Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
if the woman (not the man, naturally) is unable to give continual consent then I am ready to be fitted with a rape charge. All use

Give her a button she can press or some such signing device as silly as that seems.

that is not good enough to stay out of the clutches of the state..at min a video recording of the event with each person stating during filming the all acts were consentual is just common sense now that the state has decided to wage war on personal liberty...

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Your absurd sense of entitlement-

I fully understand that demanding my Constitututional guaranties be fulfilled is absurd in this era where the ends are considered to be more important than the means, when the great unwashed masses have been successfully manipulated into giving up their freedom in return for promises of safety and when we the people have lost control of our government.....

Shame on me for being so insolent.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Shame on me for being so insolent

Monumentally ego-centric, and narcissistic is more accurate than "insolent".

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

And I'm not going to require that people risk getting killed, or seriously injured, by trying to beat off or physically resist their attackers.

Or even tell the man no as he should be a mind reader......

Second please show where anyone had stated that a woman need to try to used force or fight off her attacker on this long long thread for it to be consider rape?

One post by anyone of the 8,343 posts to date that anyone had suggested that physical resister is a requirement for rape?

Once more you are being your dishonest self by attacking a position that no one had taken here.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Or even tell the man no as he should be a mind reader....

I definitely think the woman should say, "No" or otherwise communicate her lack of consent.
But, the man can also just ask her about what she wants or doesn't want--nothing stops him from communicating with her--no one is asking anyone to be a mind reader.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
And I'm not going to require that people risk getting killed, or seriously injured, by trying to beat off or physically resist their attackers.

Or even tell the man no as he should be a mind reader......

Second please show where anyone had stated that a woman need to try to used force or fight off her attacker on this long long thread for it to be consider rape?

One post by anyone of the 8,343 posts to date that anyone had suggested that physical resister is a requirement for rape?

Once more you are being your dishonest self by attacking a position that no one had taken here.

I did, I said that consent does not work...it sounds great, we would want it to work, but trying to regulate sex by consent quickly becomes muck....it was a bad turn, we need to go back to sexual assault being force sex over clear objection. Beating off the person who is trying to have sex with you is the best objection, and I am very leary of heavy duty charges where no physical resistance was shown.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Second please show where anyone had stated that a woman need to try to used force or fight off her attacker on this long long thread for it to be consider rape?

One post by anyone of the 8,343 posts to date that anyone had suggested that physical resister is a requirement for rape?

Once more you are being your dishonest self by attacking a position that no one had taken here.

I hate to tell you this, BillRM, but your dear friend Hawkeye said this, only a few pages back in this thread.

Quote:

The theory of consent does not work for sex law, the entire idea needs to be thrown out, and we need to go back to sexual violation being an act of force above physically demonstrated objection...that if the woman is not trying to beat the guy off of her then it is not rape. Getting beat by you woman is a clear line between go/no go , and a clear line is reguired out of consideration for justice.

I am not dishonest. And I expect an apology.

Hawkeye most definitely wants to require that people risk getting killed, or seriously injured, by trying to beat off or physically resist their attackers in order for the sexual violation to be considered rape.

Tell that to the women in their 70's and 80's, and even their 90's, who do not typically offer any physical resistance to a rapist because they fear getting killed. And plenty of news stories of rapes of women in those age groups were posted in this thread. And their fear of being killed is very valid.

Hawkeye wants to go back to the days when a woman had to be bloodied and badly beaten to prove she was raped. Hawkeye is nuts.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I'm not dishonest, I believe that consent is necessary.

I believe that women are adults and if as adults they placed themselves voluntarily under the influence of drugs or alcohol and grant consent for sex when normally they would not had done so that are both their problems and faults.

They should used it as a learning event and become lighter drinkers in the future not try to get their sexual partner charge with rape.

That men had no duty to protected adult women from their own bad judgment in sex as in any other area of life.

A man had not legal duty to prevent a woman who he consider is under the influence from driving off in her car and he had no legal duty to reject an offer to have sex either from her.

To place such a duty on a man degrades the woman as an adult and placed her into the classification of a child.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

But, the man can also just ask her about what she wants or doesn't want--nothing stops him from communicating with her--no one is asking anyone to be a mind reader.

Sorry if memory serve me correctly in a make out session between a man and a woman the communication is to a great degree not verbal and verbal or non verbal she had an obligation to clearly informed her partner that she wish to stop.

Without giving him that bit of information whatever happen is not rape as once more a man is not a mind reader.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Beating off the person who is trying to have sex with you is the best objection, and I am very leary of heavy duty charges where no physical resistance was shown.

Shame on you Hawkye as a clear stop or a clear no should be enough.

Hell in SM games do you not normally have a stop word work out ahead of time between the partners and should you not honor that stop word once it is issue?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I believe that if a woman let's a guy have his way with her without objection then she should lose the right to claim rape. I further believe that a woman should be required to take reasonable care to not allow herself to be a victim, that as an adult she has an obligation to the collective to act like a responsible adult, and to the extent she refuses she should be subject to sanctions.....our disapproval at minimum. I believe that part of being a responsible adult is taking reasonable effort to end abuse which is perpetrated against us, and those who refuse should be the subject of sanctions.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Beating off the person who is trying to have sex with you is the best objection, and I am very leary of heavy duty charges where no physical resistance was shown.

Shame on you Hawkye as a clear stop or a clear no should be enough.

Hell in SM games do you not normally have a stop word work out ahead of time between the partners and should you not honor that stop word once it is issue?

you will recall that I believe most sexual disputes should be a public health system case, not a criminal case. I can see some cases where no physical resistance was offered being a criminal matter, but most should not, they would be forced into counseling where they would be given an opportunity for learning to handle themsleves better...both of them.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I believe that if a woman let's a guy have his way with her without objection then she should lose the right to claim rape

If you mean BY objection saying no or even hell no to the man I agree with you if you mean that a 90 pounds woman should attempt to fight off a 200 pounds man you got to be kidding me,

I consider my wife my equal in every way but for hand to hand combat.

Once more in SM games is it not norm to have a safety word so if the woman wish to end the game she can do so?

Would you ignore the safety word unless she begin fighting you for real?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

he had no legal duty to reject an offer to have sex either from her.

He does have that "duty", if that is what the law requires him to do in order to avoid a rape charge. He's got a "duty" to himself, if not to the female, to not violate the law and not get himself in trouble.

It has nothing to do with the man "protecting" the woman, it has everything to do with the man's responsibility to follow the law regarding consent, and the conditions under which the law specifies that legal consent is not present.

You are degrading the man, and placing him in the position of being a child, by assuming he cannot be expected to responsibly follow the law--that any female who is available, and "offering herself"--whether she's 14, or severely intoxicated, or mentally retarded, or emotionally disturbed--is fair game--despite what the law says regarding capacity to consent. You are saying the man is not responsible enough to use his own judgment and follow the law, simply because the female is "offering herself" or ostensibly available for sex. Are men too weak willed to pass up any opportunity to have sex--including sexual contact that violates existing law?

Your constantly belaboring these hypothetical intoxicated female scenarios is rather boring and tedious. If you can't refer to specific actual legal cases, I no longer have any interest in what you're saying on this matter. You've done nothing but repeat yourself over and over and over in post after post after post. You have nothing new to say on this issue.

And, I'm still waiting for your apology for calling me dishonest. Hawkeye did make the remarks I attributed to him.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Once more in SM games is it not norm to have a safety word so if the woman wish to end the game she can do so?

Would you ignore the safety word unless she begin fighting you for real?

I recall that we had this diversion about 6 months ago, but anyways here we go...

in BDSM you will find some the of most anal puritans to be found anywhere, lots of rules and attempts to zero out risk. Under Safe, Sane and Consensual rules when you go to a club you get a rule book to sign that can resemble a homeowners association covenant in length and micro managing, and all through the night d0-gooders will roam looking for rule breakers to ball-bust, and more than a couple of violations will normally get you thrown out for life. SSC is the land of contracts, safe words, and a detailed script for every scene (play time)

This has recently become too much for many of us, who go by Risk Aware Consensual Kink...with RACK the focus is on making sure that each person is not a nut job, that they are in the room because they want to be, and they have a general idea of what will happen in that room. They also are made sure to know how to stop anything and know that they have the right to leave and to speak their mind at any time even if they are a sub or a slave. But when activities start it has not always been decided what will happen.

Also, things are allowed to take place in RACK that are not allowed generally to take place in SSC, such as fluid transfer. With SSC everyone should be stone sober and with RACK the rules of the club vary but generally are like you find anywhere as, as long as you dont act like an out of control drunk and as long as the person you are playing with knows that you have been drinking and agrees to play then all is good. In most SSC ruled event a safe word is mandatory, under RACK it is advised but is not always mandatory, though following a safe word if one has been adopting always it.

I do know long term 24/7 couples who do not have a safe word, where the sub does not have the right to object, where the rules are follow the instructions or leave. These rules have been agreed to at the front end of the relationship, and hard limits given are respected until they are repealed. I have no doubt that Firefly would want one half of the couple locked away for life and the other one "helped" to learn what a victim she is.

Probably more than you want to know, but hopefully somewhere in there I supplied what you were looking for.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You are degrading the man, and placing him in the position of being a child, by assuming he cannot be expected to responsibly follow the law--that any female who is available, and "offering herself"--whether she's 14, or severely intoxicated, or mentally retarded, or emotionally disturbed--is fair game--despite what the law says regarding capacity to consent. You are saying the man is not responsible enough to use his own judgment and follow the law, simply because the female is "offering herself" or ostensibly available for sex. Are men too weak willed to pass up any opportunity to have sex--including sexual contact that violates existing law?

Following what is right trumps following the law. Do you really think that being a law and order freak is going to win the argument for you?

Besides, most cases of modern "rape" are in total and young man and a young woman getting drunk, doing something sexual that they may or may not remember the next day and probably dont remember all of the events leading up to that sex, and where consent is confused. Under the new sex laws this is rape. It should not be. They both should be sat down in the same room with a counselor so that they might learn up on how to go about having fun with both getting to feel good about it in the morning. Making one an abuser, the other a victim, siccing the criminal "justice" system on one and the tax supported feminist driven saviours on the other does not advance anyone's interests..... except of course the feminists who designed this cockimamy plan as their solution to the problem of how to go about oppressing men successfully.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Besides, most cases of modern "rape" are in total and young man and a young woman getting drunk, doing something sexual that they may or may not remember the next day and probably dont remember all of the events leading up to that sex, and where consent is confused. Under the new sex laws this is rape. It should not be. . Making one an abuser, the other a victim, siccing the criminal "justice" system on one and the tax supported feminist driven saviours on the other does not advance anyone's interests..... except of course the feminists who designed this cockimamy plan as their solution to the problem of how to go about oppressing men successfully.

Agree hundred percents that it is silly thing to state that when two adults get voluntary drunk and have sex the man should be lock up for a decade or so and the woman label a rape victim.

Strange thinking in viewing one of them as a predator and the other one as a victim all base of their sex organs.

Given that the same actions in theory under the law should result in the same outcome it would seem that both parties would need to be charge with sexually assaulting of the other as neither by Firefly standards would had valid consent to have sex with the other due to the alcohol destroying their ability to grant valid consent.

Only by having the woman less of an adult and citizen then the man can this silly logic of placing all the responsibility and burden on the male work at all and even then the logic is strange and weak.

0 Replies

A gay friend of mine once told me he was raped by some women. He worked with them in an office and one night they locked the door with him in the room and raped him. I am not sure why he told me this, whether if he liked it, or if it was a lie, but he told me that. I really had no reason to disbelieve him. Did he ask for it by being gay or something? Just as preposterous maybe. Rape is never consensual.

2 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

Rape is never consensual.

And rape is not when someone play games over whether the consent given was valid after the fact of the sex and the consent being granted.

Or when a man fail to meet some strange standards of needing to act as a guardian to another adult human being because of the type of sex organs the other person had.

Firefly views woman as children that need the protection of the state when it come to when and how they can grant consent to having sex.

Conditions that does not apply to men.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

Quote:

Rape is never consensual.

Right, but the question is more along the lines of how many hoops should the state demand that the guy jump through so that he can assure that he cant be charged by the state with rape and thus deprived of his liberty and good name. You will remember a few years back when a college demanded that every man follow a scripted list of questions and get an yes answer for each question before proceeding, said that anyone who did not do this was guilty of sexually violating a woman....the feminists were hysterically happy to finally be getting what they want. The problem was that it was a disaster upon implementation, because humans dont roll that way.

There is a fundemental disconnect between American Sex law and human sexuality. This being the case it is the law that must adjust, because to insist that humans adjust to the law is an act of abusing our human rights.

EDIT: there is also a fundemental gender unfairness written into American sex law....the feminist use of sex law to oppress men has the effect of discrediting the entire "justice" system, and the government that runs it.

0 Replies

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know