening...and it will solve many problems.


Agree with this. I find it hard to believe that a man who is able to insert his organ inside another, possible unfamiliar person is not capable of asking a simple question to confirm they are OK with it.


----------



## PHTlump

treyvion said:


> What do we teach our sons about situations where there actually was consent, but she lies after the fact and attempts to pin a rape or attempted rape upon him?


I would advise my son to record the encounter to prove it was consensual. Also, send her a text afterwards saying that you had fun and for her to text when she gets home safe, or something. Hopefully, she responds soon by saying she had fun, too. That will make any accusation of rape at a later date much less credible.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I don't think that's rape Caribbean. I'm not saying it's RIGHT, but I don't think it's rape.


Ok.
Fair enough.
I was asking because that seem to be the sticking point on this thread.
Some people think it's " rapey" some say in't not rape ,although its not right.
I feel maybe based on how it is defined then we cam get a clear definition on what constitutes spousal rape.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Interesting discussion. I think it's dangerous to go down the slippery slope of making intent criminal. Condom-throwing guy wasn't a rapist, in my opinion. But he was an a**hole. I don't agree that any sex with a woman who doesn't really feel like it is rape. It may be wrong or immoral or mean on the part of the man. It may be uncomfortable, scary or feel like pressure to the woman, but it isn't necessarily rape.
> 
> Sometimes we do it even if we don't feel like it because there are other things we do want. And sometimes, as is being implied here, we say yes because we're afraid of saying no or we feel obligated. And there are different levels of afraid and obligated. I think we also can be seduced. One minute we don't feel like it but with a little sweet talk, we do. But sweet talk isn't coercion.
> 
> What we really need is to empower women to speak up. We shouldn't be jailing men because they couldn't read a woman's mind. Although, as Caribbean points out, maybe men always really do know when a woman wants to have sex with them and the rapist's mentality is one where what she wants just doesn't matter.
> 
> I've accused a poster on these forums of promoting rape. He'd suggested that a man who was trying to reconcile with his wife DEMAND that she have sex with him because, after all, she was his wife. That to me is rapist mentality. But in my opinion technically rape wouldn't happen until the husband held her down and forced her. Until then, he is just a colossal a**hole.


Lol,

Sorry I didn't see your post here before, but basically this is what I was trying to get at in my last post!
That's why I said there are many shades of grey between.


----------



## firebelly1

Faithful Wife said:


> All I can say is that the kink community do some pretty freaky stuff, and sometimes with literal strangers....and yet they don't seem to think it is a buzz kill. Why do you suppose that is?
> 
> Enthusiastic consent is actually liberating and sexy. It means "HELL YES I WANT YOU!" How is that a buzz kill?


I see what you're saying - makes some sense. But the kink community is, presumably, asking permission because they are potentially going to cause you physical pain. On purpose. You really _should_ get a stranger's unequivocal verbal permission to do that. 

But I don't want a guy I'm making out with to keep asking me if what he's doing is alright. "Can I touch you there? Can I kiss you? How 'bout now?" I mean, does he only ask permission when you're naked and he's about to enter you? When and what is he asking permission for? Seems like, really, the onus should be on the woman to say at any point "Not that." And then he has an obligation to stop. 

Putting all the burden on the man is not empowering to women, in my opinion. And I'm speaking as someone who has had plenty of obligatory sex. When I was younger, if a guy took me out, I felt obliged to have sex with him. That's not the guys' fault. That's me not having enough of a sense of myself to think it was okay to say no.


----------



## Caribbean Man

COGypsy said:


> No but "are you sure you want to do this" isn't uncommon if you're hooking up for the first time, especially if drinking or other revelry has been involved.


The last time I asked a girl that during her heat of passion I was 15 years old. We were kissing and she reached for my zipper, I moved her hand and asked her if she was sure she wanted to " do it."
She didn't answer , but locked lips again.
Then she tarted pulling off her sweater, and I asked what if she got pregnant?

She got furious, pulled back on her blouse and told me I was a " little boy" and needed to " grow up."

Didn't take long for the rumors to spread in high school.

Back then I was still a "_goody two shoes_" virgin.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> *Putting all the burden on the man is not empowering to women, in my opinion. And I'm speaking as someone who has had plenty of obligatory sex. When I was younger, if a guy took me out, I felt obliged to have sex with him. That's not the guys' fault. That's me not having enough of a sense of myself to think it was okay to say no.*


*HALLEUJAH!*
Finally the epiphany.

Thank goodness CM didn't say it.


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> TREYVION....YES THEY DO. This is changing rapidly, and it needs to. YES PEOPLE ARE saying that. It is a movement, and it is called enthusiastic consent. The kink community has ALWAYS used and understood this concept. Now the rest of the world is coming onboard. Get used to it, it is happening...and it will solve many problems.


The fetish community has a special reason for getting explicit consent, so that's a false comparison.

How far should we carry this. Because anyone who said yes in words, 

can say that they didn't consent later. Or they can claim 'intimidation'.

Is there a standardised consent form which can be downloaded? 

And who will pay for the handwriting analysis when one of the people claim they didn't sign it. Or were intimidated into signing it.

We've got people having sex with foreigners who don't even speak the same language. Is the consent form available in dual-language formats?

And is each type of sexual act clearly separated with a separate space for signature to each component?

Is there a cooling off period - where you have to give people time to consider the matter between signing and consummation? 

Otherwise, there might be "regrets". Also, if there is an age difference of say, more than ten years, should parental consent be sought? After all, a 35 year old and a 20 year old - one of them is potentially taking advantage... not so?

Another sub-clause for bosses with their direct employees would be good too. They should get permission from HR, attach a letter of permission to the standardised form. After all, we don't want sexual harassment, favouritism or intimidation claims later.

Sure, we can stick to 'enthusiastic consent', but it doesn't cover any of the situations outlined above, and consent can be denied quite easily by an enraged 'regretter'/ex-partner.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> Fair enough.
> I was asking because that seem to be the sticking point on this thread.
> Some people think it's " rapey" some say in't not rape ,although its not right.
> I feel maybe based on how it is defined then we cam get a clear definition on what constitutes spousal rape.


The spousal rape thing is sometimes clouded by the discussion about the LD and HD partners, right? If your spouse doesn't want to have sex with you as much as you want, it can feel like an unfair situation. I can't have sex with anyone else, but I can't get the sex I want at home. So, is it rapey of me to then start expressing anger at my spouse because I'm not getting the sex I think he / she SHOULD be giving me?


----------



## Sandfly

firebelly1 said:


> The spousal rape thing is sometimes clouded by the discussion about the LD and HD partners, right? If your spouse doesn't want to have sex with you as much as you want, it can feel like an unfair situation. I can't have sex with anyone else, but I can't get the sex I want at home. So, is it rapey of me to then start expressing anger at my spouse because I'm not getting the sex I think he / she SHOULD be giving me?


I've cut off sex before. My partner got pretty angry about it after a few weeks. Was this an attempt to _intimidate _me into sex? 

What if she's out there intimidating men who aren't as much of a stubborn A-hole as I am? 

For the good of mankind, society and for justice, should I report her, even though it's nine years since we broke up?


----------



## treyvion

NovellaBiers said:


> Why not? If the person just "goes along with it" and not really participating I would ask if they are OK with it.


You can't go along with it if they aren't participating. Some women want to be seduced by men they are attractive to. The male is in a dominant and masculine position in these engagements. 

If she ever stiffened up or prevented further progress or said no you stop.

Like I said, i was lucky in that I only messed with babes who were interested in me, so it wasn't a big deal or convincing anyone to do something.


----------



## firebelly1

Sandfly said:


> I've cut off sex before. My partner got pretty angry about it after a few weeks. Was this an attempt to _intimidate _me into sex?
> 
> What if she's out there intimidating men who aren't as much of a stubborn A-hole as I am?
> 
> For the good of mankind, society and for justice, should I report her, even though it's nine years since we broke up?


I think I'm agreeing with you. I don't think it's rape to get mad at your spouse for not giving you sex. But I can see where there's a line somewhere there. It's the "I demand that you have sex with me because you have a marital obligation to do so" that I think crosses the line.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> The last time I asked a girl that during her heat of passion I was 15 years old. We were kissing and she reached for my zipper, I moved her hand and asked her if she was sure she wanted to " do it."
> She didn't answer , but locked lips again.
> Then she tarted pulling off her sweater, and I asked what if she got pregnant?
> 
> She got furious, pulled back on her blouse and told me I was a " little boy" and needed to " grow up."
> 
> Didn't take long for the rumors to spread in high school.
> 
> Back then I was still a "_goody two shoes_" virgin.



That just tanked your sex rank at the time before you even built one.


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> I think I'm agreeing with you. I don't think it's rape to get mad at your spouse for not giving you sex. But I can see where there's a line somewhere there. It's the "I demand that you have sex with me because you have a marital obligation to do so" that I think crosses the line.


If your used to getting it male or female and the spouse shuts you off, you WILL be angry.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> The spousal rape thing is sometimes clouded by the discussion about the LD and HD partners, right? If your spouse doesn't want to have sex with you as much as you want, it can feel like an unfair situation. I can't have sex with anyone else, but I can't get the sex I want at home. So, is it rapey of me to then start expressing anger at my spouse because I'm not getting the sex I think he / she SHOULD be giving me?


Well That's the question that led me to start this thread in the first place.
And I am honestly torn between both viewpoints.

I've never been in a sexless marriage , and I've never really been outright rejected for sex when I was single .

So I'm trying to see both perspectives. But both seem conflicting.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> That just tanked your sex rank at the time before you even built one.


LMAO!:rofl:

Yes!

Boy was I naive..
I had so many opportunities which I failed to take. Somewhere around 16 yrs , it finally clicked.
Everything I _thought_ I knew about girls was wrong.

No hard feelings though, I just laugh at it now.


----------



## Sandfly

firebelly1 said:


> I think I'm agreeing with you. I don't think it's rape to get mad at your spouse for not giving you sex. But I can see where there's a line somewhere there. It's the "I demand that you have sex with me because you have a marital obligation to do so" that I think crosses the line.


Well that's not fair is it.

You're saying that because I was strong enough to carry on refusing, instead of caving, I'm not entitled to compensation/revenge/justice.

I could do with some money now. And turning her life upside-down nine years later... well, who cares? Happens to celebrities all the time in the UK recently.

Do you recommend that I should wait till she's famous and got more money before selling my story? There's no evidence, but as an aggressive female, there are loads of people who would back me up. Especially if I get in touch with some of the people she secretly took revenge on at work, got fired from their jobs.

There was one called Donna, she got fired because she was too much of a flirt... one called patricia who she signed up to lots of 'special offers' credit cards, payment plans, travel enquiries... so much so that it caused a rift between patricia and her husband, and Patricia complained at work about it to my ex, not knowing that she was the one who did it...

Sure this might work. Plenty of enraged false witnesses I can call on. I might get enough compo to start my own business!


----------



## firebelly1

Faithful Wife said:


> I never said all the burden is on the man. The woman can just give consent first, without being asked! As far as I'm concerned, women should also *ask* for consent. Why twist my words, though? Where did I say there has to be a stop and go, "can I touch you here or there" at every turn?
> 
> Now how do you propose we educate teens so that they do NOT "feel obliged to have sex with someone and not have a sense of themselves enough to think it is ok to say no"?
> 
> By teaching them about enthusiastic consent.


I wasn't trying to misrepresent what you say so much as show you that the application of verbal consent might be unncessarily complicated. Sorry if I offended.

I educated my teen girls directly by telling them that they have a right to say yes or no at any point during sexual contact. I role talked them through various ways they might say no like "no glove, no love." And of course, use birth control and here's where you can get it and here's how you use it, etc. Both have gotten through their teen years into adulthood using birth control and pretty satisfied with their sex lives.

To my son I have said "Use a condom every damn time or you're going to be paying child support for the next 18 years. Never have sex with a girl who is incapacitated or who verbally or physically gives you clues that she's opposed. Here's what that might look and / or sound like..." Also, girls aren't necessarily going to like what you see being done to them in porn movies. Here's a website...(Make Love Not Porn).

But the APPLICATION of this education is about self-esteem and so to that extent, I do everything I can to make my kids feel valuable.


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't get what you are arguing. Enthusiastic consent is a good thing and protects all parties involved. Just because* it will not stop actual rape, and it will not stop vindictive false rape charges*, why should the concept not be adopted, understood, and made available to everyone?
> .


The item underlined and the ones in bold are a direct contradiction.

That's why.

Also, once again, what goes on in fetish clubs is not a relevant standard to extend.


----------



## firebelly1

Sandfly said:


> Well that's not fair is it.
> 
> You're saying that because I was strong enough to carry on refusing, instead of caving, I'm not entitled to compensation/revenge/justice.
> 
> I could do with some money now. And turning her life upside-down nine years later... well, who cares? Happens to celebrities all the time in the UK recently.
> 
> Do you recommend that I should wait till she's famous and got more money before selling my story? There's no evidence, but as an aggressive female, there are loads of people who would back me up. Especially if I get in touch with some of the people she secretly took revenge on at work, got fired from their jobs.
> 
> There was one called Donna, she got fired because she was too much of a flirt... one called patricia who she signed up to lots of 'special offers' credit cards, payment plans, travel enquiries... so much so that it caused a rift between patricia and her husband, and Patricia complained at work about it to my ex, not knowing that she was the one who did it...
> 
> Sure this might work. Plenty of enraged false witnesses I can call on. I might get enough compo to start my own business!


Sorry...I'm not getting your point.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> LMAO!:rofl:
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Boy was I naive..
> I had so many opportunities which I failed to take. Somewhere around 16 yrs , it finally clicked.
> Everything I _thought_ I knew about girls was wrong.
> 
> No hard feelings though, I just laugh at it now.


Right, it's all around you. What are some facts or craziness that you have accepted work with respect to you and females?


----------



## firebelly1

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I'm aware of that website. And they are all behind the enthusiastic consent movement.
> 
> I don't see any problem with verbal enthusiastic consent. No matter how many arguments about how that would be a "boner killer" (you didn't say this but others have in the past) want to make. You didn't offend me, but I'm just confused why people (anyone, not just you) would be against it.
> 
> I wasn't/isn't my idea. It is a change that is occurring globally and is being accepted and promoted by every sex educator and sex ed program for teens and doctors everywhere.
> 
> The mocking of the concept just leaves me... :scratchhead:


I'm for it in theory. Each person in the interaction should be clear that the other person wants what is happening to happen. I am wary of the idea in part because of the potential legal ramifications. A guy should not be accused of rape because he didn't get explicit verbal consent. But also because sometimes what makes sex hot is that it's just animalistic and I like it that way. I don't want to be asked for verbal consent. I don't want to have to give it. If I grab his thing, that should be enough of a clue that I'm in.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> Well That's the question that led me to start this thread in the first place.
> And I am honestly torn between both viewpoints.
> 
> I've never been in a sexless marriage , and I've never really been outright rejected for sex when I was single .
> 
> So I'm trying to see both perspectives. But both seem conflicting.


I was in a marriage where my spouse didn't like me to initiate and would only initiate himself once a month or so. HATED it. It warranted several "this isn't working for me" conversations but I didn't feel like I had the right to demand it from him. I don't think in a marriage you really have the right to demand anything of your partner. It works for me, or it doesn't. It didn't and it's one of the reasons we aren't together anymore. 

The appropriate way to deal with it is "This isn't working for me" and try to fix it through counselling. And if it doesn't work, you leave. But demanding is about power. And rape is about power. And I think that's the line.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> I think we should point out, that the Mens Right's Activists are AGAINST enthusiastic consent and instead they promote the idea of "seduction"...which really just means "get her from no to yes". They continually mock the very idea of enthusiastic consent...but you have to wonder why ANYONE would mock such a concept? If they are so worried about false rape charges, why don't they want signed waivers of consent? Perhaps because they know they might not get laid if they have to get enthusiastic consent.


You've hit on a main reason. It's the same reason why pro-abortion advocates mock and deride the notion of a waiting period, or mandatory counseling before allowing a woman to abort her pregnancy. It's another hurdle to clear, which means fewer people will get to the ultimate goal of sex, or abortion.

If one wants to propose enthusiastic consent as a standard for satisfying sex, I agree. It's no fun having sex with a woman who is apathetic, or reluctant, about sex. However, when discussing legal standards, enthusiastic consent goes too far. Just because a man is willing to have sex with a woman who consents, but isn't enthusiastic, doesn't mean he deserves to be imprisoned.


----------



## firebelly1

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet many women have filed rape charges against men even WHEN they DID grab his thing.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> You know it means consent for you...but not all women are the same and non-verbal cues are not all the same.


So how would him getting verbal consent have changed her filing charges? Or are you really saying there should be a form? Because that's the only way you could have solid evidence in court.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Now that the MRA's have arrived, I'm out.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> * But demanding is about power. And rape is about power. And I think that's the line.*


:iagree:
Sincerest thanks for your opinion!
Looks like we both agree on the same definition on rape.
I must say I admire your veracity and respect you logic.

Wish you success with your kids too!


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just want to note that the last time I spoke out against MRA's, someone logged on to send me a violent threat via PM....and a mod confirmed for me that the threat came from someone at an MRA website.

For that reason, I'm going to go back and delete my posts on this thread.

I just want to warn people around here...this topic goes much deeper than you probably think, and there is an agenda by the MRA's.


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> And yet many women have filed rape charges against men even WHEN they DID grab his thing.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> You know it means consent for you...but not all women are the same and non-verbal cues are not all the same.


And you say you don't understand what I'm saying?

I fail to see how 'explicit consent' could not also be subsequently 're-interpreted' as "I was under duress", there were other people there and I was just going along with it because of peer pressure, given as a result of trickery, false pretences.

Once again, explicit consent doesn't solve any problems if a person is determined to lie/get revenge.

I notice how no-one is touching with a barge-pole the post I made showing my female boss's reaction to my underaged stalker situation. I had to humiliate the girl in public, just to make sure there was no comeback... thanks to the assumption that men are rapists, I was forced to be nasty to someone who my boss could have spoken to and put right on my behalf.

And it was my job to not be nasty, to not make a scene, to be courteous and helpful to all my customers, no matter their age, gender, mental health.

I wonder how this would have played out if I'd been a woman, and a fourteen year old boy was following me about? Probably the boy would have been sent to a psychiatrist, had a note inserted on his police record, been banned from my workplace...
Yeah, and no danger would have come to me of any false accusations either; even a true one would have been dismissed.

I seem to be getting upset! This is not the first time some stalker woman has created problems for me!! And what's the reaction every time? "Oh, you've done something to make them harass you!"


----------



## PHTlump

I doubt that enthusiastic consent will really catch on because a large percentage, or even majority, of both sexes don't like the idea.

Women often want sex to be organic and just unfold. The notion of either stopping periodically to check that enthusiasm is being maintained, or that proceeding to the next step is acceptable, is a turn off for many women.

Men like spontaneous romance almost as much as women. But, they also have to sell themselves for sex like car salesmen sell cars. It wouldn't be very effective for a car salesman to stop periodically to insist that the customer verify that she really wants to buy the car. Because they can just cancel the sale if she's not 1,000% certain. Such a salesman would go hungry. And, while a hard sell doesn't get the most satisfying sex, many men would rather have unsatisfying sex than none at all.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> I just want to warn people around here...this topic goes much deeper than you probably think, and there is an agenda by the MRA's.


If one person wants to maintain laws as they are, and another wants to radically change rape laws, I wouldn't say that the first person is the one with an agenda.


----------



## Cosmos

I think the enthusiastic consent scenario is designed more for when people don't know one another too well / first time sex. We're not talking here about an established couple or marriage scenario...


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> I think the enthusiastic consent scenario is designed more for when people don't know one another too well / first time sex. We're not talking here about an established couple or marriage scenario...


Now THAT makes good sense. 

Perhaps it's just me working on the assumption that stranger-sex is an unpalatable thing anyway, so I've never had to ask consent of a person I didn't get to know a little first.

IMO stranger-sex, drunk sex, is a risky practice regardless of any imaginable safe-guards.


----------



## treyvion

Sandfly said:


> Now THAT makes good sense.
> 
> Perhaps it's just me working on the assumption that stranger-sex is an unpalatable thing anyway, so I've never had to ask consent of a person I didn't get to know a little first.
> 
> IMO stranger-sex, drunk sex, is a risky practice regardless of any imaginable safe-guards.


And it's all VERY NORMAL within a good portion of the population.


----------



## Sandfly

treyvion said:


> And it's all VERY NORMAL within a good portion of the population.


That idea worries me slightly. Sounds like people would _sleep with_ someone to whom ordinarily they wouldn't lend ten dollars for a bus fare.

That make sense? Not to me


----------



## treyvion

Sandfly said:


> That idea worries me slightly. Sounds like people would _sleep with_ someone to whom ordinarily they wouldn't lend ten dollars for a bus fare.
> 
> That make sense? Not to me


That's what people do.

We had uncovered that some of the guys were saying that there are females who go after guys with a bit more status than themself, and they do get to lay with alot of guys who won't want to be with them for long term relations. They kinda spoil themself by going through with it and doing it.

I never thought of that phenomina. 

I guess the same with women who will take a man on because he has money, but without it she would not be attracted.

But this has been going on since the beginning of time.


----------



## Sandfly

treyvion said:


> That's what people do.
> 
> We had uncovered that some of the guys were saying that there are females who go after guys with a bit more status than themself, and they do get to lay with alot of guys who won't want to be with them for long term relations. They kinda spoil themself by going through with it and doing it.
> 
> I never thought of that phenomina.
> 
> I guess the same with women who will take a man on because he has money, but without it she would not be attracted.
> 
> But this has been going on since the beginning of time.


Yeah, I saw a documentary on binobos monkeys a few years ago, and the commentator said they were having sex for protection, for pacification, in exchange for food, in exchange for a sleeping berth, for anything, basically... and I thought... _now _I know which particular monkey this human race is descended from 

PS - rats exhibit similar behaviour to people in crowded conditions, so the chain goes back even further...


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Now THAT makes good sense.
> 
> Perhaps it's just me working on the assumption that stranger-sex is an unpalatable thing anyway, so I've never had to ask consent of a person I didn't get to know a little first.
> 
> IMO stranger-sex, drunk sex, is a risky practice regardless of any imaginable safe-guards.


Me neither. I've never had sex with anyone outside of an established / committed relationship.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> Me neither. I've never had sex with anyone outside of an established / committed relationship.


Good stuff.

I see you're also in England. What do you think about our girls picking up this lifestyle in university?


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> I see you're also in England. What do you think about our girls picking up this lifestyle in university?


Never mind university, Sandfly, they're at it behind the bicycle sheds in (early) high school! By the time (and if) they get to uni, many of them are already well into the lifestyle.


----------



## Anon Pink

Just wanted to point out that Faithful Wife never said enthusiastic consent needed to apply to married couples in the way it applies to singles.

Bugging out now, carry on...


----------



## firebelly1

Anon Pink said:


> Just wanted to point out that Faithful Wife never said enthusiastic consent needed to apply to married couples in the way it applies to singles.
> 
> Bugging out now, carry on...


I understood that. It's applied when you don't know the person well. My experience is that if you are with someone you don't know well and they start to do something you don't like, you say "nope" and move that body part away. Typically, they back off. If they don't, you leave. If you're the pursuer, you stop when the other person says "nope" or moves the body part away. I just wonder why one needs more than that. And, again, my concern is when we start making it a legal standard.


----------



## Cosmos

Anon Pink said:


> Just wanted to point out that Faithful Wife never said enthusiastic consent needed to apply to married couples in the way it applies to singles.
> 
> Bugging out now, carry on...


No, she didn't. I didn't get that impression either.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> Never mind university, Sandfly, they're at it behind the bicycle sheds in (early) high school! By the time (and if) they get to uni, many of them are already well into the lifestyle.


I know, same with drugs. But Uni is where it really takes off. For me, uni was a strange experience.

Lots of middle-class kids acting like I was when I was 13-14 years old.

By the time I went to Uni I had been in a monogamous relationship for three years. I hadn't had a joint or sniffed glue nor drunk myself to paralysis for a long time. I was an adult already.

So I guess I saw it through jaundiced eyes, as I was one of the few who was not interested in all this, who was there to get an education


----------



## over20

Is a sexually starved spouse being "emotionally raped".....not trying to offend anyone...but is a spouses INACTION of breaking their vows to fulfill this need as bad as an ACTION of physical rape.......just a little food for thought......


----------



## Cosmos

over20 said:


> Is a sexually starved spouse being "emotionally raped".....not trying to offend anyone...but is a spouses INACTION of breaking their vows to fulfill this need as bad as an ACTION of physical rape.......just a little food for thought......


I was in a sexless marriage for 6 years and I know, as a normal / HD person, how very bad this can be. However, it didn't induce me to cheat, nor would it have induced me to commit a degrading, criminal act.

Rape isn't about sex. It's about power, control, degradation and humiliation.


----------



## over20

Great point Cosmos...but doesn't a LD spouse or no drive spouse also have the power, control, degradation and humiliation over their HD spouse?

Not trying to start trouble.....trying to maybe elaborate on the definition of rape??? IDK


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> I was in a sexless marriage for 6 years and I know, as a normal / HD person, how very bad this can be. However, it didn't induce me to cheat, nor would it have induced me to commit a degrading, criminal act.
> 
> Rape isn't about sex. It's about power, control, degradation and humiliation.


Did you get all your sex drive back and did you recover the marriage or have to go elsewhere?


----------



## Cosmos

over20 said:


> Great point Cosmos...but doesn't a LD spouse or no drive spouse also have the power, control, degradation and humiliation over their HD spouse?
> 
> But is being _truly_ LD _intentional_? It's my guess that it's rather like ED - it isn't a choice that someone consciously makes. I don't believe that (generally) someone chooses to be LD in order to have power and control over their spouse, nor to degrade them.
> 
> Not trying to start trouble.....trying to maybe elaborate on the definition of rape??? IDK
> 
> Rape is unlawful, non-consensual sex. Married or unmarried.


----------



## over20

I understand your point...well spoken. I was just thinking of all the partners that live life day after day, month after month, sometimes year after year experiencing real emotional trauma from lack of sexual connection from their spouse.

I don't think LD is like ED. Well .... maybe now that you make the point..I think some LD partners don't want to change...just like an ED partner might not want to change.....or sometimes both of them are willing to change but don't know how...

Sadly I do know some LD or ND wives that like to poke fun at their "perverted" husbands for wanting to have more sex. In that case the LD /ND spouse, I feel, is emotionally raping her husband.....


----------



## Sandfly

I agree that rape is not the same as with-holding sex, though I found over20's comparisons about with-holding sex as a 'powerplay' an interesting comparison.

If I am annoyed, then there's no way I want to have sex with the partner who has annoyed me.

This is something that women are often accused of, and people say that men can have issues with their partners, and still be up for sex. Not me!

So, I guess I will admit to using my sexuality as a carrot or stick, therefore, a control.

But this is not intentional, not exactly. I have to be happy with the other person, and I can go weeks without being interested, or have sex several times a day, all depending on how much I feel connected and feel admiration for (not the same as 'attracted' to) my partner.

I guess I'm quite lucky really, because I am at least one man who doesn't fit into germaine greer's horrendous slander against men, that women are to men little more than a pocket for masturbation (The female eunuch).

Perhaps this is also why I don't trust radical feminists to be allowed to define what rape is, because they seem to assume that men are all born rapists and guilty until proven innocent.

I'm not saying anyone here is a radical, just that some European countries have gone down that rocky path.


----------



## over20

Sandfly said:


> I agree that rape is not the same as with-holding sex, though I found over20's comparisons about with-holding sex as a 'powerplay' an interesting comparison.
> 
> If I am annoyed, then there's no way I want to have sex with the partner who has annoyed me.
> 
> This is something that women are often accused of, and people say that men can have issues with their partners, and still be up for sex. Not me!
> 
> So, I guess I will admit to using my sexuality as a carrot or stick, therefore, a control.
> 
> But this is not intentional, not exactly. I have to be happy with the other person, and I can go weeks without being interested, or have sex several times a day, all depending on how much I feel connected and feel admiration for (not the same as 'attracted' to) my partner.
> 
> I guess I'm quite lucky really, because I am at least one man who doesn't fit into germaine greer's horrendous slander against men, that women are to men little more than a pocket for masturbation (The female eunuch).
> 
> Perhaps this is also why I don't trust radical feminists to be allowed to define what rape is, because they seem to assume that men are all born rapists and guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here is a radical, just that some European countries have gone down that rocky path.


Very refreshing point of view!!!


----------



## Cosmos

treyvion said:


> Did you get all your sex drive back and did you recover the marriage or have to go elsewhere?


I never lost my sex drive, Trey, but I almost lost my sanity. After much counseling I learned that my H was asexual and I divorced him. I was young and there's no way I could live like that.


----------



## Cosmos

over20 said:


> I understand your point...well spoken. I was just thinking of all the partners that live life day after day, month after month, sometimes year after year experiencing real emotional trauma from lack of sexual connection from their spouse.
> 
> It can cause enormous emotional damage.
> 
> I don't think LD is like ED. Well .... maybe now that you make the point..I think some LD partners don't want to change...just like an ED partner might not want to change.....or sometimes both of them are willing to change but don't know how...
> 
> No it isn't the same, but it's possibly just as incontrollable. Except in the case of ED it can be helped with meds, whereas LD is possibly more difficult to treat (particularly if the LD person is happy with the way they are).
> 
> Sadly I do know some LD or ND wives that like to poke fun at their "perverted" husbands for wanting to have more sex. In that case the LD /ND spouse, I feel, is emotionally raping her husband...
> 
> Which is highly abusive, and the spouse should just leave.


----------



## NovellaBiers

I had a memory lapse what MRA stands for so by Googling it I found this Urban Dictionary definition: Urban Dictionary: mra


> MRA
> Acronym for a group called Men's Rights Activists.
> 
> I.E. - A bunch of whiny pedantic morons that think there is some vast Illuminati feminist conspiracy while seemingly ignoring the fact that their own gender runs the majority of the world.


 :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> You don't seem to like that type of surprise and said that you must first know where you're being taken.
> But I also know quite a few women who prefer it teh other way around.
> They absolutely love the idea of being surprised and seduced by someone they like.
> The problem comes in if it's someone they _don't_ like , which is her right.
> But I don't think we could honestly paint any man who makes a surprise move on a woman he thinks has the hots for him and whom he also likes with the broad rapist brush.


I love adventure and surprise. Always have.

But any guy using manipulative tactics to get me alone and propositioning me by assuming that I'm just going to slide a condom on his d!ck is pretty much guaranteed to be bad news. And possibly dangerous.

There's a huge difference in intent, vibe, and tactic.

A few guys here are accusing women of thinking all men are rapists, but that is simply not the case. Seduction and manipulation are *not* the same thing, and it *isn't* just a matter of whether she likes him or not.

And in return, they seem to be assuming that all women who cry rape are lying or trying to get them in trouble simply for being men. This is absolutely not true. A huge proportion of women are victims of rape, usually by someone they know and trust.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> I love adventure and surprise. Always have.
> 
> But any guy using manipulative tactics to get me alone and propositioning me by assuming that I'm just going to slide a condom on his d!ck is pretty much guaranteed to be bad news. And possibly dangerous.
> 
> There's a huge difference in intent, vibe, and tactic.
> 
> A few guys here are accusing women of thinking all men are rapists, but that is simply not the case. Seduction and manipulation are *not* the same thing, and it *isn't* just a matter of whether she likes him or not.
> 
> And in return, they seem to be assuming that all women who cry rape are lying or trying to get them in trouble simply for being men. This is absolutely not true. A huge proportion of women are victims of rape, usually by someone they know and trust.


Like I said, a good percentage of CORRUPT women, the same place the CORRUPT men come from WILL pin a rape on someone just to **** them. It's like breathing air for them.

It's like the one who will get pregnant by one and have sex with another to pin it on him. 


It's much more than 1%, it's double digits 10-20% who find this behavior something within the realm of possibility.

So please don't let these traps for men be overlooked, because they are damsels in distress. Some families son was a victim and a target for one of these demons.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> I love adventure and surprise. Always have.
> 
> But any guy using manipulative tactics to get me alone and propositioning me by assuming that I'm just going to slide a condom on his d!ck is pretty much guaranteed to be bad news. And possibly dangerous.
> 
> There's a huge difference in intent, vibe, and tactic.
> 
> A few guys here are *accusing women of thinking *all men are rapists, but that is simply not the case. Seduction and manipulation are *not* the same thing, and it *isn't* just a matter of whether she likes him or not.
> 
> And in return, they seem to be *assuming that* *all women *who cry rape *are lying* or trying to get them in trouble simply for being men. This is absolutely not true. A *huge proportion *of women are victims of rape, usually by someone they know and trust.


Are you sure that you've interpreted things correctly?

This isn't a courtroom. Exaggerating what the witnesses have stated is not a necessary tactic here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Seduction and manipulation are *not* the same thing, and it *isn't* just a matter of whether she likes him or not.


Would you mind giving us _your_ definition of what seduction is , versus _your_ definition of manipulation , in intimate or interpersonal relationships?

As far as I know, all seduction involves some sort of manipulation.

A woman is sexually attracted to a man she thinks is hot , but he never notices her , wouldn't she use some sort of manipulative technique to get his attention?
Whether it is * accidentally * bumping into him , purposely 
* picking fights * with him , sending anonymous note , or any the other technique she deems fit in her arsenal of " tricks" to get his attention?
Are you saying that she is wrong to do that?

Is manipulation necessarily, always a function of evil intent?


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> Are you sure that you've interpreted things correctly?
> 
> This isn't a courtroom. Exaggerating what the witnesses have stated is not a necessary tactic here.





Sandfly said:


> But you assume all men are rapists anyway, so that's your problem.





Sandfly said:


> thanks to the assumption that men are rapists, I was forced to be nasty to someone





Sandfly said:


> Perhaps this is also why I don't trust radical feminists to be allowed to define what rape is, because they seem to assume that men are all born rapists and guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here is a radical, just that some European countries have gone down that rocky path.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Would you mind giving us _your_ definition of what seduction is , versus _your_ definition of manipulation , in intimate or interpersonal relationships?
> 
> As far as I know, all seduction involves some sort of manipulation.


All seduction may be manipulation, but not all manipulation is seduction.

Intent to seduce doesn't absolve one for unethical behaviour, and there is a whole realm of unethical acts that are committed in the name of seduction. Not all of them are rape, of course, but unethical nonetheless.

Some manipulation is evil, and some forms of manipulation committed in the name of seduction are evil. Some forms of manipulation for the purposes of having sex are legitimately classified as rape. 

This is why we have date and spousal rape laws. To have power to prosecute people who are abusing others.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Sandfly said:


> Are you sure that you've interpreted things correctly?
> 
> This isn't a courtroom. Exaggerating what the witnesses have stated is not a necessary tactic here.


Yes, she interpreted things correctly. You accused me and someone else of assuming all men are rapists...


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> All seduction may be manipulation, but not all manipulation is seduction.
> 
> Intent to seduce doesn't absolve one for unethical behaviour, and there is a whole realm of unethical acts that are committed in the name of seduction. Not all of them are rape, of course, but unethical nonetheless.
> 
> Some manipulation is evil, and some forms of manipulation committed in the name of seduction are evil. Some forms of manipulation for the purposes of having sex are legitimately classified as rape.
> 
> This is why we have date and spousal rape laws. To have power to prosecute people who are abusing others.



But you haven't answered my question.
I asked you a direct question about _your _definition of what seduction is versus _your_ definition of manipulation in intimate relationships.

My reason for starting this thread was because everyone seems to have a different definition of what consists rape and what is not ethical.

As for the rape laws , they seem very clear , but like you said yesterday on this thread , the law sometimes doesn't do justice to the victim , and the alleged perpetrator is allowed to walk free.

So what's _your _definition?


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> Yes, she interpreted things correctly. You accused me and someone else of assuming all men are rapists...


I was pointing to specific people, namely one of the colleagues I worked with, _you_, the radical feminist movement in Europe.

The other poster in turn, took it to mean all women.

I don't control her ability to read without prejudice.

"assuming that all women who cry rape are lying"
"accusing women of thinking..."
"A huge proportion of women are victims..."

Tell me, who was saying that all women who cry rape are lying?

Courtroom tactics


----------



## larry.gray

NovellaBiers said:


> I had a memory lapse what MRA stands for so by Googling it I found this Urban Dictionary definition: Urban Dictionary: mra :rofl:


Yeah, they can be over the top. BUT there are a few successes that I'm quite happy with.

10 years ago, almost every state made a cuckolded man pay child support if he found out and divorced his wife. DNA test be dammed, he was on the hook for the full 18 years or more if the child went to college. The situation has totally reversed, and now almost every state allows a man to use DNA testing to remove himself from child support.

Right now they can't sue for back support, but I'd like seeing that. Paternity _fraud_ is the only fraud that can't land you in jail.

Mom used to get the kids in a divorce unless she was so terribly neglectful or abusive that she'd lose the kids. Now 50/50 is the presumed norm. The MRA folks got us that too.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> So what's _your _definition?


A person who is made to have sex against their will is being raped.

A person who relies on intimidation, coercion, force, lies, psychological manipulation, exploitation, or incapacitation to get what they want is acting unethically, and in some cases criminally.


----------



## treyvion

larry.gray said:


> Yeah, they can be over the top. BUT there are a few successes that I'm quite happy with.
> 
> 10 years ago, almost every state made a cuckolded man pay child support if he found out and divorced his wife. DNA test be dammed, he was on the hook for the full 18 years or more if the child went to college. The situation has totally reversed, and now almost every state allows a man to use DNA testing to remove himself from child support.
> 
> Right now they can't sue for back support, but I'd like seeing that. Paternity _fraud_ is the only fraud that can't land you in jail.
> 
> Mom used to get the kids in a divorce unless she was so terribly neglectful or abusive that she'd lose the kids. Now 50/50 is the presumed norm. The MRA folks got us that too.


Was the cuckholding back then as almost being viewed as "state supported", like the system wanted this behavior and made it favorable?


----------



## NovellaBiers

Sandfly said:


> I was pointing to specific people, namely one of the colleagues I worked with, _you_, the radical feminist movement in Europe.
> 
> The other poster in turn, took it to mean all women.
> 
> I don't control her ability to read without prejudice.


You are confused what is written and what we are talking about. I suggest you re-read everything again.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> A person who is made to have sex against their will is being raped.
> 
> A person who relies on intimidation, coercion, force, lies, psychological manipulation, exploitation, or incapacitation to get what they want is acting unethically, and in some cases criminally.


Not bad.

This reminds me of the connection between the concepts of violence and rape in different languages.

Eg: Russian:

Nasilovat' Na- (over, excessive) -Sil(-a) (strength, power) -ovat' (converts noun to transitive verb) = to overpower

Polish: Gwałt (rape) vs. 'Gwałtowny' (violent) 

Spanish - violación (rape) - (but _also _means 'violation' eg of a law)

as well as in our own language, the connection between 'violate' and 'violence'.

So in Slavic languages, rape seems to be restricted to the first definition, 

in western Europe, first and second. Partly cultural then?


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> You are confused what is written and what we are talking about. I suggest you re-read everything again.


No thanks, love. I'm not sure that repeating ourselves will bear fruit.


----------



## treyvion

Sandfly said:


> Not bad.
> 
> This reminds me of the connection between the concepts of violence and rape in different languages.
> 
> Eg: Russian:
> 
> Nasilovat' Na- (over, excessive) -Sil(-a) (strength, power) -ovat' (converts noun to transitive verb) = to overpower
> 
> Polish: Gwałt (rape) vs. 'Gwałtowny' (violent)
> 
> Spanish - violación (rape) - (but _also _means 'violation' eg of a law)
> 
> as well as in our own language, the connection between 'violate' and 'violence'.
> 
> So in Slavic languages, rape seems to be restricted to the first definition,
> 
> in western Europe, first and second. Partly cultural then?


Overpower and violate illustrate the main points of rape.

That's pretty much what it is. A person can be "emotionally raped" and it means violated, over powered, disrespected, etc.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> But you haven't answered my question.
> I asked you a direct question about _your _definition of what seduction is versus _your_ definition of manipulation in intimate relationships.
> 
> My reason for starting this thread was because everyone seems to have a different definition of what consists rape and what is not ethical.
> 
> As for the rape laws , they seem very clear , but like you said yesterday on this thread , the law sometimes doesn't do justice to the victim , and the alleged perpetrator is allowed to walk free.
> 
> So what's _your _definition?


I was thinking about this yesterday - is it about the man being someone I like, or not? Seduction IS a form of manipulation. So rapey manipulation vs. manipulation that might actually get me in bed? Hm. 

I can say that for sure, if a guy tries to intimidate or make me feel guilty: bad. If a man repeatedly keeps trying when I've said out loud "no" or continually pull away: Bad. Any whining involved. Bad. (Yes, I've had men whine at me.)

A guy who uses humor and /or tells me how pretty / smart / funny I am: good. It might not get him laid right this second, but it keeps the possibility open.


----------



## over20

I support the NRA and the MRA! :smthumbup:


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I was thinking about this yesterday - is it about the man being someone I like, or not? Seduction IS a form of manipulation. So rapey manipulation vs. manipulation that might actually get me in bed? Hm.
> 
> *I can say that for sure, if a guy tries to intimidate or make me feel guilty: bad. If a man repeatedly keeps trying when I've said out loud "no" or continually pull away: Bad. Any whining involved. Bad. (Yes, I've had men whine at me.)*
> 
> *A guy who uses humor and /or tells me how pretty / smart / funny I am: good. It might not get him laid right this second, but it keeps the possibility open.*


Right.
I agree with your perspective, it is a fair analysis.
So we can both agree that quite a lot of whether it is good or bad comes down to two things, intent and perception.

Intent on the part of the man and perception on the part of the woman. It is often said that a persons perception is oftentimes _their_ reality. But feelings play a lot in forming perceptions.

If you are attracted to a person or like them, then your tolerance level or your appreciation for their advances or personal interactions with you, whether welcomed or unwelcome , would higher than that of a person whom you do not like.

Here's an example.
One of my most embarrassing public encounters , and I've had many different types , happened when I was single . It was doing som Christmas shopping in a crowded store when I saw a female I thought was a good friend of mine . Her back was turned towards me . I thought to myself that I hadn't seen her in quite a while , and I was overjoyed so I ran up to her , put my arms around her , laughed and began greeting her by name. She spun around and I was mortified . It wasn't who I thought it was , she was a total stranger!
I apologized profusely, the expression on my face must have looked really silly and embarrassed because in a split second , her shock turned to laughter. I was a bit confused , but she said it was ok , and that she wasn't offended. She introduced herself , we shook hands and me, still embarrassed turned to leave. She stopped me and reminded me that she didn't get my name , I apologized , laughed and gave her my name. We chatted a bit , and parted ways.

Later that evening it occurred to me of how badly that could have turned out if she had taken serious offense to me invading her space , and called the police. What was a genuine mistake on my part would have cost me either a jail sentence ,a fine or both , and she would have been justified in her perception of my " assault " but my intent was never bad , even though my actions were wrong.

Maybe it was the Yuletide season , my appearance and personae ,her attitude and perception or whatever it was , I was just thankful it didn't go down badly.
Of course the flip side of it is that I could have been a pervert or purse snatcher or some sort of villain and she would have become a victim. But that was not the case and all went well.

Her perception of my intent was correct , even though my actions were wrong.

Here's another example in marriage.

Many times while sleeping , I'm sometimes awoken by my wife either giving me a BJ or playing with " it." Obviously she wants sex , and I'm only glad to fulfill her desires.
Many times when she's asleep , I'm in the mood , I caress her breasts ,back , legs and so on she awakes and we get it on.
She's never complained or turned me down .
My guess is because we generally have a good relationship . But let's say things were bad between us , and during the nights when she slept , I approached her the same way for sex .
My intent is the same .
But her reaction would most likely be different , because of what she _perceives_ is happening. Her perception would obviously be based on her general feeling towards me about the relationship.
Though she might not object , she wouldn't respond.
To her it would feel like rape. That is her _perception_ of my actions. But again the general principle is that a person's perception is often their reality, so I ought not to approach her in that way , given the animosity in the relationship. Although some couples both enjoy sex even in that type of environment . 
However ,if I tried and she didn't respond , then I shouldn't continue.

In reality , one mans attempts at seduction that might appear 
" rapey " to one woman , might be accepted by another woman as a good attempt at seduction , and open the way to more 
" possibilities " in the future. Both are based on her perception of the mans intent , which is a function of how she feels towards him, and other peripherals .

A wise man knows this and tailors his approach to women to what he thinks would be more acceptable to them. He tells them what they want to hear and his body language speaks for itself.

Not all guys are _that_ knowledgable , but that certainly doesn't automatically make them rapist.

Certainly, there are rapist . Taking full responsibility for oneself and one's own actions, is a good way to avoid such men , the manipulative situations they tend to force their victims into and the horrible outcome.


----------



## NovellaBiers

I don't think hugging someone or fondling breasts, back and legs is rape. Those fall more into sexual assault or abuse definition if it's unwelcomed or illegal action. I believe to meet the description of rape there has to be penetration of (vagina, anus, penis or mouth) some form happened.


----------



## Cosmos

> *CM said*:-
> 
> In reality , one mans attempts at seduction that might appear
> " rapey " to one woman , might be accepted by another woman as a good attempt at seduction , and open the way to more
> " possibilities " in the future. Both are based on her perception of the mans intent , which is a function of how she feels towards him, and other peripherals .


I also think it depends on what stage the relationship is at, CM. I gain the impression that things progress very quickly in 'modern' relationships, and the boundaries have become blurred and have the potential to be dangerous. 

There no longer seems to be a gradual progression of intimacy (ie - first, second and third base), and what might be perceived as assertive seduction to some, might be perceived as inappropriate and overly aggressive to others.

Just because XY and Z were happy to have sex with 'you' on the first, second or third dates, don't assume that AB or C will do likewise.

Not taking the time to get to know someone, ignoring cues and failing to communicate at this stage can land people in a lot of trouble, IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I also think it depends on what stage the relationship is at, CM. I gain the impression that things progress very quickly in 'modern' relationships, and the boundaries have become blurred and have the potential to be dangerous.
> 
> *There no longer seems to be a gradual progression of intimacy (ie - first, second and third base), and what might be perceived as assertive seduction to some, might be perceived as inappropriate and overly aggressive to others.*
> 
> *Just because XY and Z were happy to have sex with 'you' on the first, second or third dates, don't assume that AB or C will do likewise.*
> *
> Not taking the time to get to know someone, ignoring cues and failing to communicate at this stage can land people in a lot of trouble, IMO.*


YES, YES, YES, and a hundred times YES!

I know some men would disagree with me on this but,
Some guys seem to feel that they're entitled to things they aren't entitled to. It doesn't matter if she had sex with Tony on the first date. The point is that she perceived Tony a certain way and you're not matching to her perception of Tony. Not that Tony was a good man or a better man , but something in Tony made her respond that way. The planets were all aligned and she felt comfortable having sex with Tony on _that_ particular night.
Furthermore , if Tony had continued dating her after that night , then he would have been her boyfriend and she wouldn't be dating you.
If you can't live with that , stop whining / bugging her for sex and move on.
That's just the hard reality of the casual sex scene.

[ Lol, Cosmos , you seem to be taking the words right out of my mouth, but you are correct.]



That's where I think personal boundaries and responsibilities would come in.

I think it would be helpful if women understood what type of
" red flags " or signals to look for in men on the dating and pick up scene. I came across a website with an excellent list of 
" red flags " once but I can't seem to find it now.

But I really appreciate your point.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NovellaBiers said:


> I don't think hugging someone or fondling breasts, back and legs is rape. Those fall more into sexual assault or abuse definition if it's unwelcomed or illegal action. I believe to meet the description of rape there has to be penetration of (vagina, anus, penis or mouth) some form happened.


I'm not saying in the example I gave it was rape or automatically constituted rape.

I'm saying if in the case of my wife , if my sexual advances in the still of the night were unwelcome by her , because of whatever situation , then to continue on, and actually have sex with her , would feel like rape o her.
IMO , that would be wrong, and might very well constitute spousal rape.
That is how a woman might perceive it.
To them , it is the reality.

But on the other hand , if things are good in the relationship and the same thing happens, even though the woman doesn't respond ,most likely she wouldn't feel like it's rape , hence the rape question cannot arise.
The difference in the two scenarios is her perception, and her feelings.


----------



## Cosmos

> *CM said*:
> 
> I know some men would disagree with me on this but,
> Some guys seem to feel that they're entitled to things they aren't entitled to. It doesn't matter if she had sex with Tony on the first date. The point is that she perceived Tony a certain way and you're not matching to her perception of Tony. Not that Tony was a good man or a better man , but something in Tony made her respond that way. The planets were all aligned and she felt comfortable having sex with Tony on that particular night.
> If you can't live with that , stop whining / bugging her for sex and move on.
> That's just the hard reality of the casual sex scene.


:iagree:

Also, she might have realized that what she did with Tony was a mistake that she doesn't want to repeat. It could be having sex too soon or sex acts she ended up disliking. 

We all make mistakes at some stage or other. It's how we learn and develop.


----------



## firebelly1

CM - I see what you're saying about perceptions and it may muddy the legal waters. I'm not a big fan of the "Stand your ground" laws. If we were to accept a woman's perception as the legal grounds for defining rape, we would have something similar to these laws. I'm not comfortable with that. But I do think a woman's perception has to be taken into account in the sexual advances arena. 

In regards to the gradual progression of intimacy, now that I'm facing the possibility of dating again, I know this has always been a sticky issue for me. I've always slept with guys too early, and I realize that it's incongruous with the level of emotional intimacy. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to navigate it. Part of my dilemma is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference, in my mind, between letting someone fondle you and just going to PIV. I mean, if we're talking about physical intimacy mirroring emotional intimacy. Does that make sense? 

I remember being on a first date where a guy tried to hold my hand and I knew I wasn't ready for that - too intimate. So, first and third base just seem like foreplay more than anything else. Not sure I'm making any sense.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Right.
> In reality , one mans attempts at seduction that might appear
> " rapey " to one woman , might be accepted by another woman as a good attempt at seduction , and open the way to more
> " possibilities " in the future. Both are based on her perception of the mans intent , which is a function of how she feels towards him, and other peripherals .
> 
> A wise man knows this and tailors his approach to women to what he thinks would be more acceptable to them. He tells them what they want to hear and his body language speaks for itself.
> 
> Not all guys are _that_ knowledgable , but that certainly doesn't automatically make them rapist.
> 
> Certainly, there are rapist . Taking full responsibility for oneself and one's own actions, is a good way to avoid such men , the manipulative situations they tend to force their victims into and the horrible outcome.



I don't know about this. Maybe I'm just stumbling over your examples, as I wouldn't construe either as anything remotely close to rape.

A rape situation isn't really all that ambiguous when it's happening. It mostly becomes so in the courts, when it's a matter of he said/she said, and a question of who to believe. 

Sometimes the lines are a bit hazy. Alex's story from his ex is a pretty good example of this -- because it would seem that she did in fact consent to the sex. 

But usually it's pretty crtysal clear what's going on, and your insinuation that a man should just revise his strategy to be more compelling, and that the woman is somehow responsible for being in that situation in the first place is pretty offensive.

Yes, I would agree that Alex's ex made a mistake in having sex out of "obligation". But note that she also did not complain to the authorities or try to get him into trouble.

But too many women have kept silent about the violent and abusive tactics used against them in dates and by their spouses because of perceptions that they were somehow at fault for being in that situation:
-having rohypnol or ghb slipped into their drink, or being taken advantage of when vulnerable or incapacitated
-Physical intimidation or threat
-Psychological tactics, like emotional blackmail or humiiation
-Beliefs that it is a husband's right to beat his wife
-Beliefs that men are "owed" sex 

If men perceive any of that as acceptable means of seduction, then it is *them* that need the education and the responsibility, IMHO.


----------



## firebelly1

always_alone said:


> But usually it's pretty crtysal clear what's going on, and your insinuation that a man should just revise his strategy to be more compelling, and that the woman is somehow responsible for being in that situation in the first place is pretty offensive.


I didn't perceive CM's comments to mean it's the woman's responsibility for being in the situation. I just think he's saying that the definition of rape might hinge on the woman's perception and he's not commenting on whether that is good or bad. Just that it is.


----------



## pidge70

Geez, the way some males responded on here, I guess my rape wasn't rape at all. 

Sarcasm implied.


----------



## NovellaBiers

firebelly1 said:


> I didn't perceive CM's comments to mean it's the woman's responsibility for being in the situation. I just think he's saying that the definition of rape might hinge on the woman's perception and he's not commenting on whether that is good or bad. Just that it is.


I understood it the same way as always_alone. As if women should take 'responsibility' and should know to avoid rapists. Of course this is impossible as they can be anyone and anywhere. 



> Taking full responsibility for oneself and one's own actions, is a good way to avoid such men , the manipulative situations they tend to force their victims into and the horrible outcome.


----------



## firebelly1

NovellaBiers said:


> I understood it the same way as always_alone. As if women should take 'responsibility' and should know to avoid rapists. Of course this is impossible as they can be anyone and anywhere.


Saying that a woman should avoid those situations and types of men is not the same as saying its the woman's fault if she gets raped. Women SHOULD avoid dodgey situations for their own good. But if they get raped, it is absolutely the rapist's fault, whether she put herself there or not. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive and I didn't sense that CM is saying they are.


----------



## Cosmos

firebelly1 said:


> In regards to the gradual progression of intimacy, now that I'm facing the possibility of dating again, I know this has always been a sticky issue for me. I've always slept with guys too early, and I realize that it's incongruous with the level of emotional intimacy. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to navigate it. Part of my dilemma is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference, in my mind, between letting someone fondle you and just going to PIV. I mean, if we're talking about physical intimacy mirroring emotional intimacy. Does that make sense?
> 
> I remember being on a first date where a guy tried to hold my hand and I knew I wasn't ready for that - too intimate. So, first and third base just seem like foreplay more than anything else. Not sure I'm making any sense.


The big difference between what you describe and PIV is that, due to the release of hormones during orgasm, women tend to bond. I prefer to know and trust the person I'm bonding with, and don't want my judgment clouding in this way.


----------



## NovellaBiers

firebelly1 said:


> Saying that a woman should avoid those situations and types of men is not the same as saying its the woman's fault if she gets raped. Women SHOULD avoid dodgey situations for their own good. But if they get raped, it is absolutely the rapist's fault, whether she put herself there or not. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive and I didn't sense that CM is saying they are.


You are ignoring the fact that you can't avoid rapists or situations. It's a fact that most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and hence impossbile to avoid.

I just saw a woman walking her dog outside and it's dark. Should she not do that to be responsible? Stay inside and fear for her life?


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> You are ignoring the fact that *you can't avoid rapists *or situations. It's a fact that most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and hence impossbile to avoid.
> 
> I just saw a woman walking her dog outside and it's dark. Should she not do that to be responsible? Stay inside and fear for her life?


C, you just said you can't avoid them. So feel free to walk down dark alleys in Detroit at two in the morning, because, according to you, 'you can't avoid them'.


----------



## always_alone

firebelly1 said:


> the definition of rape might hinge on the woman's perception


And what I'm saying is that *of course* it depends on her perception. Was she made to have sex against her will?

If we take away her voice in that, rape laws are meaningless.

Take CM's example: If he caresses his wife while she is sleeping, it's possible that she won't like it. If he keeps going, she's likely to respond negatively. If he persists and makes her have sex against her will, then he *is* raping her.

He doesn't get to rewrite that, and say he was just seducing his wife.


----------



## NovellaBiers

I don't live in dark alleys of Detroit and it's not 2 AM.


----------



## firebelly1

Cosmos said:


> The big difference between what you describe and PIV is that, due to the release of hormones during orgasm, women tend to bond. I prefer to know and trust the person I'm bonding with, and don't want my judgment clouding in this way.


That's a good point, although if you're talking about Oxytocin specifically, there's research out there to suggest that sexual arousal in and of itself can increase Oxytocin levels. So conceivably women just have to be attracted to someone to release oxytocin. 

I understand the notion that emotional intimacy increases over time. You reveal a little bit of something about yourself that is somewhat risky and if the other person responds in a way that makes you feel safe, you tell them something that is even more emotionally risky and the emotional bond deepens. 

So, is physical intimacy the same way? I'm taking a little bit of a physical risk by letting him put his tongue in my mouth, then his hand under my blouse, etc. until I feel comfortable with PIV or whatever? Maybe that's a good rationale for progressive physical intimacy?


----------



## Sandfly

firebelly1 said:


> That's a good point, although if you're talking about Oxytocin specifically, there's research out there to suggest that sexual arousal in and of itself can increase Oxytocin levels. So conceivably women just have to be attracted to someone to release oxytocin.
> 
> I understand the notion that emotional intimacy increases over time. You reveal a little bit of something about yourself that is somewhat risky and if the other person responds in a way that makes you feel safe, you tell them something that is even more emotionally risky and the emotional bond deepens.
> 
> So, is physical intimacy the same way? I'm taking a little bit of a physical risk by letting him put his tongue in my mouth, then his hand under my blouse, etc. until I feel comfortable with PIV or whatever? Maybe that's a good rationale for progressive physical intimacy?


Don't all jump on me at once, but reading comments like this gives one the impression that women are either riding high on a hormone, or being made to do stupid things, like 'test' people, because of one. 

Are there any occasions where a woman's decisions about people are based entirely on thinking it through?

Perhaps men are the same. 

All this talk of oxytocin etc. does give a certain impression of 'not in control of myself' however.


----------



## firebelly1

NovellaBiers said:


> You are ignoring the fact that you can't avoid rapists or situations. It's a fact that most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and hence impossbile to avoid.
> 
> I just saw a woman walking her dog outside and it's dark. Should she not do that to be responsible? Stay inside and fear for her life?


Agreed. Women are often raped by people they know and there is nothing the woman did or didn't do. And sometimes there are choices that women make that put them at more risk than others. I don't think the woman walking her dog at night should stay inside and fear for her life, but I think she may feel safer because she has the dog with her. Or she knows karate, or she's got a taser. 

It would be foolish of me to tell my teenage daughters: walk anywhere at any time of day you want by yourself. But if they put themselves in a dark alley in Detroit at 2 am and they were attacked, I would not say "I told you so." If a woman gets raped, it is the rapist's fault.


----------



## Sandfly

firebelly1 said:


> But if they put themselves in a dark alley in Detroit at 2 am and they were attacked, I would not say "I told you so." If a woman gets raped, it is the rapist's fault.


After the event, of course you wouldn't say "I told you so" because that would be heartless.

But if they told you in advance that they were going for a walk with a girlfriend to a certain part of a city around 1 AM, walk through a certain dimly lit area to reach their destination...

Wouldn't you try to prevent it? There must be a very good reason why a proposed course of action such as that would prompt you to intervene. Not so?


----------



## firebelly1

Sandfly said:


> Don't all jump on me at once, but reading comments like this gives one the impression that women are either riding high on a hormone, or being made to do stupid things, like 'test' people, because of one.
> 
> Are there any occasions where a woman's decisions about people are based entirely on thinking it through?
> 
> Perhaps men are the same.
> 
> All this talk of oxytocin etc. does give a certain impression of 'not in control of myself' however.


 I see where you're coming from. "The hormones made me do it" can sound juvenile. But, when a man wants to go out with / have sex with a woman, is it because he's "thinking it through"? Hormones do change the way you think, men and women. 

AND...the research says that for men, orgasm doesn't actually increase their oxytocin levels, but for women it drastically increases it. From a hormonal standpoint it is harder for women to separate what the hormone is making you feel vs. rational thought. 

AND...my observation is that men tend to see themselves as more rational beings but you really are just as emotional as women. You just don't like admitting it.


----------



## firebelly1

Sandfly said:


> After the event, of course you wouldn't say "I told you so" because that would be heartless.
> 
> But if they told you in advance that they were going for a walk with a girlfriend to a certain part of a city around 1 AM, walk through a certain dimly lit area to reach their destination...
> 
> Wouldn't you try to prevent it? There must be a very good reason why a proposed course of action such as that would prompt you to intervene. Not so?


Absolutely. If they told me that I would absolutely try to prevent it.


----------



## Sandfly

firebelly1 said:


> I see where you're coming from. "The hormones made me do it" can sound juvenile. But, when a man wants to go out with / have sex with a woman, is it because he's "thinking it through"? Hormones do change the way you think, men and women.
> 
> AND...the research says that for men, orgasm doesn't actually increase their oxytocin levels, but for women it drastically increases it. From a hormonal standpoint it is harder for women to separate what the hormone is making you feel vs. rational thought.
> 
> AND...my observation is that men tend to see themselves as more rational beings *but you really are just as emotional as women. You just don't like admitting it.*


You are right of course 

I think the emotions come with different triggers for us. For example, if someone tries to take what is ours, someone won't stop staring at us, someone walks into us etc - the drugs flush into the brain making us confrontational. 

The law demands we control ourselves in these key areas of natural outburst, therefore we get used to controlling our outward behaviour from an early age.

It used to be the same with women. Emotional outbursts, tongue-lolling over some attractive guy, swearing etc used to be strictly frowned upon. Now we have the unbalanced situation where a woman's outbursts are acceptable, and a man's is not, whereas before, a man's outbursts were tolerated - eg duels, fisticuffs around every corner...

So now men are on the calm-me-down pills, as women used to be on the nerve-tonics.

Men are having feelings all the time, they just get p*ssed on, however, if we show any.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I don't know about this. Maybe I'm just stumbling over your examples, as I wouldn't construe either as anything remotely close to rape.
> 
> A rape situation isn't really all that ambiguous when it's happening. It mostly becomes so in the courts, when it's a matter of he said/she said, and a question of who to believe.
> 
> Sometimes the lines are a bit hazy. Alex's story from his ex is a pretty good example of this -- because it would seem that she did in fact consent to the sex.
> 
> But usually it's pretty crtysal clear what's going on, and your insinuation that a man should just revise his strategy to be more compelling, and that the woman is somehow responsible for being in that situation in the first place is pretty offensive.
> 
> Yes, I would agree that Alex's ex made a mistake in having sex out of "obligation". But note that she also did not complain to the authorities or try to get him into trouble.
> 
> But too many women have kept silent about the violent and abusive tactics used against them in dates and by their spouses because of perceptions that they were somehow at fault for being in that situation:
> -having rohypnol or ghb slipped into their drink, or being taken advantage of when vulnerable or incapacitated
> -Physical intimidation or threat
> -Psychological tactics, like emotional blackmail or humiiation
> -Beliefs that it is a husband's right to beat his wife
> -Beliefs that men are "owed" sex
> 
> If men perceive any of that as acceptable means of seduction, then it is *them* that need the education and the responsibility, IMHO.


Well see now. that's _your _perception and _your_ problem.

You seem to be cherry picking what I said and misconstruing it to fit into your particular mindset.

If you would go back a few pages you will see where I said earlier that I fully support the feminist view that even if a woman walks down a main street fully naked it does not give any man the right to rape her. I also categorically stated that rape was NEVER a woman's fault but that of the rapist even a few pages earlier than that.

And if you followed my thoughts carefully on another post on pg 21 in response to Cosmos, I again CLEARLY stated that women would do well to know what " red flags " to look for in potential rapist on the dating and casual sex scene.

Just in case you still don't get it, I was referring to " rapey " , unethical behavior in dating and not outright , violent rape.

Please, follow the thread carefully.


----------



## treyvion

NovellaBiers said:


> You are ignoring the fact that you can't avoid rapists or situations. It's a fact that most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and hence impossbile to avoid.
> 
> I just saw a woman walking her dog outside and it's dark. Should she not do that to be responsible? Stay inside and fear for her life?


If it was a pit bull, a boxer, a rottweiller or a large german shepard, it might be completely safe to walk the dog late at night, because he will protect her.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Don't all jump on me at once, but reading comments like this gives one the impression that women are either riding high on a hormone, or being made to do stupid things, like 'test' people, because of one.
> 
> Are there any occasions where a woman's decisions about people are based entirely on thinking it through?
> 
> Perhaps men are the same.
> 
> All this talk of oxytocin etc. does give a certain impression of 'not in control of myself' however.


We're all at the mercy of our hormones at some time or another, but it doesn't mean that we're not in control of ourselves. It does mean, however, that men and women's response to sex can differ and, if not selective with whom she becomes intimate, a woman's judgment _can _become clouded:-_

“As with animals, humans enjoy the reward that comes from feeling good after sex. In nature — and sometimes in the world of humans — after receiving their ‘feel good dose’ the males go back to being themselves,” she said, adding, “The female view is very different with this oxytocin release.”

Here is what happens with women. After making love a woman might mistake the oxytocin release for feelings that tell her, “This is your perfect partner.” As Breuning notes, “Despite those initial feelings, it does not necessarily mean that the person is trustworthy. The perception you have at the moment is an illusion you create about the person that may or may not fit what happens next.”_

(The underlining above is my own)

Oxytocin: The Love and Trust Hormone Can Be Deceptive | Psychology Today


----------



## Caribbean Man

NovellaBiers said:


> You are ignoring the fact that you can't avoid rapists or situations. It's a fact that most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and hence impossbile to avoid.
> 
> I just saw a woman walking her dog outside and it's dark. Should she not do that to be responsible? Stay inside and fear for her life?


You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
In paragraph one you state in a matter of fact way that rape cannot be avoided.

In paragraph two you imply that the woman walking her dog should be free to do so without the fear of being raped.

The point is if your first paragraph was congruent with the second , then the woman would have been raped anyway , whether in her home or walking her dog , her being a little more responsible doesn't matter.

That of course , is highly illogical.

Being aware and more responsible for oneself does not automatically mean that if one is attacked , it was because they were irresponsible.
But being more aware and responsible might help deter a possible attacker , just like locking your car can either slow down or even deter car thieves.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I see where you're coming from. "The hormones made me do it" can sound juvenile. But, when a man wants to go out with / have sex with a woman, is it because he's "thinking it through"? Hormones do change the way you think, men and women.
> 
> AND...the research says that for men, orgasm doesn't actually increase their oxytocin levels, but for women it drastically increases it. From a hormonal standpoint it is harder for women to separate what the hormone is making you feel vs. rational thought.
> 
> *AND...my observation is that men tend to see themselves as more rational beings but you really are just as emotional as women. You just don't like admitting it*.


:iagree:

Yes we're just as emotional , but just in a different way.
Different stimuli, different emotional triggers.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> We're all at the mercy of our hormones at some time or another, but it doesn't mean that we're not in control of ourselves. It does mean, however, that men and women's response to sex can differ and, if not selective with whom she becomes intimate, a woman's judgment _can _become clouded:-_
> 
> “As with animals, humans enjoy the reward that comes from feeling good after sex. In nature — and sometimes in the world of humans — after receiving their ‘feel good dose’ the males go back to being themselves,” she said, adding, “The female view is very different with this oxytocin release.”
> 
> Here is what happens with women. After making love a *woman might mistake the oxytocin release for feelings that tell her,** “This is your perfect partner.” As Breuning notes, “Despite those initial feelings, it does not necessarily mean that the person is trustworthy*. The perception you have at the moment is an illusion you create about the person that may or may not fit what happens next.”_
> 
> (The underlining above is my own)
> 
> Oxytocin: The Love and Trust Hormone Can Be Deceptive | Psychology Today


A helpful and constructive elucidation of the point, with good references. Particularly the part emboldened.

I used to joke with my last g/f that I had brainwashed her, and she shared the joke. Now I wonder if I actually had done just that through this strange sounding chemical.

Thanks!


----------



## Caribbean Man

NovellaBiers said:


> I understood it the same way as always_alone. As if women should take 'responsibility' and should know to avoid rapists. Of course this is impossible as they can be anyone and anywhere.


Sooooo,

Lets say you're hanging out with some lady friends drinking ,got a little tipsy and you're ready to leave but they aren't.

Would you accept a lift from a man whom you don't know but just met at the bar because it's " i_mpossible to avoid rapist , because they're everywhere?_"

Please tell me no.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> Sooooo,
> 
> Lets say you're hanging out with some lady friends drinking ,got a little tipsy and you're ready to leave but they aren't.
> 
> Would you accept a lift from a man whom you don't know but just met at the bar?


I think NB is counting on there being someone who would risk getting a bullet through the neck, or a knife in the gut, 

who would save her from her risky behaviour, 

if anyone turn out to be an unsavoury character, rather than reducing her own risks. After all "rapists can't be avoided".


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> *Saying that a woman should avoid those situations and types of men is not the same as saying its the woman's fault if she gets raped. **Women SHOULD avoid dodgey situations for their own good. But if they get raped, it is absolutely the rapist's fault, whether she put herself there or not. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive and I didn't sense that CM is saying they are.
> *


Yes ^^^.

Basically ,that's what I'm saying.
Rape is NEVER a woman's fault.


----------



## firebelly1

Sandfly said:


> You are right of course
> 
> I think the emotions come with different triggers for us. For example, if someone tries to take what is ours, someone won't stop staring at us, someone walks into us etc - the drugs flush into the brain making us confrontational.
> 
> The law demands we control ourselves in these key areas of natural outburst, therefore we get used to controlling our outward behaviour from an early age.
> 
> It used to be the same with women. Emotional outbursts, tongue-lolling over some attractive guy, swearing etc used to be strictly frowned upon. Now we have the unbalanced situation where a woman's outbursts are acceptable, and a man's is not, whereas before, a man's outbursts were tolerated - eg duels, fisticuffs around every corner...
> 
> So now men are on the calm-me-down pills, as women used to be on the nerve-tonics.
> 
> Men are having feelings all the time, they just get p*ssed on, however, if we show any.


I don't agree with you here. I'm not seeing how women's emotional "outbursts" are now more okay than they used to be. And there really are a lot more women out here who are okay with men showing emotion than you think. Even a reasonable amount of anger. But *uck yeah. Swearing is fun. 

It's still true that if you cry at work you're forever seen as the crying girl.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> *It's still true that if you cry at work you're forever seen as the crying girl.*


lol,
So what do they call a man why cries at work?


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> lol,
> So what do they call a man why cries at work?


Once again, it depends on whether you like him or not.  If he's the hot firefighter who just saved someone from a burning building, he can cry all he wants to, on my shoulder, on my bed...wherever...


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> lol,
> So what do they call a man why cries at work?


Nothing. "He don't work here no mo' "





(They'd send him off for psychiatric evaluation and then fail him lol !)


----------



## CuddleBug

If a hubby is sound asleep and his wifee is in the mood. She gets him going, while asleep, gets on top of him and starts riding him. He wakes up. She is having sex with him, without his consent, while he was asleep. Is that rape?

I would love this. Why would I deny my wife? This would make my week.:smthumbup:


Lets reverse the roles. Wifee is sound asleep. Hubby gets her going, starts spooning her. She wakes up. He is having sex with her, without her consent, while asleep. Is that rape?

I would like to think the ladies would find this hot, but most would say RAPE!!!



So my wifee can have sex with me while I'm asleep and I wake up, we're having sex.......but if I did that to her, not okay?!


Forget about the talking aspect. Just going with the moment. Double standard.


----------



## firebelly1

CuddleBug said:


> If a hubby is sound asleep and his wifee is in the mood. She gets him going, while asleep, gets on top of him and starts riding him. He wakes up. She is having sex with him, without his consent, while he was asleep. Is that rape?
> 
> I would love this. It would make my week.:smthumbup:
> 
> 
> Lets reverse the roles. Wifee is sound asleep. Hubby gets her going, starts spooning her. She wakes up. He is having sex with her, without her consent, while asleep. Is that rape?
> 
> I would like to think the ladies would find this hot, but most would say RAPE!!!
> 
> 
> So my wifee can have sex with me while I'm asleep and I wake up, we're having sex.......but if I did that to her, not okay?!
> 
> Double standard.


That's about what you each like or, as CM pointed out earlier, maybe about the state of your relationship at the time, not men and women in general or rape. 

I would think that if my SO is spooning me / fondling me I would wake up before PIV and allow it or not. And that's WHY he's spooning / fondling, to gently wake me up and see if I'm up for it. If my SO just climbed on top of me while I was fast asleep, no, I wouldn't take that too well. But what do you think of a man who would do that?


----------



## Caribbean Man

CuddleBug said:


> If a hubby is sound asleep and his wifee is in the mood. She gets him going, while asleep, gets on top of him and starts riding him. He wakes up. She is having sex with him, without his consent, while he was asleep. Is that rape?
> 
> I would love this. Why would I deny my wife? This would make my week.:smthumbup:
> 
> 
> Lets reverse the roles. Wifee is sound asleep. Hubby gets her going, starts spooning her. She wakes up. He is having sex with her, without her consent, while asleep. Is that rape?
> 
> I would like to think the ladies would find this hot, but most would say RAPE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So my wifee can have sex with me while I'm asleep and I wake up, we're having sex.......but if I did that to her, not okay?!
> 
> 
> Forget about the talking aspect. Just going with the moment. Double standard.


Double standard?

Maybe , maybe not.
Depends on her perception , which might be dependent on the environment in the relationship , at the point and time.

My wife doesn't complain anyhow,
She love it and always responds..
I'm not complaining either!


----------



## Don-Juan

WOW...I don't come here for a week and this thread blows up! Wish I would have gotten here earlier, this hit close to home. Here is my story.......(or more like my wife's)

She was dating when she was 14 (this fact will have to be a discussion for another time!) anywho.....dated a high school mate for some time (months, not for sure exactly) had a double date with her older brother 2 weeks after her 15 birthday. Her father was not living at home at the time (had an apt in the town over, small town middle America).

The father was out of town and "the kids" knew this and could get in to his apt anytime. So this is where they double dated, so at the apt things progress, the older brother and his date retreat to one bedroom and the little sister(this is my wife) and her date retreated to another bedroom. (With me so far?) Well little sisters date asks her if she wants to "do it" she said "no", well things keep progressing and soon her pants and panties are off and he slips on a condom and they have sex(I hesitate to call it "make love").

There was no "forcing" of sex, he did not threaten her, it just happened. The next day she regretted it(and she was no longer under the influence of alcohol) - is this rape? looking back she thinks this is classic case of "date rape"! 

The first time I had sex with her I did not ask, we just did it. Did I rape her? (I don't know if she regretted it or not!) - apparently not if she married me.....right!?! 

Is it the "regretting" part that makes it rape? 

comments?


----------



## Sandfly

CuddleBug said:


> If a hubby is sound asleep and his wifee is in the mood. She gets him going, while asleep, gets on top of him and starts riding him. He wakes up. She is having sex with him, without his consent, while he was asleep. Is that rape?
> 
> I would love this. Why would I deny my wife? This would make my week.:smthumbup:
> 
> 
> Lets reverse the roles. Wifee is sound asleep. Hubby gets her going, starts spooning her. She wakes up. He is having sex with her, without her consent, while asleep. Is that rape?
> 
> I would like to think the ladies would find this hot, but most would say RAPE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So my wifee can have sex with me while I'm asleep and I wake up, we're having sex.......but if I did that to her, not okay?!
> 
> 
> Forget about the talking aspect. Just going with the moment. Double standard.


Dude, it would be best to avoid that whole situation, unless this was a thing between you already, like I think CM said was for him (I hope I remembered right).

I for example, really wouldn't like some woman to wake me up that way, I would be p*ssed in fact.

But this could be because I can't even talk to anyone for the first half-hour of waking without getting mad!!


----------



## CuddleBug

firebelly1 said:


> That's about what you each like or, as CM pointed out earlier, maybe about the state of your relationship at the time, not men and women in general or rape.
> 
> I would think that if my SO is spooning me / fondling me I would wake up before PIV and allow it or not. And that's WHY he's spooning / fondling, to gently wake me up and see if I'm up for it. If my SO just climbed on top of me while I was fast asleep, no, I wouldn't take that too well. But what do you think of a man who would do that?



See, my point is, my wifee can use her hands and give me a BJ, start PIV, I'm asleep. It's okay, no talking and since she is my wifee, I am not my own anymore and I'm to take care of her needs as my own. Same goes the other way. I would never say no to her when she is in the mood. And yes, I have been asleep waking up to her starting to have sex with me. I see nothing wrong with this. The ladies get mad if that happens to them, but if that happens to us guys, its okay?! That's what I mean. We are equals and no double standards. See?


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> Double standard?
> 
> Maybe , maybe not.
> Depends on her perception , which might be dependent on the environment in the relationship , at the point and time.
> 
> My wife doesn't complain anyhow,
> She love it and always responds..
> I'm not complaining either!


I think you're lucky CM. Honestly, this works for me if it's not a work night. Otherwise I get annoyed that my sleep is being interrupted.


----------



## CuddleBug

Caribbean Man said:


> Double standard?
> 
> Maybe , maybe not.
> Depends on her perception , which might be dependent on the environment in the relationship , at the point and time.
> 
> My wife doesn't complain anyhow,
> She love it and always responds..
> I'm not complaining either!



This is what I'm talking about. Good for you guys.:smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## CuddleBug

Sandfly said:


> Dude, it would be best to avoid that whole situation, unless this was a thing between you already, like I think CM said was for him (I hope I remembered right).
> 
> I for example, really wouldn't like some woman to wake me up that way, I would be p*ssed in fact.
> 
> But this could be because I can't even talk to anyone for the first half-hour of waking without getting mad!!



And I would love it.

Would make my entire week.:smthumbup:

That my wifee, wants sex with me, takes the initiative, spontaneously, and I wake up to having sex with her. Heaven!!:smthumbup:


----------



## firebelly1

Don-Juan said:


> WOW...I don't come here for a week and this thread blows up! Wish I would have gotten here earlier, this hit close to home. Here is my story.......(or more like my wife's)
> 
> She was dating when she was 14 (this fact will have to be a discussion for another time!) anywho.....dated a high school mate for some time (months, not for sure exactly) had a double date with her older brother 2 weeks after her 15 birthday. Her father was not living at home at the time (had an apt in the town over, small town middle America).
> 
> The father was out of town and "the kids" knew this and could get in to his apt anytime. So this is where they double dated, so at the apt things progress, the older brother and his date retreat to one bedroom and the little sister(this is my wife) and her date retreated to another bedroom. (With me so far?) Well little sisters date asks her if she wants to "do it" she said "no", well things keep progressing and soon her pants and panties are off and he slips on a condom and they have sex(I hesitate to call it "make love").
> 
> There was no "forcing" of sex, he did not threaten her, it just happened. The next day she regretted it(and she was no longer under the influence of alcohol) - is this rape? looking back she thinks this is classic case of "date rape"!
> 
> The first time I had sex with her I did not ask, we just did it. Did I rape her? (I don't know if she regretted it or not!) - apparently not if she married me.....right!?!
> 
> Is it the "regretting" part that makes it rape?
> 
> comments?


This dilemma is at the heart of this thread I think. I am of the opinion that if you're wife continued to go along with the sex, even after saying "no" that she was not raped. Her mouth said "no" but her actions said "yes" and it's somewhat reasonable for a man / boy to interpret actions as the "truth." HOWEVER, do I think it should have happened the way it did? No. It would have been better if she had the personal strength to say no with both her mouth and her actions and it would have been better if he had taken the verbal "no" to mean no.


----------



## Sandfly

You got a cute little avatar there CB.

I've just fried some chicken, and I'm going to go give one of the legs to the neighbour's cat.



On the issue, you gotta realise that men are not equal in their tastes, hormonal responses, size/strength, ability with words etc.

They are _*politically *_equal which means that both have the right to enter contracts and relations which suit their interests.

If she doesn't like something, or you don't, then the equality bit is referring not to equal likes/dislikes, just to having the right to choose.

This is where to some extent men have lost equality, for example, with regard to time with their kids, divorce settlement calculations, being allowed to respond to violence with violence.


----------



## larry.gray

NovellaBiers said:


> I don't think hugging someone or fondling breasts, back and legs is rape. Those fall more into sexual assault or abuse definition if it's unwelcomed or illegal action. I believe to meet the description of rape there has to be penetration of (vagina, anus, penis or mouth) some form happened.


I got the 'joy' of being on a grand jury and learning the laws of my state on this topic quite well.

Here it is only rape if it is PIV. It is sodomy if it is forced oral or anal sex. It is 'illegal penetration' if it is inserting an object in the vagina or anus. All carry the same sentence. 

Touching another adult as you describe would be sexual battery. It is a much lower sentence. IIRC, it's a misdemeanor. 

Touching a child that way would be child molestation and carries almost the same sentence as rape.


----------



## larry.gray

pidge70 said:


> Geez, the way some males responded on here, I guess my rape wasn't rape at all.
> 
> Sarcasm implied.


Well not knowing your story, it leaves us with not much to reply to that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Don-Juan said:


> WOW...I don't come here for a week and this thread blows up! Wish I would have gotten here earlier, this hit close to home. Here is my story.......(or more like my wife's)
> 
> She was dating when she was 14 (this fact will have to be a discussion for another time!) anywho.....dated a high school mate for some time (months, not for sure exactly) had a double date with her older brother 2 weeks after her 15 birthday. Her father was not living at home at the time (had an apt in the town over, small town middle America).
> 
> The father was out of town and "the kids" knew this and could get in to his apt anytime. So this is where they double dated, so at the apt things progress, the older brother and his date retreat to one bedroom and the little sister(this is my wife) and her date retreated to another bedroom. (With me so far?) Well little sisters date asks her if she wants to "do it" she said "no", well things keep progressing and soon her pants and panties are off and he slips on a condom and they have sex(I hesitate to call it "make love").
> 
> There was no "forcing" of sex, he did not threaten her, it just happened. The next day she regretted it(and she was no longer under the influence of alcohol) - is this rape? looking back she thinks this is classic case of "date rape"!
> 
> The first time I had sex with her I did not ask, we just did it. Did I rape her? (I don't know if she regretted it or not!) - apparently not if she married me.....right!?!
> 
> Is it the "regretting" part that makes it rape?
> 
> comments?


Well that's a tricky situation, that's why I think thst there are many shades of grey in this matter.

My own personal conviction is that if a woman says no , or doesn't express consent in going forward then even if she doesn't complain to , IMO , it is rape.

I know some men might disagree.

But that's just me. I've never liked the idea of having sex with a " cold woman " or a woman who isn't enthusiastically, physically responding to my motions.

I can remember once when I was around 17,being in bed with a girl ,both of us naked and we just kissed and fooled around. The reason I didn't push it was because before getting into that situation, when we were talking about it , she specifically said that she didn't want sex , just to make love naked.
However ,I bought her close to the point of climax , stopped and got up to put my clothes on. She changed her mind and decided that she wanted to have sex...

Was it manipulative?
Maybe.
Was it seduction, definitely it was.

But of course I obliged to her wishes.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Double standard?
> 
> Maybe , maybe not.
> Depends on her perception , which might be dependent on the environment in the relationship , at the point and time.
> 
> My wife doesn't complain anyhow,
> She love it and always responds..
> I'm not complaining either!


:iagree:

Because of the love, respect and trust in our relationship, I can't conceive of my SO ever doing anything that I would deem rapey.

However, the health of the relationship, as you say, is relevant.


----------



## larry.gray

CuddleBug said:


> See, my point is, my wifee can use her hands and give me a BJ, start PIV, I'm asleep. It's okay, no talking and since she is my wifee, I am not my own anymore and I'm to take care of her needs as my own. Same goes the other way. I would never say no to her when she is in the mood. And yes, I have been asleep waking up to her starting to have sex with me. I see nothing wrong with this. The ladies get mad if that happens to them, but if that happens to us guys, its okay?! That's what I mean. We are equals and no double standards. See?


Sorry, I don't see a double standard here. This isn't about gender. My wife is OK with being woken up this way, just as CM is. Before I did it the first time, we talked about this.

It is about two people respecting each others views. Have you talked with your wife about this? If she says no, then it's no. 

You having a wife that isn't OK with this is no different than having a wife that doesn't like giving and/or receiving oral sex, or anal sex, or any other variety of sex two people have together. You've got two choices here. Accept that this is something you' can't have with your wife, and learn to live with it. Or leaver her and find a woman that is OK with it. 

Wallowing in the misery of the middle ground doesn't help either of you.


----------



## larry.gray

Caribbean Man said:


> If you would go back a few pages you will see where I said earlier that I fully support the feminist view that even if a woman walks down a main street fully naked it does not give any man the right to rape her. I also categorically stated that rape was NEVER a woman's fault but that of the rapist even a few pages earlier than that.


I'm totally on the same page here.

It isn't her fault, and the rapist deserves to be locked up a long time. But that doesn't un-rape her. She's got to live with it. Women should be able to be free from the fear of rape. The sad reality is they aren't. And while that reality is there, it is foolish to not warn women of the dangers.


----------



## larry.gray

treyvion said:


> If it was a pit bull, a boxer, a rottweiller or a large german shepard, it might be completely safe to walk the dog late at night, because he will protect her.


Dogs are less protection than you think.

Their sensitive sniffers are their downfall. One quick shot of mace to the face will take any dog out, no matter how rabid they are.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Because of the love, respect and trust in our relationship, I can't conceive of my SO ever doing anything that I would deem rapey.
> 
> *However, the health of the relationship, as you say, is relevant.*


Yes,
I think that could be a little part of the puzzle that's missing in situations like that.
I'm not saying that it's a simple , " cure all " solution , but in some situations , I think the woman might oblige if she feel respected and secure in the relationship.
I'm not saying that it is the man's problem, but certainly it's something that both spouses could work on.

However I know of some couples who still have good sex , when one partner wakes up the other in the middle of the night , even though they may be fighting in the relationship.

Some couples don't allow little fights and disagreements get in the way of their sex life. I see nothing wrong with that per se.
But it doesn't work that way for me. In order for sex to happen between my wife and I., emotionally we must be in an ok place.
If we fight , then there is no sex until we fix the problem.
Lol, I know some might say that's bad, but that's just how I'm wired.

Kinda weird for a man, 
I know!


----------



## larry.gray

CuddleBug said:


> See, my point is, my wifee can use her hands and give me a BJ, start PIV, I'm asleep. It's okay, no talking and since she is my wifee, I am not my own anymore and I'm to take care of her needs as my own.


I'll add further to this: It is only OK if you're OK with it. If you tell her "don't do that to me anymore" it is sexual assault if she does.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Caribbean Man said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
> In paragraph one you state in a matter of fact way that rape cannot be avoided.
> 
> In paragraph two you imply that the woman walking her dog should be free to do so without the fear of being raped.
> 
> The point is if your first paragraph was congruent with the second , then the woman would have been raped anyway , whether in her home or walking her dog , her being a little more responsible doesn't matter.
> 
> That of course , is highly illogical.
> 
> Being aware and more responsible for oneself does not automatically mean that if one is attacked , it was because they were irresponsible.
> But being more aware and responsible might help deter a possible attacker , just like locking your car can either slow down or even deter car thieves.


No, you are all missing the point. First, I don't live in Detroit. Second it's not a dark alley but a normal walkway through a suburb where normal people walk. Third, it was not night but evening when normal people do their daily necessary errands. It's entirely possible for a rapist to come try assault her, there is no way she can avoid that. She can't control what the rapists do. 

How do _you _suppose the woman was not acting responsible?


----------



## NovellaBiers

Caribbean Man said:


> Sooooo,
> 
> Lets say you're hanging out with some lady friends drinking ,got a little tipsy and you're ready to leave but they aren't.
> 
> Would you accept a lift from a man whom you don't know but just met at the bar because it's " i_mpossible to avoid rapist , because they're everywhere?_"
> 
> Please tell me no.


TBH your examples are a bit extreme. The bar was in a dark alley of Detroit I guess?

How about she orders a cab instead and the driver assaults her? It's happened before. Was she not responsible?


----------



## firebelly1

NovellaBiers said:


> No, you are all missing the point. First, I don't live in Detroit. Second it's not a dark alley but a normal walkway through a suburb where normal people walk. Third, it was not night but evening when normal people do their daily necessary errands. It's entirely possible for a rapist to come try assault her, there is no way she can avoid that. She can't control what the rapists do.
> 
> How do _you _suppose the woman was not acting responsible?


I don't think anyone said she wasn't acting responsibly. You asked if she should stay inside and fear for her life and I said that she shouldn't. All the factors that you are pointing out are things that she gauges as she decides to go for a walk. Low crime neighborhood. Still some light out. Yes, she could still get attacked. But the chances are lower. 

NB - I absolutely concede your point. I'm not saying you're wrong. A woman can get raped in circumstances she could never have predicted. I'm just saying she could also get raped in circumstances she CAN predict, and to the extent that she can try to protect herself without making herself a complete hermit, she should. 

I think what I and some others are taking issue with is the implication that women should NEVER take precautions because they can NEVER control whether or not they will be raped. I don't think that's true.


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> TBH your examples are a bit extreme. The bar was in a dark alley of Detroit I guess?
> 
> How about she orders a cab instead and the driver assaults her? It's happened before. Was she not responsible?


Why's it matter if it's Detroit?

According to you "Rapists are everywhere".

Funny how I accurately read and categorised you, way back in the thread, and you didn't like it :smthumbup:

She could get into a licenced cab with a photo ID for a start, and text people/let someone know that she's going off in a taxi.

That would be a reasonable start. Oh, and not being falling-down drunk would ensure she remembers to check the credentials before getting into a taxi with central locking.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I don't think anyone said she wasn't acting responsibly. You asked if she should stay inside and fear for her life and I said that she shouldn't. All the factors that you are pointing out are things that she gauges as she decides to go for a walk. Low crime neighborhood. Still some light out. Yes, she could still get attacked. But the chances are lower.
> 
> NB - I absolutely concede your point. I'm not saying you're wrong. A woman can get raped in circumstances she could never have predicted. I'm just saying she could also get raped in circumstances she CAN predict, and to the extent that she can try to protect herself without making herself a complete hermit, she should.
> 
> I think what I and some others are taking issue with is the implication that women should NEVER take precautions because they can NEVER control whether or not they will be raped. I don't think that's true.



Added to that,
To be absolutely clear, we are also saying that it's *NEVER* a woman's fault if she get's raped.

Absolutely nobody on the thread has said or is saying that it is her fault.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Several of you are misinterpreting things. I have never said that a woman should have a death wish and go to dark alleys alone at night waiting for someone to attack. That's entirely different matter.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Sandfly said:


> Funny how I accurately read and categorised you, way back in the thread, and you didn't like it :smthumbup:


Should I be worried?


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> Should I be worried?


That you're so see-through when it comes to hating men? Yep.


----------



## Cosmos

Rape can happen anywhere, any place any time... My 5 month pregnant sister was raped in her own home in the middle of the day... Her rapist was 'kind' enough to lock her 4 terrified children in their rooms before raping their mother at knife point...

I was given the awful task of breaking the news to our parents, and I'll never forget my father's strange comment... "She was asking for trouble lying next to the pool in her bikini..." Of course he must've been in terrible shock etc, but I can still remember thinking how odd that he should have even thought such a thing.


----------



## NovellaBiers

Sandfly said:


> That you're so see-through when it comes to hating men? Yep.


No. If you've been "following" me here for your analysis. Don't you have a wife you can inspect?

Besides, you're safe from my "hate" since you're just a boy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Rape can happen anywhere, any place any time... My 5 month pregnant sister was raped in her own home in the middle of the day... Her rapist was 'kind' enough to lock her 4 terrified children in their rooms before raping their mother at knife point...
> 
> I was given the awful task of breaking the news to our parents, and I'll never forget my father's strange comment... "She was asking for trouble lying next to the pool in her bikini..." Of course he must've been in terrible shock etc, but I can still remember thinking how odd that he should have even thought such a thing.


My wife has a close friend who's visually impaired.
She was raped whilst waiting for her driver to come pick her up to go to the airport. The rapist forced her by gunpoint .

anyway, I found out that the area she was abducted from was a lonely spot [ obviously she wasn't aware , because she's visually impaired], and therr other women were abducted and raped there. So the attacker was also a serial rapist.

I got so mad that I waited in that spot for a couple of days 
[ with some backup ] for that rapist. But he probably got wind of what was happening.
Then he struck again.
This time his victim fought him and luckily, another woman was passing by and she too joined in . They fought with him.
A car passed by and a man whose wife was one of his victims joined in.

He was almost beaten to death.

Of course he was convicted and sentenced. No way he could have gotten away.
I was sorry that I didn't get a chance at him.


----------



## CuddleBug

If she can to it to me, I should be able to do it to her as well.

If she can, I can.

If she sees nothing wrong doing this to me, I see nothing wrong doing this to her.

50 / 50 in marriages.

I wish more ladies were like the posters here. They love to wake up to having sex with no complaints.


----------



## CuddleBug

Caribbean Man said:


> My wife has a close friend who's visually impaired.
> She was raped whilst waiting for her driver to come pick her up to go to the airport. The rapist forced her by gunpoint .
> 
> anyway, I found out that the area she was abducted from was a lonely spot [ obviously she wasn't aware , because she's visually impaired], and therr other women were abducted and raped there. So the attacker was also a serial rapist.
> 
> I got so mad that I waited in that spot for a couple of days
> [ with some backup ] for that rapist. But he probably got wind of what was happening.
> Then he struck again.
> This time his victim fought him and luckily, another woman was passing by and she too joined in . They fought with him.
> A car passed by and a man whose wife was one of his victims joined in.
> 
> He was almost beaten to death.
> 
> Of course he was convicted and sentenced. No way he could have gotten away.
> I was sorry that I didn't get a chance at him.



I too would of jumped at the opportunity. Letting loose my anger, rage and short temper.


----------



## Cosmos

CM, I can understand you feeling that way. My brother in law would have given anything for 5 minutes alone with my sister's rapist...


----------



## firebelly1

CuddleBug said:


> If she can to it to me, I should be able to do it to her as well.
> 
> If she can, I can.
> 
> If she sees nothing wrong doing this to me, I see nothing wrong doing this to her.
> 
> 50 / 50 in marriages.
> 
> I wish more ladies were like the posters here. They love to wake up to having sex with no complaints.


Now, see, CB, I think that mentality borders on what I refer to as "rape mentality" earlier in the thread. Whenever you start thinking your spouse owes you something just because you want it, that's not good.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well see now. that's _your _perception and _your_ problem.
> 
> You seem to be cherry picking what I said and misconstruing it to fit into your particular mindset.
> 
> If you would go back a few pages you will see where I said earlier that I fully support the feminist view that even if a woman walks down a main street fully naked it does not give any man the right to rape her. I also categorically stated that rape was NEVER a woman's fault but that of the rapist even a few pages earlier than that.
> 
> And if you followed my thoughts carefully on another post on pg 21 in response to Cosmos, I again CLEARLY stated that women would do well to know what " red flags " to look for in potential rapist on the dating and casual sex scene.
> 
> Just in case you still don't get it, I was referring to " rapey " , unethical behavior in dating and not outright , violent rape.
> 
> Please, follow the thread carefully.


And perhaps you were not following what I was saying?

Yes, women will have different perceptions about what they like and want. To repeat your example, some women will like to be woken up to sex and some will not. This is absolutely a matter of her taste and preference.

However, should a man proceed when he knows she doesn't like/want that, then it's either rapey behaviour or outright rape (depending on circumstances and outcome). 

Now granted, when you're just dating and don't know someone well, you might not know their boundaries/preferences. This is why concepts like enthusiastic consent are valuable. But either way, if someone presses forward *after* their date has said no or has demonstrated reluctance, then it is "rapey" at the very least, if not outright rape. Again depending on circumstances and outcome.

There's not a whole lot of ambiguity there.

To take your other example: If you hadn't apologized to the woman you mistook as your friend and continued to fondle her, I'm sure the outcome would've been very different. But given that it clearly was a mistake, and you instantly made reparations, I doubt any woman would ever construe that as "rapey".

What you did there was "wrong" in the sense that it was a mistake, but it surely wasn't unethical.


----------



## larry.gray

Cosmos said:


> CM, I can understand you feeling that way. My brother in law would have given anything for 5 minutes alone with my sister's rapist...


So is the guy still in the pen or is he out now?


----------



## larry.gray

CuddleBug said:


> If she can to it to me, I should be able to do it to her as well.
> 
> If she can, I can.
> 
> If she sees nothing wrong doing this to me, I see nothing wrong doing this to her.
> 
> 50 / 50 in marriages.
> 
> I wish more ladies were like the posters here. They love to wake up to having sex with no complaints.


I've replied to you 3 times on the same subject. You don't seem to be hearing what I've said... or at least not acknowledged it.

Why is that?


----------



## always_alone

Don-Juan said:


> Well little sisters date asks her if she wants to "do it" she said "no", well things keep progressing and soon her pants and panties are off and he slips on a condom and they have sex(I hesitate to call it "make love").
> 
> There was no "forcing" of sex, he did not threaten her, it just happened. The next day she regretted it(and she was no longer under the influence of alcohol) - is this rape? looking back she thinks this is classic case of "date rape"!


To my mind it isn't regret that makes it rape. It's what happened between the express "no" and the actual of seduction.

You say he didn't force her or threaten her, that it just happened.

But what was the "it"? Was there cajoling or insistence? Did he keep pressing forward, determined to erode/ignore her reluctance? If so, then it's classic date rape.

But if she actually was fine with it, and participating, then her later regret is just her responsibility.


----------



## Cosmos

larry.gray said:


> So is the guy still in the pen or is he out now?


It was years ago, LG. He got 13 years so, presumably, got out long ago. As a family, though, our 'sentence' was a lot longer. Particularly my sister's...


----------



## CuddleBug

firebelly1 said:


> Now, see, CB, I think that mentality borders on what I refer to as "rape mentality" earlier in the thread. Whenever you start thinking your spouse owes you something just because you want it, that's not good.



My wifee owes me nothing.

My point is if she can initiate and have sex with me, while I'm asleep, no consent and I don't freak out on her......I should be able to do the same.


----------



## larry.gray

Cosmos said:


> It was years ago, LG. He got 13 years so, presumably, got out long ago.


It's good that he got a long sentence for one long ago.

When our state had a referendum to change sentencing in the early '90s, it really struck me when the pro camp stated that the average time served for 1st degree rape was *14 months.*

After the constitution changed, it is now 8-1/3 for the first time, 15 yrs for the second and life for the third. 

It reduced the ability of serial rapists to lead a life of victimizing women, and I'm glad for it.



Cosmos said:


> As a family, though, our 'sentence' was a lot longer. Particularly my sister's...


In many ways it is a life sentence for her and her husband.


----------



## larry.gray

CuddleBug said:


> My wifee owes me nothing.
> 
> My point is if she can initiate and have sex with me, while I'm asleep, no consent and I don't freak out on her......I should be able to do the same.


I'm sorry, but I *STRONGLY* disagree. 

Your choice is to accept what is - her wishes on the subject - or leave.

If you stay it is your every right to tell her that because it's not OK for you, it's not OK for her.


----------



## Cosmos

CuddleBug said:


> My wifee owes me nothing.
> 
> My point is if she can initiate and have sex with me, while I'm asleep, no consent and I don't freak out on her......I should be able to do the same.


I don't know how you work that one out:scratchhead: You enjoy her waking you up that way. She _doesn't _enjoy being woken up that way. If you think it's a double standard, ask her to stop doing it.


----------



## CuddleBug

Then the next time she does this to me, I will tell her no and were to go. Fair is fair after all. I don't see why the ladies can say no, rape, etc. but when they do it their men, its okay.........this is wrong and is a double standard. Having sex is being spontaneous and not always talking about everything beforehand. The ladies can do, but us men overall can't, nice. So much for 50 / 50. And I'm not talking about violent sex against her will at all. All I'm talking about is surprising the wifee with random sex. She wakes up and I'm giving her oral to orgasm, that type of thing. Not I'm in her ass.....and she wakes up. Totally different kettle of fish. I have no issues or beefs when she does it to me, so why does she have beefs then when its done to her? Nice.


----------



## Cosmos

larry.gray said:


> In many ways it is a life sentence for her and her husband.


So true... She was never quite the same again, but she had a wonderful husband who loved and supported her for the rest of his days.


----------



## larry.gray

If you don't want her to, tell her now. It's not nice to spring that on her after and make her feel guilty about it after if you're not OK with it.


----------



## larry.gray

Cosmos said:


> So true... She was never quite the same again, but she had a wonderful husband who loved and supported her for the rest of his days.


What a wonderful man. Many men would have a hard time with it.


----------



## Cosmos

CuddleBug said:


> I have no issues or beefs when she does it to me, so why does she have beefs then when its done to her? Nice.


Have you asked her why?


----------



## Cosmos

larry.gray said:


> What a wonderful man. Many men would have a hard time with it.


He did, I'm sure, but he kept it well hidden from her. One of the greatest men I've ever known.

What possibly made it worse for him was the fact that the rapist was actually an ex employee of his, who he'd fired for smoking weed. It came out in Court that he'd apparently raped my sister as a form of revenge on my brother inlaw...


----------



## NovellaBiers

CuddleBug said:


> Then the next time she does this to me, I will tell her no and were to go. Fair is fair after all. I don't see why the ladies can say no, rape, etc. but when they do it their men, its okay.........this is wrong and is a double standard. Having sex is being spontaneous and not always talking about everything beforehand. The ladies can do, but us men overall can't, nice. So much for 50 / 50. And I'm not talking about violent sex against her will at all. All I'm talking about is surprising the wifee with random sex. She wakes up and I'm giving her oral to orgasm, that type of thing. Not I'm in her ass.....and she wakes up. Totally different kettle of fish. I have no issues or beefs when she does it to me, so why does she have beefs then when its done to her? Nice.


This is not a gender issue. This is about what the other person is OK with. In this case it just happens to be your wife and you need to ask her why she's not OK with it.


----------



## CuddleBug

I honestly think it comes down to how she was treated in life and her size making her very insecure. Once that is gone, I hope she will give and receive and not just give.

But I will casually ask her why this is.

She did hint to me, she can do it to me but I can't do it to her. I asked her, why not? Size and insecurity? She said yes......so that's probably all it is.

If I have waited 14 years, I can wait another year or so.


----------



## Lyris

But she doesn't like it. I'm sure there are things she does like. Do those instead. Does she have to like the exact same things you like?


----------



## Thundarr

If consent is the antonym of rape then we shouldn't risk pushing boundaries past the point where we can't determine consent. Otherwise it's like playing russian roulette.

In short, if we agree that saying no and resisting is part of the game then no harm. On the other hand if the wife is passed out then rest assured I'm not jumping her because we've never had that discussion.

These young guys who mess with girls they don't know who are crazy drunk are flat out asking to be behind bars. And the girls are being reckless as well.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> I'll give you an interesting little anecdote.
> When I was in college , I used to hang out with my pal who owned a nice car , and like I said in my last post , we always took girls with us.
> I remember one time we were in the cafeteria having lunch with some other girls , and we began comparing notes about our past weekend.
> One of the blurted out that her Saturday night sucked because this new guy she dated for the first time came to pick her up in his
> 
> *She was dating him, it was a date.*
> 
> > insert type of car here < and initially the had lots of fun talking , eating, making jokes etc.
> She said she'll never go on another date with him again because he was a " NATO " officer, and they all started laughing hysterically.
> 
> Well I was confused.
> I asked them what does " NATO " mean?
> She replied; No Action Talk Only.
> Apparently she was mad because he didn't make a move on her and she was hoping he did.
> 
> The difference between your ex wife's situation and other guys ,is that the women involved welcome being taken by surprise in sometimes similar manner . They call it " unpredictability " in a guy they fancy.
> However if they don't fancy the guy , they call him creepy.
> 
> *The difference between my ex's situation and your friend's, is that my ex was getting a ride home from this guy, who had a girlfriend. Your friend was going on a date with her guy.*
> 
> Ask any woman here if any of their lovers have ever surprised them with sex at a public venue , and how did it go down , or how did they feel .
> The answers might surprise you.
> 
> *I agree. But this wasn't a lover.*
> 
> People having sex in vehicles isn't anything new , and they have been doing so since Henry Ford invented it...
> And it's hardly ever " planned."
> 
> *But it's even less planned when it's from someone you're not expecting it to come from, at all. And I DO think HE planned it, which makes it all the more concerning, if you ask me.*
> 
> I think that's what Wysh was getting in his post.


----------



## alexm

treyvion said:


> You don't have to explain that to me. I've had women drive me out to the desolate spot and pull the zipper down. And since I was game for it, it was ok.


And most of us guys would be okay with it, too.

Most (all?) women won't be. At least not from somebody who isn't their partner/date.

It's apples and oranges, and I think some of you (men) are missing that point, by trying to say that if it's okay for a woman to do that, it must be okay for a man.


----------



## alexm

treyvion said:


> You can't go along with it if they aren't participating. Some women want to be seduced by men they are attractive to. The male is in a dominant and masculine position in these engagements.
> 
> If she ever stiffened up or prevented further progress or said no you stop.
> 
> Like I said, i was lucky in that I only messed with babes who were interested in me, so it wasn't a big deal or convincing anyone to do something.


I agree with this, however, devil's advocate:

I met a girl one night, when I was 17 or so. She was a friend of a friend, and was tagging along with us, and she was 15. Never saw her before. She also barely spoke, but she was cute. At some point in the night, she ended up sitting next to me, I said "hey" or something really cool that 17 year olds say to each other, and she, without saying a word, shoved her tongue in my mouth and made out with me. The rest of the night, she held my hand and otherwise stayed with me, and we still barely spoke to each other. (!!!)

By the end of the night, everyone was going their separate ways, and my buddy was supposed to crash at my house. The girl I was with and her two friends (one of whom my buddy clicked with) needed a place to crash, so they all tagged along. My parents were out of town (wohoo!) and there were only 2 bedrooms in the basement, where I slept. My buddy called dibs on one of them for himself and this other girl, so I ended up in my bedroom with the other 2 girls. (again, wohoo!). One of them took the floor, while the girl that had been all over me just crawled into bed with me. (triple wohoo!). The one on the floor gleefully mentioned that her friend had a condom in her wallet and gave me a little smile, so I thought I was set. Her friend blushed and looked at me and smiled. Score!

So, all that to get to this:

We made out in my bed for a bit (yes, the other girl was about 4 feet away... lol) and she... didn't do... anything. Literally. The kisses weren't as passionate as they had been earlier that night, she didn't move a muscle, nothing. Her friend suggested she leave the room, and did. This didn't change a thing.

By this point, I had moved south, and unbuttoned her jeans and pulled them down far enough. She didn't resist, but she also didn't help me in taking her pants off.

So I stopped. I didn't say anything, I didn't ask if this was okay. I just pulled her pants back up, and we fell asleep in each others arms.

We "dated" for another 3 or 4 weeks, and nothing ever got heavier than it did that night. I broke up with her because, although very attractive, she wasn't my personality type. Much too quiet for me, so I didn't get to know her very well, and there was little to no conversation.

But I got the clues all night to "go ahead", including jumping into bed with me. Over 20 years later, and I still can't figure that one out. I THINK she wanted it, but I wasn't convinced enough at the time. I genuinely think if I asked her, right then and there, she would have said "yes", and even at 17, I was sure she'd say yes even if she didn't want to, which is why I didn't ask, and just stopped.

The moral of the story is just that: I think this was something she would have gone through with whether she wanted it or not, and I got the impression that she didn't, in the end.

I guess it concerns me that some men feel that a verbal yes is ALWAYS okay. It means you have consent, absolutely, but does it mean they actually want it, and that you should go ahead with it? Some of us guys need to be a little more sensitive, methinks.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> I agree with this, however, devil's advocate:
> 
> I met a girl one night, when I was 17 or so. She was a friend of a friend, and was tagging along with us, and she was 15. Never saw her before. She also barely spoke, but she was cute. At some point in the night, she ended up sitting next to me, I said "hey" or something really cool that 17 year olds say to each other, and she, without saying a word, shoved her tongue in my mouth and made out with me. The rest of the night, she held my hand and otherwise stayed with me, and we still barely spoke to each other. (!!!)
> 
> By the end of the night, everyone was going their separate ways, and my buddy was supposed to crash at my house. The girl I was with and her two friends (one of whom my buddy clicked with) needed a place to crash, so they all tagged along. My parents were out of town (wohoo!) and there were only 2 bedrooms in the basement, where I slept. My buddy called dibs on one of them for himself and this other girl, so I ended up in my bedroom with the other 2 girls. (again, wohoo!). One of them took the floor, while the girl that had been all over me just crawled into bed with me. (triple wohoo!). The one on the floor gleefully mentioned that her friend had a condom in her wallet and gave me a little smile, so I thought I was set. Her friend blushed and looked at me and smiled. Score!
> 
> So, all that to get to this:
> 
> We made out in my bed for a bit (yes, the other girl was about 4 feet away... lol) and she... didn't do... anything. Literally. The kisses weren't as passionate as they had been earlier that night, she didn't move a muscle, nothing. Her friend suggested she leave the room, and did. This didn't change a thing.
> 
> By this point, I had moved south, and unbuttoned her jeans and pulled them down far enough. She didn't resist, but she also didn't help me in taking her pants off.
> 
> So I stopped. I didn't say anything, I didn't ask if this was okay. I just pulled her pants back up, and we fell asleep in each others arms.
> 
> We "dated" for another 3 or 4 weeks, and nothing ever got heavier than it did that night. I broke up with her because, although very attractive, she wasn't my personality type. Much too quiet for me, so I didn't get to know her very well, and there was little to no conversation.
> 
> But I got the clues all night to "go ahead", including jumping into bed with me. Over 20 years later, and I still can't figure that one out. I THINK she wanted it, but I wasn't convinced enough at the time. I genuinely think if I asked her, right then and there, she would have said "yes", and even at 17, I was sure she'd say yes even if she didn't want to, which is why I didn't ask, and just stopped.
> 
> The moral of the story is just that: I think this was something she would have gone through with whether she wanted it or not, and I got the impression that she didn't, in the end.
> 
> I guess it concerns me that some men feel that a verbal yes is ALWAYS okay. It means you have consent, absolutely, but does it mean they actually want it, and that you should go ahead with it? Some of us guys need to be a little more sensitive, methinks.


I understand fully what you're saying , because my attitude to sex back then and even now to a certain extent , is the same.
Before I actually started dating my wife , we were good friends for years. 
I was around 22 or 23 yrs old and just out of a serious relationship which I ended because the girl cheated on me. 
One of my buddies introduced me to his cousin , a tall pretty model type girl , who worked for one of a well known fashion house. I was hanging out by him and she visited .
Turns out that she was about 5 years older than me , had a really nice job and her own apartment. She also liked me , but she never told me , she told her cousin, and he told me.
Soon enough , she invited me out to a musical .( smart girl , I actually told her before I liked drama & musicals). We went enjoyed ourselves , I took her home to her apartment and it began to rain.
Obviously she invited me in we kissed a bit , and I stopped. I told her that I didn't want to go any further because I didn't have a condom , which was a lie. She responded that she was on BC pills , we kissed a little more , then I told her well do it another time .
Obviously she was confused , but said she understood.
Here's what was really happening .
Even though I really didn't have a condom , the fact was I began to feel guilty because I was developing feelings for my wife , and she went to the same elementary school and high school as my wife. They were former childhood friends.
Pretty , tall and sexy as she was , I had no real desire to have sex with her. What I really wanted was a serious relationship with my wife.

I didn't have a car at that time , it was raining heavily outside so I slept by her that night, outside in the living room.
She gave me a key to her apartment the next morning as she dressed and left for work . I took it , felt lucky , and later that day began to feel guilty , and dropped it back off by my buddy.
My wife and I started a serious relationship about two months after.
One of the first things she asked me was if I had sex with that girl. ( they lived in the same neighborhood .) I was glad I didn't.



My point is , people view sex differently . I could have had sex with her because my wife and I were just friends , and weren't 
" exclusive " or any of that stuff people sometimes tend to hide behind . But I was honest to myself , I had real feelings for my wife , and even though she had shot me down every time I told her about my feelings , I knew , deep inside ,that she had feelings for me too.
Funny thing is , even before that encounter with that woman , I had another encounter with a close friend of my ex girlfriend . When she heard we were finished , she offered me sex. I kinda wanted revenge so I ended up by her , in her bedroom , making out clothes off ,and I stopped. I just couldn't go further .
And I'm not talking about young girls , these were adult women.

To some men ( and some women too ) , sex is everything and they would do almost anything within legal bounds , to achieve that end , once the possibility exist . Personally , I don't think that makes them a bad or good person, but that has never been my style. I've always prided myself of being in control of me.

The flip side of your situation with that girl could also have been that she wanted sex but preferred you to " take her " rather than having to answer " 20 questions." Some women are wired like that . I think sometimes women tend to express sex and their sexuality differently to men . Maybe it because they face higher risks factors. 
But for sure , teenage years is a period of mass confusion and raging hormones. 
But given your situation , most men would have gone right ahead and have sex . I really cant fault them either , we are all different.
What matters is respecting the woman's wishes . If she says no , then it's no. If she says yes , then it's yes. But if she says it up to you , then logically , it's up to you.
My personal credo when I was single was that I never had sex with any woman younger than myself. Hence I avoided those types of situations.


----------



## NovellaBiers

alexm said:


> And most of us guys would be okay with it, too.
> 
> Most (all?) women won't be. At least not from somebody who isn't their partner/date.
> 
> It's apples and oranges, and I think some of you (men) are missing that point, by trying to say that if it's okay for a woman to do that, it must be okay for a man.


It seems the fact that most men are stronger and bigger than women and can physically overpower them is being ignored while comparing these situations. Most men could easily stop women advancing. Not so with women trying to stop men.


----------



## alexm

NovellaBiers said:


> It seems the fact that most men are stronger and bigger than women and can physically overpower them is being ignored while comparing these situations. Most men could easily stop women advancing. Not so with women trying to stop men.


Yeah, that's been covered earlier in this thread.

And you are right, of course. But in most cases (not all, because some men ARE raped by women, it happens) if the woman is the aggressor and the man isn't really that into it, the mental and emotional damage either isn't the same in us guys, or it isn't there at all. It's a generalization, but an accurate one.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> The flip side of your situation with that girl could also have been that she wanted sex but preferred you to " take her " rather than having to answer " 20 questions." Some women are wired like that . I think sometimes women tend to express sex and their sexuality differently to men . Maybe it because they face higher risks factors.
> 
> *Yeah, that occurred to me back then, but she was giving no indication of that, so I balked. It was the weirdest situation I've ever been in, in terms of sex. It's very hard to describe accurately, but it was obvious that she wanted it (at least earlier that night), but once it started happening, she didn't seem like she wanted it or DIDN'T want it. So I erred on the side of caution. Like I said, I didn't ask if I could continue because I was sure she'd say yes, regardless of whether she did or not, and I wasn't going to put myself (or her) in that position.
> 
> She wasn't giving off the "stop please" vibe, but she sure didn't give off the "take me please" vibe, either. In hindsight, I think she was just inexperienced and wasn't really sure of what to do.*
> 
> But for sure , teenage years is a period of mass confusion and raging hormones.
> But given your situation , most men would have gone right ahead and have sex . I really cant fault them either , we are all different.
> What matters is respecting the woman's wishes . If she says no , then it's no. If she says yes , then it's yes. But if she says it up to you , then logically , it's up to you.
> 
> *That's sort of my point, though. Saying yes doesn't always mean she's saying yes, if that makes sense. And I don't mean in the 'pressured by us' sense of saying yes. No, we can't read minds, but we can definitely get a feeling, imo. There's nothing wrong with asking, imo (contrary to what some will think, in terms of it being a mood-killer) if we're not sure. But a lot of the time, the answer will be yes, even if it's just for them to save face. (again, not talking about the sketchy situations here, I mean the real life, there's no pressure from the man situations).
> 
> Best thing to do in these cases is to just stop, imo. When I did with this girl, I didn't leave the room, or get all pissy. I curled up next to her. I essentially put it in her hands. If she really wanted it, it would have up to her to continue, or give me a sign of some sort.*
> 
> My personal credo when I was single was that I never had sex with any woman younger than myself. Hence I avoided those types of situations.
> 
> *It can happen in this way regardless of age. This girl was close enough in age to me that it made little or no difference to the situation. The difference between her and I at that time was not much over a year. I was just 17, and she was close to 16.
> 
> I think that's pretty typical of North American high school relationships (or at least was when I was that age). The girl was usually a year or so younger than the guy, sometimes 2. Girls mature faster.
> 
> I remember when my high school girlfriend broke up with me (she was 17, almost 18 when she did), her rebound relationship was with a friend of her younger brothers, and he was barely 16. She got a bit of grief from her friends over that (and from me!) and they didn't last more than a few weeks. Her relationships over the years, after that one, were always with older guys, until we got back together. It's typical around here.
> 
> But I get your point about the age thing, and it's a fine line. You almost have to go by how many months older or younger you are, when you're at that age, never mind years. Like I said, even though I was 17, and this girl was 15, the difference was 13 or 14 months or something. As long as it's legal (and imo, beyond the "just barely legal" point) it's all good at those ages. Like here, technically speaking, being 17 years and 11 months old and dating somebody who is 14 years and 1 day is legal. But it's sketchy... and not a situation I'd have put myself in.*
> 
> *Unrelated to this, but still along the same lines - for about 3 or 4 years in my teens, I had the same good circle of friends. A few would come and go, but it was the same base group. The guys, for the most part, were all about a year older than the girls. Just happened that way. All told, there were about a dozen of us in the core group, with another 10 or so who were casual. At times, the whole group of us would end up at somebody's house one night just to hang out.
> 
> By the time I hit 16, I started looking older than everybody else, even though I wasn't actually the oldest in the group. By the time I hit 18, last year of school, I started running into this every time we ended up at somebody else's house, if their parents were home. I clearly remember going to a girls house one night (there must have been a dozen of us in the group), and she was 16. (most of the girls were 16, 17, and the guys were 17, 18). Her father stopped and asked me who I was, and how old I was, very suspiciously. It had never occurred to me, until that point, that I looked like I didn't belong with some of this group anymore, and I was very embarrassed. I even showed him my driver's licence, without him asking, just so *I* could feel comfortable and not have him think I was lying and was some creepy 23 year old hanging out with 17 year old girls. (the movie Dazed and Confused came to mind...) But even though I wasn't even the oldest in my group, that was it for me, and it was never the same again. I soon after branched off from these people and went my own way. But it wasn't a fun way to end years of hanging out with the same group. I became way too conscious of how it appeared to others, especially parents from that point on.*


----------



## NovellaBiers

alexm said:


> Yeah, that's been covered earlier in this thread.
> 
> And you are right, of course. But in most cases (not all, because some men ARE raped by women, it happens) if the woman is the aggressor and the man isn't really that into it, the mental and emotional damage either isn't the same in us guys, or it isn't there at all. It's a generalization, but an accurate one.


I think that comes mostly, if not entirely from the physical aspect. If women were the stronger and bigger gender I think the roles would be reversed and men would be the ones suffering from the mental and emotional damages.

There is a reason why many men become uncomfortable around strong women or outright don't like or fear them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> _That's sort of my point, though. Saying yes doesn't always mean she's saying yes, if that makes sense. And I don't mean in the 'pressured by us' sense of saying yes. No, we can't read minds, but we can definitely get a feeling, imo. There's nothing wrong with asking, imo (contrary to what some will think, in terms of it being a mood-killer) if we're not sure. But a lot of the time, the answer will be yes, even if it's just for them to save face. (again, not talking about the sketchy situations here, I mean the real life, there's no pressure from the man situations).
> 
> Best thing to do in these cases is to just stop, imo. When I did with this girl, I didn't leave the room, or get all pissy. I curled up next to her. I essentially put it in her hands. If she really wanted it, it would have up to her to continue, or give me a sign of some sort.
> _


I agree with you here , but most guys and sometimes even girls around that age wouldn't be thinking that way , IMO.
I can't remember being in such a situation , maybe I have but at the moment , I can't remember.

However, I think it all comes down to how a guy and maybe girl , in that situation views sex, and especially a bit of peer pressure might be involved.

Most guys around that age tend to look for boasting rites while girls kinda look for experience to be able to fit in with their girlfriends. Sex becomes a sort of " social currency ."

Something I find very interesting , being an outsider is the fact that the age of consent across there is 15 years?

Down here its 18.


----------



## PHTlump

alexm said:


> I guess it concerns me that some men feel that a verbal yes is ALWAYS okay. It means you have consent, absolutely, but does it mean they actually want it, and that you should go ahead with it? Some of us guys need to be a little more sensitive, methinks.


I'm interpreting this statement simply as enthusiastic sex is better than unenthusiastic sex. And I agree. However, playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, I don't know why men should have more responsibility in obtaining a woman's consent than women should have in giving it.

Obviously, a tepid "Yes," is enough for all reasonable people to conclude that no crime occurred. But why should we go further than that and insist that, if a girl plans ahead and brings a condom (which is advertised), flirts all night, goes home with the boy, jumps in bed with the boy, and then becomes less enthusiastic at the moment of truth, that all of her actions mean nothing and the boy is at fault for being a creep if his hormones override his sensitivity to her nonverbal communication becoming less enthusiastic? I just don't think it's fair.


----------



## Sandfly

NovellaBiers said:


> I think that comes mostly, if not entirely from the physical aspect. If women were the stronger and bigger gender I think the roles would be reversed and men would be the ones suffering from the mental and emotional damages.
> 
> There is a reason why many men become uncomfortable around strong women or outright don't like or fear them.


You're thinking too much. So many hypothetical scenarios in your posts, that it's like wacky Wednesday. It's precisely because there are so many mentally and emotionally damaged men that the prisons are full to bursting. You have to work within the world of possibilities. You won't be able to lock up all men, just so that you can feel completely safe. Too many jam-jars out there with lids that won't come off, for a start.


----------



## Convection

alexm said:


> But in most cases (not all, because some men ARE raped by women, it happens) if the woman is the aggressor and the man isn't really that into it, the mental and emotional damage either isn't the same in us guys, or it isn't there at all. It's a generalization, but an accurate one.


Maybe. But this is the attitude that leads to minimalization or outright dismissal of sexual assault against men. Sexual assault against men is made light of in our culture. Prison rape is a staple of comedy in pop-entertainment and victims of woman-on-man assault are mocked, overlooked, or downplayed ("Dude, she attacked you? We should all be so lucky!").

Not all men want it 24x7, and not all men feel like they can fight off their attackers, even if they are physically capable, for any number of reasons: they love their spouses and don't want to hurt them, they are afraid of false rape or assault charges, they fear being belittled by their friends or other women. Fear, same as for women. Fear is a gender-independent driver of behavior.

The women in this thread who have discussed their sexual assault have received a great deal of understanding, which is good, and I take nothing away from them. Even when others debate the woman's circumstances (such as alexm's first wife), the posters are engaged; they at least care enough about the issue to talk about it. There is a man right in this thread that felt forced into non-consensual sex with his ex-wife, and admitted it was a very damaging experience. No one has shown him any empathy at all, or even acknowledgement. He might as well have been invisible.


----------



## Caribbean Man

PHTlump said:


> I'm interpreting this statement simply as enthusiastic sex is better than unenthusiastic sex. And I agree. However, playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, I don't know why men should have more responsibility in obtaining a woman's consent than women should have in giving it.
> 
> Obviously, a tepid "Yes," is enough for all reasonable people to conclude that no crime occurred. But why should we go further than that and insist that, if a girl plans ahead and brings a condom (which is advertised), flirts all night, goes home with the boy, jumps in bed with the boy, and then becomes less enthusiastic at the moment of truth, that all of her actions mean nothing and the boy is at fault for being a creep if his hormones override his sensitivity to her nonverbal communication becoming less enthusiastic? I just don't think it's fair.



I think I get your point and I think it is a double standard.

However it's only a double standard when seen through the gender neutrality construct that says there are no differences between male and female. Ironically , it_ is_ discrimination based on gender , hence the confusion. However , discrimination cannot be ended by treating everyone as the same , but by treating everyone equally.
Equality does not mean ,the same.

If we accept and understand that there are innate physiological as well as psychological differences between the sexes , then men would have to accept the greater responsibility in the example you gave.


----------



## larry.gray

Caribbean Man said:


> Something I find very interesting , being an outsider is the fact that the age of consent across there is 15 years?
> 
> Down here its 18.


There are 57 sets of rules in the US. Each state plus the territories.

Most states age of consent ranges from 16 to 18. Most states also have a 'close in exemption' where if the age span is under a certain amount, it's OK. Typically this is 2 or 3 years. Most states have a cutoff age, 12 or 13.


----------



## larry.gray

Convection said:


> Maybe. But this is the attitude that leads to minimalization or outright dismissal of sexual assault against men. Sexual assault against men is made light of in our culture. Prison rape is a staple of comedy in pop-entertainment and victims of woman-on-man assault are mocked, overlooked, or downplayed ("Dude, she attacked you? We should all be so lucky!").


Yep. 

I know a gay guy that was raped by a woman. He was nearly passed out drunk.

What she did is no less heinous than the guys that date rape women. He presumed the chances of anything happening to her were low.


----------



## NovellaBiers

I don't think anyone here is saying it's less heinous if done by women.


----------



## always_alone

NovellaBiers said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying it's less heinous if done by women.


Absolutely not. That's why I tried to gender neutralize my (attempted) definitions.


----------



## PHTlump

Caribbean Man said:


> I think I get your point and I think it is a double standard.
> 
> However it's only a double standard when seen through the gender neutrality construct that says there are no differences between male and female. Ironically , it_ is_ discrimination based on gender , hence the confusion. However , discrimination cannot be ended by treating everyone as the same , but by treating everyone equally.
> Equality does not mean ,the same.
> 
> If we accept and understand that there are innate physiological as well as psychological differences between the sexes , then men would have to accept the greater responsibility in the example you gave.


I disagree. I accept, and even celebrate, the differences between the sexes. I accept that, in general, men are more physically powerful, more aggressive, and pursue women. I'm simply questioning the validity of accusing men of wrongdoing for taking a woman at her word.

If consent is granted, I don't think a man, especially an inexperienced, young man, has done anything wrong if he has sex with a woman who doesn't meet some subjective level of enthusiasm, or who may send mixed messages.

Will the sex be as good as passionate, unbridled sex? No. But I don't think it makes a man a creep to accept tepid sex.

I have a prepubescent daughter. As she nears sexual maturity, I will instruct her to take responsibility for her own actions. If she doesn't want sex, be clear. Don't just clam up and accuse the man, or boy, of taking advantage of her because he didn't read her mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

PHTlump said:


> I disagree. I accept, and even celebrate, the differences between the sexes. I accept that, in general, men are more physically powerful, more aggressive, and pursue women. I'm simply questioning the validity of accusing men of wrongdoing for taking a woman at her word.
> 
> If consent is granted, I don't think a man, especially an inexperienced, young man, has done anything wrong if he has sex with a woman who doesn't meet some subjective level of enthusiasm, or who may send mixed messages.
> 
> *Will the sex be as good as passionate, unbridled sex? No. But I don't think it makes a man a creep to accept tepid sex.*
> 
> I have a prepubescent daughter. As she nears sexual maturity, I will instruct her to take responsibility for her own actions. If she doesn't want sex, be clear. Don't just clam up and accuse the man, or boy, of taking advantage of her because he didn't read her mind.


Well maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree fully that there are differences , I also agree that kids and grown people need to be taught to take full responsibility for themselves and not blame anyone for their actions or feelings on any issue.

I also agree that a male trying to persuade a female who gets cold feet during lovemaking to continue towards sex , isn't automatically " creepy." I even gave an example earlier on of a girl trying to persuade me when I was 15 when_ I_ got cold feet halfway and panicked.But I didn't think she was creepy , just that she probably really wanted it more than me.

However , I think that people are entitled to change their minds about something like sex , even though they "_ enthusiastically agreed _" to it before.
I have also posted yesterday about an encounter I had with a female who didn't want sex , and made it abundantly clear before that all she wanted was just lovemaking. Half way through ,in the heights of her passion I stopped , and began to dress. Suddenly she changed her mind and decided that she wanted sex. 
I pretended not to be interested , gave her a taste of her own medicine , she begged for a bit and then I " hesitatingly " obliged. Of course I was playing games , but so was she.
The point being, people can and often do play all sorts of power and control games with respect to sex. It is never as straightforward as we think it is , or as we would like it to be. I'm not debating it's rightness or wrongness , but it is what it is , especially during those years, and It can go both ways.

In my personal opinion, it is better to leave a female who gets cold feet half way ,than try " convince" her to continue.
To me, it is a reflection on the sexual skills of the man. She lacks confidence in him. Men are usually the drivers in lovemaking and intercourse.

Sex is mostly a non verbal dialogue between two people , which takes place mostly in the mind . The actions between them during their moments of sensory overload are just a physical response to that dialogue and mental stimuli .If halfway it breaks down or reaches the point where one partner changes her mind ,then it makes no sense trying to push on.

_" A person convinced against their own mind is of the same opinion still..." _~ *Benjamin Franklin.*

That's why I think this entire idea of " enthusiastic agreement " , consent forms et al realistically , makes any sense.


----------



## firebelly1

Sounds like you're debating whether or not a man should continue having sex with a woman who doesn't appear enthusiastic about it. But CM do you see it as rape if the guy does continue? Maybe you've articulated that and I've missed it. 

I'm with PHT on this one - if a guy continues sex with an unenthusiastic woman it isn't rape. I think she has to be actively telling him / acting out "no."


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Sounds like you're debating whether or not a man should continue having sex with a woman who doesn't appear enthusiastic about it. But CM do you see it as rape if the guy does continue? Maybe you've articulated that and I've missed it.
> 
> I'm with PHT on this one - if a guy continues sex with an unenthusiastic woman it isn't rape. I think she has to be actively telling him / acting out "no."



No.
I don't see it as rape , but it is one of those " grey areas" I keep mentioning. 
I've never been in that type of situation, but I would think it is bordering on unethical ,especially if both people aren't really intimately involved with each other , like in casual sex encounters.

However, in the example Alex gave this morning , where he decided not to continue because the girl was silent, if he had decided to continue , I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.

I agree with much of what PHt is saying in his last post, but I have my own personal credo , and I really can't use it to judge other men.
If I was ever faced with that type of situation , I would view it as an indictment on my " performance" and I wouldn't even bothet try convincing her.
However I am of the firm opinion that it is not rape.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> _" A person convinced against their own mind is of the same opinion still..." _~ *Benjamin Franklin.*.


Threadjack/

I like it CM, but this version is better because it rhymes:

A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still.

Some other nice ones:

1. Виднa птица по полёту (Russian)

Roughly "The (type of) bird is obvious, from the way it flies" (deeds, not words)

And, my favourite:

2. Poznasz głupiego
Po śmiechu jego (it rhymes in Polish)

Roughly: you can recognise an idiot by the way he laughs.

Ooh, another one from Polish:

3. Raz na wozie - One moment you're on the waggon
Raz pod wozem - next moment you're under the waggon.

/apologies for jacking. 1 and 3 sort of relate to TAM user experiences, so I thought it might be interesting


----------



## Caribbean Man

What are your thoughts on PHT's last two posts on this page, Sandfly?


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> Sounds like you're debating whether or not a man should continue having sex with a woman who doesn't appear enthusiastic about it. But CM do you see it as rape if the guy does continue? Maybe you've articulated that and I've missed it.
> 
> I'm with PHT on this one - if a guy continues sex with an unenthusiastic woman it isn't rape. I think she has to be actively telling him / acting out "no."


Many "duty sex" situations could have an unenthusiastic relations partner.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> Something I find very interesting , being an outsider is the fact that the age of consent across there is 15 years?
> 
> Down here its 18.


Yeah, I think I've covered this before in another thread, and I don't think it varies that much in other countries.

Age of consent is 14, provided the other partner is under 18 (the age of majority).

However, once one is over 18, then that's the age. So if you're between 14 and 17, you're good to go amongst that age group. Once you hit 18, it's 18 and above only.

There are grey areas, obviously. I hit 18 before my gf at that time (13 month difference, so there was a month there that I was 18 and she was 16). So the whole year I was 18, she wasn't. By the letter of the law, I was in the wrong, however we had started dating well before I was 18, so I think if it ever got to some sort of legal issue, that would have been taken into consideration and thrown out.

Under 14 is outright illegal. So if two 13 year olds go a little far, technically the parents can be charged.

I suspect it is the same in your neck of the woods, CM. 14 or 15 and above is legal with an under-18.


----------



## alexm

PHTlump said:


> I'm interpreting this statement simply as enthusiastic sex is better than unenthusiastic sex. And I agree. However, playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, I don't know why men should have more responsibility in obtaining a woman's consent than women should have in giving it.
> 
> Obviously, a tepid "Yes," is enough for all reasonable people to conclude that no crime occurred. But why should we go further than that and insist that, if a girl plans ahead and brings a condom (which is advertised), flirts all night, goes home with the boy, jumps in bed with the boy, and then becomes less enthusiastic at the moment of truth, that all of her actions mean nothing and the boy is at fault for being a creep if his hormones override his sensitivity to her nonverbal communication becoming less enthusiastic? I just don't think it's fair.


I put a stop to it because I was concerned for her, that's all.

And more men should take that into consideration.


----------



## firebelly1

alexm said:


> Yeah, I think I've covered this before in another thread, and I don't think it varies that much in other countries.
> 
> Age of consent is 14, provided the other partner is under 18 (the age of majority).
> 
> However, once one is over 18, then that's the age. So if you're between 14 and 17, you're good to go amongst that age group. Once you hit 18, it's 18 and above only.
> 
> There are grey areas, obviously. I hit 18 before my gf at that time (13 month difference, so there was a month there that I was 18 and she was 16). So the whole year I was 18, she wasn't. By the letter of the law, I was in the wrong, however we had started dating well before I was 18, so I think if it ever got to some sort of legal issue, that would have been taken into consideration and thrown out.
> 
> Under 14 is outright illegal. So if two 13 year olds go a little far, technically the parents can be charged.
> 
> I suspect it is the same in your neck of the woods, CM. 14 or 15 and above is legal with an under-18.


I know of a young man (19) who's 17 year old girlfriend's parents didn't like him and pressed statutory rape charges against him. He is now a registered sex offender.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> I don't see it as rape , but it is one of those " grey areas" I keep mentioning.
> 
> *Hugely so. Well, it CAN be. Better to be safe than sorry, and age shouldn't be an excuse, ever. Parents should teach their kids (especially boys) to be at least 99% sure it's okay.*
> 
> but I would think it is bordering on unethical ,especially if both people aren't really intimately involved with each other , like in casual sex encounters.
> 
> *Exactly this. Marriage has it's own set of rules. Tepid, "duty" sex is sometimes all one partner gets, and the other partner is still there the next day, they haven't run off. But casual sex, between two people that don't know each other well? MUCH better to be safe than sorry and use your eyes, ears and gut to tell you if the "yes" is an "I want you now" yes, not a "well, you bought me dinner/gave me a ride home" yes. If you're okay with the fact that it's simply legal, and that's enough, that's your prerogative.*
> 
> However, in the example Alex gave this morning , where he decided not to continue because the girl was silent, if he had decided to continue , I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.
> 
> *I just want to point out that is was not only because she was silent, she just didn't DO anything. It could have been inexperience, she could have been afraid (not of me, I mean just of sex in general), or she could have changed her mind at that exact moment. Or I could have been doing it wrong
> 
> I stopped because it didn't feel right. Had I asked if she wanted to continue, I knew (even with me being 17) that she probably would have said yes.
> 
> And had she said yes, she may have asked me why I asked her. To which my only reply would have been insulting... "uh, because you're just lying there, doing nothing..."
> 
> And had she said yes, and I didn't quite believe her fully, then it would have just been really awkward if I continued.*
> 
> I agree with much of what PHt is saying in his last post, but I have my own personal credo , and I really can't use it to judge other men.
> If I was ever faced with that type of situation , I would view it as an indictment on my " performance" and I wouldn't even bothet try convincing her.
> However I am of the firm opinion that it is not rape.


*I think we actually agree on something, CM! Hallelujah! *


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> What are your thoughts on PHT's last two posts on this page, Sandfly?


Hi,

Well, I read PHT's last two posts without reading any of the posts he was replying to, nor the replies to his, so that my answer wouldn't be influenced by group-think, because then that wouldn't be fair to PHT.

In his second-to-last he made a good point about being led on, which does happen, and for a young man with all his hormones raging could result in a pretty negative reaction. Especially in the hypothetical scenario where she's got the condoms, she's done the inviting etc. etc.

For such a young man, however, his best scenario would be to realise that A. there might be a good reason (not malice, even though it will seem like it to him in the moment) and B. If this is the sort of game she _perhaps_ likes to play (an attention-addict) then he has had a lucky escape, A narcissistic woman who plays this sort of attention-baiting game is dangerous anyway, avoid, and maybe tell your close friends to avoid her too. 

Back to A.: I knew a woman who took a black guy home with her, on the basis of the myth that they have big willies and she thought 'I'll try some of that' - (this is England, so don't be surprised at the lackwit thinking of some people), so she went to his house, and it turns out in his case it wasn't a myth, he had a massive unwieldy porksword. So she changed her mind. In fact, she basically ran off. And why not? It's a good reason not to go ahead. Sad for the guy, because he probably has to stick to older women who have had 12 kids, but that's just how it is. But he'd still have no right to expect sex would he, even though she probably made it clear she was interested in a big dong.

As for the second point about 'tepid' sex, most girls who are inexperienced are a bit like this. I would take it slower and not expect to have sex anytime within a month of knowing them, and it does them no good to be looking for ONS if they are like this anyway. It is in no man nor woman's interest for the first few sexual experiences to be negative ones. 

Now, I wouldn't be interested anyway, someone who hesitates too much is a case of 'well, forget you, I have better things to do', because it's probably some sort of test I can't fathom, and don't have to fathom. If they're still interested, they'll make it plain another day.
Two young virgins, however, It could be nearly impossible for either of them to tell what the other is thinking, so I can see how verbal consent, tepid or not would _have to be_ the standard you go by. You remarked earlier about how you weren't so sure what to do, how to interpret things in your inexperienced youth - well, we're all the same in this respect.

For all these reasons, it's up to the guy to stop when he's told to, first thing; to value his own sexuality above chasing attention-seekers - and in my opinion, to warn his mates off any that like to mess with people; to be extra careful with inexperienced women; and on the woman's side for her to make it clear if she's not ready or wants to slow things down.

What else can you do?


----------



## treyvion

firebelly1 said:


> I know of a young man (19) who's 17 year old girlfriend's parents didn't like him and pressed statutory rape charges against him. He is now a registered sex offender.


I think you leave the country and start anew abroad. That's a harsh ding to have to carry the rest of your life.


----------



## firebelly1

treyvion said:


> I think you leave the country and start anew abroad. That's a harsh ding to have to carry the rest of your life.


Yeah - that's Washington State, where I'm from. I think law makers need to reconsider scenarios like this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> I know of a young man (19) who's 17 year old girlfriend's parents didn't like him and pressed statutory rape charges against him. He is now a registered sex offender.


When I was 16 or 17 , I went to a church outing with my mom's church to a beach on the far southern tip of our island.

I wasn't a member , but I met this girl who walked up to me and introduced herself , and started to chat. We talked for sometime and I realized she was quite flirty . Beautiful girl , nice shape , nice hips , titties and she was the lead choir singer.

Anyway we spent the entire day together talking and the conversation inevitably turned to sex. Then I realized how feaky and adventurous she was. We stole away [ she found a spot and told me to meet her there.] to a secluded spot and started kissing.

Nothing else happened , but we exchanged phone numbers.
[ Back then there were no cellphones!]. We spoke a lot over the phone and she would always tease me and tell me the * nasty * stuff she wanted to do to me. I though she was just bluffing , so I dared her.
Soon, she came across to my place when I was alone, and we did everything. 
That girl was insatiable and very experienced in bed.
This continued for about three weeks until one evening my mother got a phone call and confronted me and told me that another church member told her that I had encouraged her daughter, the lead choir singer to cheat on her boyfriend , and that I was a bad influence on her " decent" daughter.
Apparently , her mother found some detailed notes in her daughter's diary about the stuff we did together, and called my mom.
I was shocked.
I never even knew the girl had a steady boyfriend in the church .
But what was more shocking was the accusation that I was a 
" bad influence " on her daughter!
I nearly died laughing.
Her mother even swore that she was a virgin before me, which of course , she wasn't.
What was even more ridiculous was the story her daughter gave her about me , that I pursued her relentlessly made her " do it."
When he boyfriend found out , he was even more pissed and sent threats.
I laughed so much I nearly cried!
This was a 19 year old girl who was * supposed * to be a role model in her church.

I could only imagine what would have happened to me if she was under 18.
Her dad was a police officer.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well, I read PHT's last two posts without reading any of the posts he was replying to, nor the replies to his, so that my answer wouldn't be influenced by group-think, because then that wouldn't be fair to PHT.
> 
> In his second-to-last he made a good point about being led on, which does happen, and for a young man with all his hormones raging could result in a pretty negative reaction. Especially in the hypothetical scenario where she's got the condoms, she's done the inviting etc. etc.
> 
> *For such a young man, however, his best scenario would be to realise that A. there might be a good reason (not malice, even though it will seem like it to him in the moment) and B. If this is the sort of game she perhaps likes to play (an attention-addict) then he has had a lucky escape, A narcissistic woman who plays this sort of attention-baiting game is dangerous anyway, avoid, and maybe tell your close friends to avoid her too.
> *
> Back to A.: I knew a woman who took a black guy home with her, on the basis of the myth that they have big willies and she thought 'I'll try some of that' - (this is England, so don't be surprised at the lackwit thinking of some people), so she went to his house, and it turns out in his case it wasn't a myth, he had a massive unwieldy porksword. So she changed her mind. In fact, she basically ran off. And why not? It's a good reason not to go ahead. Sad for the guy, because he probably has to stick to older women who have had 12 kids, but that's just how it is. But he'd still have no right to expect sex would he, even though she probably made it clear she was interested in a big dong.
> 
> *As for the second point about 'tepid' sex, most girls who are inexperienced are a bit like this. I would take it slower and not expect to have sex anytime within a month of knowing them, and it does them no good to be looking for ONS if they are like this anyway. It is in no man nor woman's interest for the first few sexual experiences to be negative ones. *
> 
> Now, I wouldn't be interested anyway, someone who hesitates too much is a case of 'well, forget you, I have better things to do', because it's probably some sort of test I can't fathom, and don't have to fathom. If they're still interested, they'll make it plain another day.
> Two young virgins, however, It could be nearly impossible for either of them to tell what the other is thinking, so I can see how verbal consent, tepid or not would _have to be_ the standard you go by. You remarked earlier about how you weren't so sure what to do, how to interpret things in your inexperienced youth - well, we're all the same in this respect.
> 
> *For all these reasons, it's up to the guy to stop when he's told to, first thing; to value his own sexuality above chasing attention-seekers - and in my opinion, to warn his mates off any that like to mess with people; to be extra careful with inexperienced women; and on the woman's side for her to make it clear if she's not ready or wants to slow things down.*
> 
> What else can you do?


:iagree:

I agree pretty much with your summary of it .
I think it's better for a young man to be safe than sorry especially if he's inexperienced and the girl is inexperienced , or he's inexperienced and doesn't know much about women in these types of scenarios. Better to err on the side of caution and stay out of sticky [ no pun intended ] situations.


----------



## larry.gray

treyvion said:


> I think you leave the country and start anew abroad. That's a harsh ding to have to carry the rest of your life.


You can't leave the country if you are a felon.


----------



## larry.gray

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah - that's Washington State, where I'm from. I think law makers need to reconsider scenarios like this.


If you're claiming the story is from Washington state, then I call BS on it. 

Washington has a 'close in exemption.' If the parties are less than 3 years apart in age and over 13, then it's not illegal. 

15 & 18, 16 & 19, 17 & 20 are OK.

I'd suspect the guy is claiming she's older than she actually was to minimize what he did.


----------



## over20

CM .......have to ask why you posted a rape thread in the men's clubhouse.......not looking for trouble at all.....just curious it wasn't in General Discussion..


----------



## Caribbean Man

over20 said:


> CM .......have to ask why you posted a rape thread in the men's clubhouse.......not looking for trouble at all.....just curious it wasn't in General Discussion..


I started the thread here in the mMens Clubhouse because the General Relationship sub forum although it has the higher volume of traffic , was designed mainly for people with relationship issues in their marriage.

I wanted to look at it as a social issue , but my question was of what constituted rape was aimed mainly at men , because men are usually the accused or the perpetrators.

It just seemed to me that men and women had very different views about the areas of overlap, or the " grey area."


Would you like to give your definition?
What's your opinion on the grey areas like drunk sex with strangers , " tepid " ( half hearted ) consent , and the " change of heart "scenario halfway through the act ?

Do you think they constitutes rape?


----------



## Caribbean Man

larry.gray said:


> If you're claiming the story is from Washington state, then I call BS on it.
> 
> Washington has a 'close in exemption.' If the parties are less than 3 years apart in age and over 13, then it's not illegal.
> 
> 15 & 18, 16 & 19, 17 & 20 are OK.
> 
> *I'd suspect the guy is claiming she's older than she actually was to minimize what he did*.



Interesting stuff Larry.

I'm sure some guys realizing the gravity of his situation after the act , when he's confronted will attempt to do that.

I think the three year age difference , and the baseline of 13 makes sense , and is the most logical approach to this issue I've seen so far.
The age difference of three years could hardly be considered as one being taken advantage of in a consensual relationship.


----------



## alexm

firebelly1 said:


> Yeah - that's Washington State, where I'm from. I think law makers need to reconsider scenarios like this.


No kidding.

However, it has a lot to do with the overall scenario.

Did they START dating when he was 19 and she was 17?

If they started dating when he was 17 and she 15, then whoever threw the book at him went a little overboard.

Otherwise, it's a case of following the letter of the law, which doesn't always happen.

Did he have a previous criminal record? Was he a drug dealer? Gang member? Was it well known that he dated younger girls prior to this one?

There must have been a valid reason the parents didn't approve.

Regardless, I disagree with how it was handled, even if he was a nasty guy. 19 and 17 is much too close to throw the "sex offender" tag on somebody for life. 19 and 14, sure. 25 and 17, absolutely.

But tell me how it's any different if a 40 year old man is dating an 18 year old.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the three year age difference , and the baseline of 13 makes sense , and is the most logical approach to this issue I've seen so far.
> The age difference of three years could hardly be considered as one being taken advantage of in a consensual relationship.


Ohhh, I don't know about that. 13 and 16 is a little sketchy!

IMO, it should be 2 years (give or take a few months, of course) and 14, not 13.

A 16 year old is (or can be) remarkably more mature than a 13 or 14 year old. Kids mature at an incredible rate during their early to mid teens (I'm watching it in real life right now).

It is entirely possible for a 16 year old to be taking advantage of a 13 year old. particularly with threats of "I'll tell everybody at school if you don't ____" and that type of thing.

13, in most cases and in my opinion, is still a child in the truest sense of the word.

If my step son, when he's 16, ever comes home with a 13 year old girl, I'll knock some sense in to him, and so will his mother.


----------



## firebelly1

larry.gray said:


> If you're claiming the story is from Washington state, then I call BS on it.
> 
> Washington has a 'close in exemption.' If the parties are less than 3 years apart in age and over 13, then it's not illegal.
> 
> 15 & 18, 16 & 19, 17 & 20 are OK.
> 
> I'd suspect the guy is claiming she's older than she actually was to minimize what he did.


Hmmmm...you may have something there. I didn't know that.


----------



## Sandfly

alexm said:


> Did he have a previous criminal record? Was it well known that he dated younger girls prior to this one?
> 
> But tell me how it's any different if a 40 year old man is dating an 18 year old.





alexm said:


> 13, in most cases and in my opinion, is still a child in the truest sense of the word.


I don't know about Washington state, but in England this fellow would have only gotten a caution if there was reason to believe they had a relationship. Actually, with the ages quoted, it would have been legal, but let's say 17 and 15 then.

So perhaps he had already received a caution, as you suspect. As for 40 and 18, I definitely think that is ethically wrong, but there'd be no way to enforce it. An 18 year old can simply move out - it's even likelier, given that he'll have his own house by then.

13 in most cases. But my first g/f was 13 (I was 12) and she was the most reckless slapper I've met to this day. And her dad seemed to ignore it. I'm beginning to wonder if ones like this should be made to wear electronic tags if discovered. Not to shame, just to warn if they are somewhere they shouldn't be i.e. a nightclub/pub - so they can't pretend to be 16.

What would really help is if music videos would tone it down, and porn wasn't so easy to get on the net. Maybe underage people shouldn't even have access to facebook and all that rubbish. There's too much pressure on boys and girls to act sl*tty. Makes me sad, I would like kids to just be confident and trying out all the other things like sports and camping and stuff before they get bogged down with relationship problems.


----------



## treyvion

alexm said:


> No kidding.
> 
> However, it has a lot to do with the overall scenario.
> 
> Did they START dating when he was 19 and she was 17?
> 
> If they started dating when he was 17 and she 15, then whoever threw the book at him went a little overboard.
> 
> Otherwise, it's a case of following the letter of the law, which doesn't always happen.
> 
> Did he have a previous criminal record? Was he a drug dealer? Gang member? Was it well known that he dated younger girls prior to this one?
> 
> There must have been a valid reason the parents didn't approve.
> 
> Regardless, I disagree with how it was handled, even if he was a nasty guy. 19 and 17 is much too close to throw the "sex offender" tag on somebody for life. 19 and 14, sure. 25 and 17, absolutely.
> 
> But tell me how it's any different if a 40 year old man is dating an 18 year old.


I think it's a hell of a age gap ( 40 and 18 ), BUT...

I do not believe that a 18 year old dating a 40 will be at more risk for physical harm or mis treatment, than by messing with a 18-22 years old. I think her risk of physical and mental abuse are greater with the younger guy. Plus rape and things like this.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> What would really help is if music videos would tone it down, and porn wasn't so easy to get on the net. Maybe underage people shouldn't even have access to facebook and all that rubbish. There's too much pressure on boys and girls to act sl*tty. Makes me sad, I would like kids to just be confident and trying out all the other things like sports and camping and stuff before they get bogged down with relationship problems.


:iagree:

At 12 I was still playing with my dolls


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> Ohhh, I don't know about that. 13 and 16 is a little sketchy!
> 
> IMO, it should be 2 years (give or take a few months, of course) and 14, not 13.
> 
> A 16 year old is (or can be) remarkably more mature than a 13 or 14 year old. Kids mature at an incredible rate during their early to mid teens (I'm watching it in real life right now).
> 
> It is entirely possible for a 16 year old to be taking advantage of a 13 year old. particularly with threats of "I'll tell everybody at school if you don't ____" and that type of thing.
> 
> 13, in most cases and in my opinion, is still a child in the truest sense of the word.
> 
> If my step son, when he's 16, ever comes home with a 13 year old girl, I'll knock some sense in to him, and so will his mother.


I agree with your point.
Realistically ,yes I think 13 is a bit young.

Another interesting thing is that a 17 yr old male would most likely have consensual sex with a 13 yr old in most cases , but a 17 yr old female would hardly ever have consensual sex with a 13 yr old male. And I think that mindset crosses cultural barriers.

And I think that mindset crosses cultural barriers .
Another example of the difference in the psychology between the genders.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> I don't know about Washington state, but in England this fellow would have only gotten a caution if there was reason to believe they had a relationship. Actually, with the ages quoted, it would have been legal, but let's say 17 and 15 then.
> 
> So perhaps he had already received a caution, as you suspect. *As for 40 and 18, I definitely think that is ethically wrong,* but there'd be no way to enforce it. An 18 year old can simply move out - it's even likelier, given that he'll have his own house by then.
> 
> 13 in most cases. But my first g/f was 13 (I was 12) and she was the most reckless slapper I've met to this day. And her dad seemed to ignore it. I'm beginning to wonder if ones like this should be made to wear electronic tags if discovered. Not to shame, just to warn if they are somewhere they shouldn't be i.e. a nightclub/pub - so they can't pretend to be 16.
> 
> What would really help is if music videos would tone it down, and porn wasn't so easy to get on the net. Maybe underage people shouldn't even have access to facebook and all that rubbish.* There's too much pressure on boys and girls to act sl*tty. Makes me sad, I would like kids to just be confident and trying out all the other things like sports and camping and stuff before they get bogged down with relationship problems*.


:iagree: Totally.


I am not a fan of the 40 yr old man " robbing the cradle " with the 18 yr old girl either .


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> At 12 I was still playing with my dolls


And I bet you were much happier.

I tend to see petite women as like dolls. 

You can mess about with their hair, dress them up, pick them up and spin them round... they don't like the spinning much though... 

I was playing with dolls up until last year.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> And I bet you were much happier.
> 
> I tend to see petite women as like dolls.
> 
> You can mess about with their hair, dress them up, pick them up and spin them round... they don't like the spinning much though...
> 
> I was playing with dolls up until last year.


Things were so much different back then. I can still remember the exquisite skittishness around my first boyfriend. It was all so innocent but incredibly exciting! I find it sad that kids probably don't have that wonderful 'awakening' these days


----------



## Lionelhutz

"_Men, what are your personal boundaries regarding the act of sexual intercourse and your sexual interactions with the opposite sex , whether married or single?

Would you have sex with a drunk woman who you just met?



The dictionary has a definition for rape , but the dictionary also has a concise definition for love which cannot by any stretch of the imagination fully explain something so complicated.

So, what would you consider as " consent " from a woman for sex and exactly where do you draw the line between seduction and coercion?

Women , what would you consider as rape_?"



I define rape as intentional non-consensual sex. However, as a concept it is hard to discuss because not only is it a highly charged issue, the legal definition varies. In some jurisdiction the term as been abolished altogether in favour of "sexual assault". But my mental image of "rape" is restricted to penetrative sex. So I am going to answer these questions based on my own boundaries and not necessarily how I think the law can or should be applied. I also assume that if goes without saying that any verbal or physical sign that she doesn't want sex means it's time to stop

"Drunk" situations of course can range from "had a few drinks" to passed out. If I am not in a relationship with a woman and or have never previously had sex with her, I have turned down offers of sex if she shows signs of obvious intoxication such as slurred speech and unsteadiness. However, I have had sex with girlfriends and my wife when she would have to be described as "tipsy" and usually I have been in the same state. Never, even with my wife, when she is fall down drunk. With my wife, out of control drunk sex has zero appeal to me so her consent is not something I have ever had to consider.

"_Would you forcibly have sex with your wife if she wasn't interested simply because she's your wife?_" 

Of course not and I think it should be a crime. Personally since I refuse to accept "obligation" sex, I'm not remotely interested in forced sex.

However, as with most things involving intent and human relationships, situations will arise where legal definitions break down.

When I was just out of high school a childhood female friend told me she had been "raped" by a co-worker. We were very close at the time and I was the first and only person she told. I told her to call the police and she refused. Then, being 19 at the time, since she wasn't willing to go to the police, I immediately formulated a plan to severely beat if not kill the guy. Then as I questioned her more and more about what happened what she described as "rape" became more and more fuzzy. 

She had verbally said "no" and he persisted. There was no threat of violence and she did not physically resist. She seemed far from traumatized and admitted to enjoying much of it. Even with all that I could still consider it rape. In fact even if the woman has an orgasm it can still be rape. However, the more she spoke about it and the more details she provided, I'm not even sure what she thought of it. I could easily imagine that he thought she was consenting to what was taking place. To this day I very ambivalent about it. 

Ultimately, she never reported it and nothing happened. I was still concerned enough that I was going to "talk" to the guy to make sure there was no "confusion" again, but he got another job shortly afterwards


----------



## NovellaBiers

Lionelhutz said:


> In fact even if the woman has an orgasm it can still be rape.


This is one bizarre argument rape apologists often use against the victims. They say it was not rape because her body had a physical reaction to the stimuli. Some even go as far as saying women who are victims of "legitimate rape" cannot become pregnant from the assault. This is all false information of course.


----------



## Cosmos

NovellaBiers said:


> This is one bizarre argument rape apologists often use against the victims. They say it was not rape because her body had a physical reaction to the stimuli. Some even go as far as saying women who are victims of "legitimate rape" cannot become pregnant from the assault. This is all false information of course.


I've heard of this... Apparently this physical reaction can totally _devastate_ the victim and fill them with intense guilt...

_"Quite simply, our bodies respond to sex. And our bodies respond to fear. Our bodies respond. They do so uniquely and often entirely without our permission or intention. Orgasm during rape isn't an example of an expression of pleasure. It's an example of a physical response whether the mind's on board or not, like breathing, sweating, or an adrenaline rush. Therapists commonly use the analogy of tickling. While tickling can be pleasurable, when it is done against someone's wishes it can be very unpleasant experience. And during that unpleasant experience, amid calls to stop, the one being tickled will continue laughing. They just can't help it."_

What Science Says About Arousal During Rape | Popular Science


----------



## larry.gray

NovellaBiers said:


> This is one bizarre argument rape apologists often use against the victims. They say it was not rape because her body had a physical reaction to the stimuli. Some even go as far as saying women who are victims of "legitimate rape" cannot become pregnant from the assault. This is all false information of course.


It is also a form of additional trauma for the victims of both genders. This is particularly true with seductive child abuse. They feel that their own body betrayed them by experiencing sexual pleasure during their abuse.


----------



## DarkHoly

Women love to be wooed. To be backed into a corner and owned. I've had a lot of encounters and I have never found an exception to this. No woman has ever accused me of rape, or told me that they felt I had forced them. Most of them did say they felt beguiled, ensnared and seduced, but they loved it.

I want to hear the defense of people saying a 40-year old dating an 18-year old is wrong.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DarkHoly said:


> Women love to be wooed. To be backed into a corner and owned. I've had a lot of encounters and I have never found an exception to this. No woman has ever accused me of rape, or told me that they felt I had forced them. Most of them did say they felt beguiled, ensnared and seduced, but they loved it.
> 
> *I want to hear the defense of people saying a 40-year old dating an 18-year old is wrong*.


I don't think that we're saying it is illegal or wrong for a 40 yr old man to date an 18 yr old woman.

I think what some people including myself are saying is that there's a certain " creepy" factor to it. 
IMO, it kind of like a father / daughter thing.
I think I would also say the same thing if the genders were reversed. A 40 yr old woman dating an 18 yr old is also a bit like robbing the cradle.


----------



## Caribbean Man

larry.gray said:


> It is also a form of additional trauma for the victims of both genders. This is particularly true with seductive child abuse. They feel that their own body betrayed them by experiencing sexual pleasure during their abuse.



Interesting.

First time I'm hearing this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Just wanted to make mention of two real life scenarios and see what you guys think of each.

*Scenario #[ 1]*

This one is a thread that was started by a wife in the Sex In Marriage section sometime last year.
Apparently , like many couples , she and her husband had the usual " sexual fantasies " talk and it turned out that he wanted to see her with another man. 
She wasn't interested in that , but he kept pressing it. She refused.
Then one evening he too it upon himself to invite a buddy home and the wife cooked dinner , they ate, and started to have some drinks whilst looking at TV and chit chatting.

Wife was a bit tipsy, decided that it was late, she put the kids to bed and said goodnight. Husband informs her that the buddy would be sleeping over, no problem she said.

Sometime later that night during her sleep , wife felt a man on top of her , toughing her intimately and so forth, and thought it was her husband.
She began to respond , but realized that it wasn't her husband.
She was shocked and left the room in a hurry and notcied the husband outside. He tried to calm her down , then she realized he had planned the entire thing.
She came to TAM asking for help.

Of course there was the usual differences of opinions , tempers flew on the thread and the mods had to come in and clean up the thread.
I was on the thread and my opinion was that it was an act of attempted rape , because the wife had absolutely no knowledge of it before and she had explicitly stated to the husband that she was not interested in any kind of " troilism " or threesomes with another man when they had discussed earlier.
I posted that she should have made a report to the police and put her husband out.
Many disagreed.

Would you guys classify that as an attempted rape?

*Here's scenario # [ 2]*
This_* actually*_ happened to a friend of mine, about 10 years ago.


Here's the background:

I knew this married couple who owned a Graphic Art and Advertising company , whom I did regular business with. For clarity , I'll call them couple A. 
They introduced me to another European guy married to a local Indian woman who were interested insetting up a huge manufacturing concern here.I'll call them couple B.
Since their business interests were similar to mine, we made a strategic alliance and I helped him set up his plant.

I started hanging out with them, [ B] and the other couple [ A] who were my friends before. There was also this girl, a professional in her early 20's , whom I knew from before, and who was also casual friends with couple A. She used to hang out with us sometimes.
She was a very pretty girl and was also a type of party girl. 

Here's what happened:

Couple A invited me to spend a weekend at a place we call " _the Islands_ " down here , which is a group of very small islands with villas, swimming pools , water parks , secluded beaches, everything a resort has to offer.
They told me that it was a group, couple B and the young girl included, and they only had space for one so my wife couldn't come.
Obviously, I refused.
In any event, my wife and I been there before so it was no biggie. The invitation also came one day before.
So CM decided he didn't know these people well enough to spend a weekend drinking and cavorting with them on a pleasure island.
They left on Friday morning.
Saturday midday, I got a call from the young girl, she was hysterical , cussing and crying.
She had returned back to the mainland via ferry and told me that apparently, couple A and couple B were swingers ,and the husband in couple A was supposed to be paired with couple B's wife having sex , and the husband in couple B was supposed to be paired off with her.
But what shocked me was the wife in couple A was supposed to be paired off with me!
They ended up drinking , put on some porno stuff and couple A along with the wife of couple B started making out.
Husband of couple B decided to make his move on the young girl. She left the room and went out into the porch overlooking the sea, feeling confused and in shock.
He came behind her and began to rub her shoulders and rub himself on her. She was a bit tipsy, but said no anyway. He continued.
She got angry and went to the bathroom and locked the door.
She came out later to her room, and went to bed.
Early Saturday morning she packed her things and left. Caught the ferry and came back.

Personally, I thought and I'm still of the opinion that it was a
" rapey" situation. I can't help but wonder if the girl didn't put up a definite resistance , and took measures to protect herself , what would have been the final outcome and whether she would have gotten justice in the courts.

What do you guys think of that scenario?


Well , the next time I saw couple A and couple B, I pretended not to know anything, and continued doing business with them...


----------



## alexm

DarkHoly said:


> I want to hear the defense of people saying a 40-year old dating an 18-year old is wrong.


It's not wrong, it's just not... right.

It's legal. Doesn't make it okay, except by the letter of the law.

Put it this way, if you had an 18 year old daughter, would you really approve of her bringing home a 40 year old man?

Actually, the gender doesn't matter. When my boy is 18, I wouldn't want him bringing home a 40 year old woman, either.

Why? Because they're a teenager. The brain doesn't fully develop until the mid-20's, according to research. There's a reason car rental agencies won't allow anybody under 25 to rent a car.

The age of majority is what it is because by the age of 18, one should be finished secondary school, and at that point, they should be free to choose what they do (ie. go to college, get a job, travel the world, etc.).

If the age of majority was 21, for example, then parents could force, and legally so, their children to go to work and help pay the bills. Or perhaps they'd insist their children to go to college immediately, or at all, against their wishes. Most states/province/countries in the Western world require mandatory completion of secondary school, and for good reason. Better educated workforce = better economy. However, after secondary school, the state/province/country has no reason (or grounds) to force the population to follow a certain path. ie. everybody must complete a 3 year college degree. (although some countries do have mandatory military service).

The age of majority is not based upon maturity levels, but instead it is based upon the general age of completion of mandatory activities, such as basic schooling. Therefore, all the other "perks" of being an adult must legally be afforded.

As an aside, the state of Delaware actually has laws in which, although the age of majority is 18, an older partner can not be 30 or over, which I find interesting and logical, imo. The other states do not have a maximum age law, however.

Funny enough, but this question falls very neatly into what this over all post is/was about (or has turned into). Some people are arguing that, for example, when a woman says "yes", or otherwise does not fight back, then the man has attained consent, and therefore sex has been legally consented to and he (or she) has done nothing wrong.

Legally speaking, they haven't. Morally and ethically... perhaps. The correlation between this and a 40 year old man dating/sleeping with an 18 year old girl falls into that grey area. It's "legal", but is it morally or ethically okay? I posit that the chances are that it is not, are greater than that they are, therefore it is not generally okay.


----------



## alexm

Caribbean Man said:


> Just wanted to make mention of two real life scenarios and see what you guys think of each.
> 
> Scenario #[ 1]
> 
> This one is a thread that was started by a wife in the Sex In Marriage section sometime last year.
> Apparently , like many couples , she and her husband had the usual " sexual fantasies " talk and it turned out that he wanted to see her with another man.
> She wasn't interested in that , but he kept pressing it. She refused.
> Then one evening he too it upon himself to invite a buddy home and the wife cooked dinner , they ate, and started to have some drinks whilst looking at TV and chit chatting.
> 
> Wife was a bit tipsy, decided that it was late, she put the kids to bed and said goodnight. Husband informs her that the buddy would be sleeping over, no problem she said.
> 
> Sometime later that night during her sleep , wife felt a man on top of her , toughing her intimately and so forth, and thought it was her husband.
> She began to respond , but realized that it wasn't her husband.
> She was shocked and left the room in a hurry and notcied the husband outside. He tried to calm her down , then she realized he had planned the entire thing.
> She came to TAM asking for help.
> 
> Of course there was the usual differences of opinions , tempers flew on the thread and the mods had to come in and clean up the thread.
> I was on the thread and my opinion was that it was an act of attempted rape , because the wife had absolutely no knowledge of it before and she had explicitly stated to the husband that she was not interested in any kind of " troilism " or threesomes with another man when they had discussed earlier.
> I posted that she should have made a report to the police and put her husband out.
> Many disagreed.
> 
> Would you guys classify that as an attempted rape?


Sexual assault, absolutely. This is a man who is not her husband, touching her intimately, in her bed, without her consent or knowledge. (not that the location matters).

Not any different than if a guy starts touching a random female in the checkout line at the grocery store.

I hope she threw that guy the **** out of the house. And I'm talking about her husband.


----------



## Caribbean Man

alexm said:


> *Sexual assault, absolutely. This is a man who is not her husband, touching her intimately, in her bed, without her consent or knowledge. (not that the location matters).*
> 
> Not any different than if a guy starts touching a random female in the checkout line at the grocery store.
> 
> I hope she threw that guy the **** out of the house. And I'm talking about her husband.


Well I thought the same thing.
There were a few others on the thread who raised some other issues that got me a bit confused.
I think the fact that they were married was raised, meaning that it couldn't be rape or attempted rape if the husband agreed, and no struggle or force was involved.
I didn't quite understand why. :scratchhead:

Well she probably got scared after the first few pages ,and never came back to the thread.

EDIT:

I think I remember the argument used against my attempted rape accusation.
I think what some were saying was that the guy didn't think he was doing anything wrong because the husband probably told him that his wife would be open to the idea.The guy was just doing what the husband said, so I wasn't attempted rape, and even if it had reached to actual sex, it still wouldn't have been rape.

Of course I vehemently disagreed.


----------



## Thundarr

larry.gray said:


> It is also a form of additional trauma for the victims of both genders. This is particularly true with seductive child abuse. They feel that their own body betrayed them by experiencing sexual pleasure during their abuse.





Caribbean Man said:


> Interesting.
> 
> First time I'm hearing this.


I'm surprised that you haven't read or heard this. I've read psychology articles pointing out that it's very common and it's a big part of what victims wrestle with. It's where a lot of the guilt victims feel comes from IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> I'm surprised that you haven't read or heard this. I've read psychology articles pointing out that it's very common and it's a big part of what victims wrestle with. It's where a lot of the guilt victims feel comes from IMO.


To be honest,

I've never really studied much of the victim or psychological effects / aspect of rape.
But I tend to look on the legal [ prosecutor] side of things.

But most definitely, I would have a look at it!


----------



## Thundarr

CM,
scenario #1 was non consensual and clearly rape in my view. Probably in the legal system's view as well.

scenario #2 was very creepy. They were clearly going to push the boundaries as far as they could get away with. Had she been tipsy and given in then probably not rape. But still really creepy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> CM,
> scenario #1 was non consensual and clearly rape in my view. Probably in the legal system's view as well.
> 
> scenario #2 was very creepy. They were clearly going to push the boundaries as far as they could get away with. Had she been tipsy and given in then probably not rape. But still really creepy.


Funny thing about scenario #2 is that I knew these people and they are very friendly , outgoing affable people IMO.

Remember that both of them were middle aged couples married for a number of years , so it's not like they were the typical
" predators " or anything like that.
In fact , one of the questions I always ask myself , and struggled with, when I remember that story is how do I look at couple A and B ?

I've never seen them as " creepy " or such. They were more like socialites just looking for fun.

We are no longer in contact much because I stopped hanging out with couple A. But in all fairness to them, they gave me a lot of good business info and hook ups that helped me. 

Couple B eventually migrated back to Austria to live


----------



## Thundarr

The lifestyle isn't the creepy part. It's the fact that this girl was taken by surprise as well you would have been taken by surprise. 

These guys put in time and effort and spent money to make the scenario and environment seductive.


----------



## larry.gray

Caribbean Man said:


> Interesting.
> 
> First time I'm hearing this.


Yeah, it's particularly pernicious with child molesters, especially molesters of boys. They use it to beat down their self worth, and to keep them coming back. "See, you like this" is said to them when they get an erection, one that comes naturally to stimulation.


----------



## firebelly1

Scenario #1: definitely rape on the part of the guy on top of the wife. The husband is also guilty of accessory to rape or something of that nature. In Washington state, in the case of child molestation, you are guilty of molestation if you perpetrate or cause someone else to perpetrate. I'm not seeing the same language in the section on rape but here are some distinctions the law makes between first degree rape and second degree rape: 

(1) A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion where the perpetrator or an accessory:

(a) Uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or what appears to be a deadly weapon; or

(b) Kidnaps the victim; or

(c) Inflicts serious physical injury, including but not limited to physical injury which renders the victim unconscious; or

(d) Feloniously enters into the building or vehicle where the victim is situated

(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

(a) By forcible compulsion;

(b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;

(c) When the victim is a person with a developmental disability and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and who:

(i) Has supervisory authority over the victim; or

(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense

Scenario #2: I think this is rapey. If the couples wanted to include the girl in their escapade they should have discussed it with her first. She was put in a really awkward and scary position.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Scenario #1: definitely rape on the part of the guy on top of the wife. The husband is also guilty of accessory to rape or something of that nature. In Washington state, in the case of child molestation, you are guilty of molestation if you perpetrate or cause someone else to perpetrate. I'm not seeing the same language in the section on rape but here are some distinctions the law makes between first degree rape and second degree rape:
> 
> (1) A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion where the perpetrator or an accessory:
> 
> (a) Uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or what appears to be a deadly weapon; or
> 
> (b) Kidnaps the victim; or
> 
> (c) Inflicts serious physical injury, including but not limited to physical injury which renders the victim unconscious; or
> 
> (d) Feloniously enters into the building or vehicle where the victim is situated
> 
> (1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
> 
> (a) By forcible compulsion;
> 
> (b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;
> 
> (c) When the victim is a person with a developmental disability and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and who:
> 
> (i) Has supervisory authority over the victim; or
> 
> (ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense
> 
> Scenario #2: I think this is rapey. If the couples wanted to include the girl in their escapade they should have discussed it with her first. She was put in a really awkward and scary position.


Well I'm thinking, knowing the type of people they were, suppose they really meant it to be a pleasant surprise?
Remember they also invited me , but I turned down the offer at the last minute.

I'm just trying to figure out their initial intention , because I never spoke about it with them after.

Also , it couldn't have been one person's idea , it was all four of them.

But most definitely , it was an awkward and scary position.

I guess maybe they didn't anticipate *that* reaction from her.


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I'm thinking, knowing the type of people they were, suppose they really meant it to be a pleasant surprise?
> Remember they also invited me , but I turned down the offer at the last minute.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out their initial intention , because I never spoke about it with them after.
> 
> Also , it couldn't have been one person's idea , it was all four of them.
> 
> But most definitely , it was an awkward and scary position.
> 
> I guess maybe they didn't anticipate *that* reaction from her.


Seems like they should have at least considered it might be. Just take one element of that - if a married guy comes up and starts rubbing his *ock on me with no warning, is that cool or not? I would say not. So, that alone is rapey.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> Seems like they should have at least considered it might be. Just take one element of that - if a married guy comes up and starts rubbing his *ock on me with no warning, is that cool or not? I would say not. So, that alone is rapey.


Yes I get that.

But this wasn't just a married man, it was a man she knew , who knew her , and we all used to hang out together , drinking.

Also his wife was right there encouraging her to relax and go with him...


Lol, looks like I spoiled their fun by turning down their invitation.
Husband B was left " high and dry..":rofl:


----------



## firebelly1

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes I get that.
> 
> But this wasn't just a married man, it was a man she knew , who knew her , and we all used to hang out together , drinking.
> 
> Also his wife was right there encouraging her to relax and go with him...
> 
> 
> Lol, looks like I spoiled their fun by turning down their invitation.
> Husband B was left " high and dry..":rofl:


But CM, I hang out drinking with lots of people. This doesn't imply that I want to sleep with any of them. Just because a wife was there okay with it, I still didn't invite him to come and rub against me. It's a violation.

But maybe your attitude, again, is a guy vs. girl thing. Sounds like you're a little flattered that they considered inviting you along.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> But CM, I hang out drinking with lots of people. This doesn't imply that I want to sleep with any of them. Just because a wife was there okay with it, I still didn't invite him to come and rub against me. It's a violation.
> 
> But maybe your attitude, again, is a guy vs. girl thing. Sounds like you're a little flattered that they considered inviting you along.


Not really flattered because I'm not into the sharing thing or group sex thing.
Never have been.Tried it once when I was single and didn't really enjoy it.
I'm kinda wired like that.

But part of me was wondering exactly how that conversation went down between the couples in the planning stages, between respective husbands and wife, before the actual event, and why they thought either me or the other girl would have been ok with it.

That's why I said earlier, that I often wondered after that , what type of people they really were. Had I not known any of this , everything would have still been normal to me. Not that anything changed afterwards because I never told them I knew.

They are wealthy people and have always been good to me, in terms of helping me build my business network / contacts through invites to social events, and marketing my business.
They were responsible for hooking me up with the Austrian guy and his wife.
They were married, I attended their wedding , they had two kids, pretty normal people, they don't fit the profile of nefarious or sexually deviant.

So i'm wondering if it was just a bad miscalculation . Also alcohol was involved, everyone was drinking , heavily. I know that they are heavy smokers and drinkers generally, from hanging out with them.

I guess my thoughts are this way because I've only heard the girl's side of the story and never heard their side of it.


----------



## Lionelhutz

The problem that usually comes up in these discussions is the difference between morality, emotional health, true justice and the law. Those are constantly confused in this kind of discussion but they are very different. 

The distinction becomes relevant when considering situations issues of intent. For example, here you can't be convicted of rape if you are used as an instrument of rape (ie. forced to rape) due to violence or threat of violence of a third party. Another issue, is there such a thing as negligent rape? If there is a reasonable basis to believe there was consent is a crime committed? What if the victim feels too intimidated for some reason to object but is not actually threatened?

In scenario 1 above, I think the husband's conduct is criminal but how it is framed will depend on the jurisdiction. The "friend's" conduct would depend on what he was told or knew prior to entering the room and when he realized she was unaware and or objected to what was happening.


----------



## firebelly1

Lionelhutz said:


> The problem that usually comes up in these discussions is the difference between morality, emotional health, true justice and the law. Those are constantly confused in this kind of discussion but they are very different.
> 
> The distinction becomes relevant when considering situations issues of intent. For example, here you can't be convicted of rape if you are used as an instrument of rape (ie. forced to rape) due to violence or threat of violence of a third party. Another issue, is there such a thing as negligent rape? If there is a reasonable basis to believe there was consent is a crime committed? What if the victim feels too intimidated for some reason to object but is not actually threatened?
> 
> In scenario 1 above, I think the husband's conduct is criminal but how it is framed will depend on the jurisdiction. The "friend's" conduct would depend on what he was told or knew prior to entering the room and when he realized she was unaware and or objected to what was happening.


All good points. And a relevant perspective for a conversation I've been in over on the parenting group about underage pot use. Morality vs. Legality vs. Emotional health


----------



## firebelly1

So today my boss' boss told me that he used to have an employee at another place he worked who was convicted of rape. Apparently there was a lot of drinking involved and it was a "date" rape thing. The judge in the case gave the guy no jail time. Which left the boss wondering if he could legally fire the guy. 

The boss said he'd actually went throughout the office to ask how the rapist's coworkers would feel about him coming back. The boss said the men were actually more opposed to it than the women because the men didn't want his reputation to ruin theirs. They didn't want people to think they were the rapist who worked there. The women said they weren't too worried about it because of the circumstances of the rape. They wouldn't be going out drinking with him anytime soon so they didn't feel threatened. 

The boss did end up firing him. The rapist appealed, and at the same time the government appealed the first judge's no jail time ruling. In the end the government case was settled first and the guy was given jail time so the firing appeal died.


----------



## firebelly1

So...there's this porn site - FakeTaxi. Dude in London drives around a taxi cab and propositions women who get into his cab and he films the result. Perhaps its scripted, but I don't think so. Pretty rapey. But there are several women who have gone along. 

In one particular episode an Italian girl who appears semi-wasted is picked up and he drives to a place short of her destination. He tells her he can't go any further because the road is too bumpy and it will damage his car. He then tells her that the ride will cost her 75 pounds. Of course, she doesn't have that much money. He tells her if she gives him a bj that she doesn't have to pay him. She says no. He says if she doesn't he's going to drive somewhere remote and drop her off. She acquiesces. After she's done, he tells her he wants to have sex. She says no. He says if she doesn't he will post the film of her giving him a bj on the internet. Through this whole thing I'm thinking "This is rape. The whole scenario is rape." Once again, she agrees. 

They proceed and a few minutes into it, she actually appears to really be enjoying it. She says, "You're a pervert but you're really good with your hands." 

So, what do we make of this? Am I just totally naive and these things are not in any way real? Is it possible that she didn't feel threatened or not threatened enough to worry about it too much? Not sure what to make of it in the context of our conversation.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> So...there's this porn site - FakeTaxi. Dude in London drives around a taxi cab and propositions women who get into his cab and he films the result. Perhaps its scripted, but I don't think so. Pretty rapey. But there are several women who have gone along.
> 
> In one particular episode an Italian girl who appears semi-wasted is picked up and he drives to a place short of her destination. He tells her he can't go any further because the road is too bumpy and it will damage his car. He then tells her that the ride will cost her 75 pounds. Of course, she doesn't have that much money. He tells her if she gives him a bj that she doesn't have to pay him. She says no. He says if she doesn't he's going to drive somewhere remote and drop her off. She acquiesces. After she's done, he tells her he wants to have sex. She says no. He says if she doesn't he will post the film of her giving him a bj on the internet. Through this whole thing I'm thinking "This is rape. The whole scenario is rape." Once again, she agrees.
> 
> They proceed and a few minutes into it, she actually appears to really be enjoying it. She says, "You're a pervert but you're really good with your hands."
> 
> So, what do we make of this? Am I just totally naive and these things are not in any way real? Is it possible that she didn't feel threatened or not threatened enough to worry about it too much? Not sure what to make of it in the context of our conversation.


I too, sometimes wonder about those types of porn.
Was never really my cup of tea.
Much of it might be staged , but I remember some years ago there was this revenge porn site that encouraged guys to post vids of their ex girlfriends performing sexual acts, in an effort to
" get even " with them after a breakup.
I think some of the stuff was fake , but the fake stuff was put on the site to look normal , so that guys would start posting real stuff.
I think a group of women decided to take out a lawsuit against the owners of the site and it was shut down.

I don't really consume porn again , but I think sites like that can be either an enticement for guys so inclined, to commit rape , or maybe even some of the " actors " are technically manipulated into those situations given that could potentially be a subculture in large cities , of drug addicted women who would do anything for another " fix."

In this case, it might well be art reflecting life.


----------



## Caribbean Man

firebelly1 said:


> All good points. And a relevant perspective for a conversation I've been in over on the parenting group about underage pot use.* Morality vs. Legality vs. Emotional health*


I was wondering if you could give me some further enlightenment on the above with respect to rape cases.
Especially the " Legality vs Emotional Health " part.

Also I do not live in the USA, but I was wondering what was your opinion on how the justice system across there deals with alleged rape cases .


----------



## PHTlump

firebelly1 said:


> So...there's this porn site - FakeTaxi. Dude in London drives around a taxi cab and propositions women who get into his cab and he films the result. Perhaps its scripted, but I don't think so. Pretty rapey. But there are several women who have gone along.


I'm no expert, and I have never seen the Fake Taxi site. But 99.9% of porn is scripted and performed by people who have been paid and signed release forms.

Really, it would be stupid to do anything else. People are now even in criminal trouble for posting pictures and videos that women gave away voluntarily to others. So it would certainly be criminal to threaten a woman to get sex. And it would be criminally stupid to post the evidence of that crime online.


----------

