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

@firefly,

Quote:

Don't insult them that way. Most adult men do not think like that or act like that. Most healthy, normal men do not have to use "coercive sexual acquisition techniques" because women want to be with them, and enjoy sex with them.

Most men wish for a relationship with a woman that included sex and any women who is known to play games with her power of no is normally dump and an outcast but not rape on campus or elsewhere in society.

The mere act of withdrawing from a relationship with such a woman or not starting one in the first place if you got the word about her may be view correctly as pressure on women by men that if they wish to enjoy a normal male/female social life they are not going to be able to used the word no as a power tool in their relationships.

Once more any man have the right of tell any woman that if she wish to use no he is not a bit interest in her.

That kind of pressure is not rape and never will be rape.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bill, could we get the English translation of that last post please?

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
It's a matter of sex being used as a intransitive verb.

You missed my entire point about penetration (by something other than an object) as being an essential part of the sexual act in a rape. It has to do with how a specific rape law describes the offending sexual act that is called rape. Rapes involve penetration of the victim's body (either vaginally or anally) in most, if not all, legal descriptions of the sex act involved in rape.

I didn't miss that post, and as you've said, you're using the NYS definition. I acknowledged this in citing that MI has the same wording, and has defined it in agreement with your conclusion.

firefly wrote:

Only someone with a penis can penetrate the body of another person (without using an object to accomplish the penetration). That covers both male on female rape and male on male rape (although I'm not sure that in NY that the male on male situation would be a legal charge of rape, it may be covered under sodomy laws).

This to me seems to be a deficiency in the NYS legal definition. Creating parallel institutions and parallel crimes is a bad idea. Certainly the victims of a non-rape sexual assault are no less a victim than a victim of a rape sexual assault. I'm not going to subscribe to the idea that there is an ultimate form of sexual assault, and it (and only it) earns the title of rape. Further, I don't support the idea that our laws should be making this distinction.

As a note, I'm confused as how NYS can create such a contradiction in terms when rape is defined as you've described it, and yet a woman CAN be charged with rape of a child by forcing him to penetrate her. If NYS wants to create parallel offenses, it seems that they must define "statutory sexual assault" as well. Having a young male victim being raped until a certain age, and then one day the same act becomes a sexual assault is a poor idea.

firefly wrote:

The crime, in rape, is that the victim's body has been penetrated without consent.

Go back and read my post again. Maybe it will be clearer.

I hope you don't agree with this notion.

firefly wrote:

All the things you describe, including the incident with your gay friend and the woman, are all sexual offenses. However, in the law, they are described as being different offenses then the crime of rape. If I, a female, force you, a male, to have sexual intercourse with me, I am not penetrating your body, I am forcing you to penetrate my body, and legally that isn't rape. Rape involves penetration of the victim through a bodily opening. You could have me arrested on other sexual offenses in that situation, but I don't think I would be charged with rape.

I hope you see the injustice in this.

firefly wrote:

Read the rape laws of your state and see how they describe the sexual act involved in the legal charge of rape. They have loads of other laws to cover all the other sexual offenses that aren't called "rape", including those you've mentioned.

You are correct. Many states create a lesser crime for an equally heinous offense. The distinction is meaningless.

In the crime of murder, we don't have a different class of crime for if the murder is done with a knife versus a gun. The creation of which would be meaningless. Both offenses are EQUALLY heinous, and deserve equal treatment under the law.

A woman who has intercourse forced upon her is no less traumatized than a woman who is forced to have oral sex, be urinated/defecated on, or penetrated with a foreign object other than a penis. The same applies for a man. The laws should reflect that. It does not appear that they do (in some places).

firefly wrote:

In the U.S. law, "Rape" and "sexual assault" are not the same. "Rape" has a precise legal definition in each U.S. state. It is only one type of sexual assault. There are many different types of sexual assaults, and the law defines all of them, but only certain types are called "rape", the others all have different names.

As I posted before, this is true in some states. Not all states/countries separate the two terms. In Canada, the term "rape" is not mentioned once in the criminal code, only "sexual assault." It doesn't mean they don't prosecute rapists, or that they don't use the word "rape," but it means that their legal system equally protects the victims of these crimes.

I'd say to sum up my feelings regarding definitions, I'm of Canada's legal mindset. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in the USA having done a little research in the last few posts. This seems like a terrible displacement of justice.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

It is identified as being a significant problem, Hawkeye. As in it doesn't contribute to having good relationships

it is a problem to people who expect that there will be no coercion in relationships. Since I already have taken the position that coercion in relationships is normal (though often the participants themselves are not self aware enough to realize this) I am not willing to accept this analysis. We would need to come to agreement about what the definition of problem is before we could talk, and I doubt that this would happen. Feminists have zero tolerance for coercion in relationship, I think that this is a fantasy ideal that will never be realized, so we are too far apart to talk.

Quote:

Do you even read what you post?

And FART asked me the same thing, the answer is yes.

Quote:

but it may actually be a dysfunctional aspect of a relationship

I agree with Thomas Moore (care of the soul) that all relationships are dysfunctional, so my retort is " and your point is?"

Quote:

You are not entitled to sex on demand from an unwilling woman

and so I have agreed many times...my objection is to busy bodies telling me that I should not continue to attempt to get my needs and wants fulfilled, especially if the person I am attempting to get them fulfilled by is my wife. Intimate relationship is an ongoing negotiation, feminists refuse to acknowledge this, so everything they say from this mistake onward is devalued because it is based upon something that is not true. Secondly, any person who is not interested in helping me to get my needs/wants/desires fulfilled assuming that I am willing to reciprocate is of no value to me as a mate. I understand that feminists are more than fine with male/female relationships breaking down because they start with the premise that these relationships are inherently bad for women..so any woman who actually enjoys the company of a male mate would be wise to let the feminist carping about how unreasonable men are go in one ear and out the other.

Quote:

Please, don't attribute this garbage to all other men as part of their "evolutionary coding".

scientific proof does not change to your whims, this has been extensively studied and the results are conclusive.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
When a woman says no it means NO!
yes, and both men and women understand that there are likely going to be a lot of no's before we get to a yes....it is an ongoing negotiation. Feminists are trying to make it the law that when one person gets a no then they must stop trying to get a yes, which is bullshit. Neither men nor women are going to live that way, it is feminist's expectation that is going to have to change here because humans are not going to magically transform into some new form. Our sexual practices are coded by evolution, they can not be so extensively overridden with morals and laws as the feminists are trying to do.

In your arrogance you cannot accept the word no. In your arrogance you expect that you can do whatever you want with whomever you want.

You last sentence is as stupid as any that you have written. Coded by evolution? What an asshole. Your hate of feminists, of whom you claim to be a former one, verges on the edge of a sickness.

The fact that you are a man who is kept by his wife perhaps gives you an unrealistic view of what a man is and what a woman is.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Every woman in the world have a right to say no to having a sexual relationship and every man in the world have the right to end any form of relationship because of her no.

She is not entitle to the benefits of a relationship with a man if he does not wish to continue granting it because of her no.

The woman say no and the man said ok however I am no longer interested in acting as your boyfriend and not having sex so get someone else to drive you to work tomorrow or take you to that play or whatever it might be.

Seem more then fair to me.

Her no is still no and he will not need to wake up an hour early tomorrow to take her to work for example.

You remind me of the straw man who has no brain. You should really take at least ten seconds of thought before you write anything that will, or should, embarrass you.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
All you see is women tell you no and you think it's okay for you to try to conjole, convince, put them under duress,
men do this more for sex than do women, but women do it just as much as men do. For instance who here is not familiar with the female nag?

This is not about me, nor about men, this is about who we are as humans. I prefer to take as my starting point who we are, not what we are told that we are or should be. AS I recall you are grounded in the Bible, so you tend to go the other way, which is why I think that you find my position of truth so repellent.

The fact that you assume to think that other people should be measured as you is revolting. Bible or no bible...you are repugnant.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I've had 10 dates with you and still no sex?

10!!?? OK, I have been taken for a long time so maybe I am out of touch with current market values, but no way am I waiting 10 dates. 3, tops. A woman who is going to play that hard to catch is nothing but trouble.

That is because you, obviously, have no respect for women and consider them a sex toy for your personal use. Only an asshole thinks the way you do.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Arella Mae wrote:

I am not going to argue with you dyslexia. I find open marriages disgusting.

Actually, Dys point is on the mark.

Many of us consider a one man one woman relationship to be acceptable and good for them. I am among those.

However, it is also the choice of some to not have a singular loving relatonship. Some of us may not quite understand that but we should not judge those who do.

It only becomes a problem when it is not consentual and force (i..e. rape) is involved.

I don't like curry either, but I have no objection to those who do.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

The fact that you are a man who is kept by his wife perhaps gives you an unrealistic view of what a man is and what a woman is.

On the contrary...me being a stay at home dad for ten years during the 1990's back when this was very unusual and in a marriage where the woman is the primary bread winner for most of my adult life makes the the perfect person to talk about what I have learned. I was ahead of the curve, not a lot of couple are doing what we do, but I have been doing it for much longer. And doing it successfully, with some hiccups. I am an expert on the subject.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

Only an asshole thinks the way you do

I am a man who knows what he wants, who tries to get those wants fulfilled through consensual relationships, and generally does so successfully. I am not asking anything of you, so why do you care? And why should I care that you care?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Only an asshole thinks the way you do
I am a man who knows what he wants, who tries to get those wants fulfilled through consensual relationships, and generally does so successfully. I am not asking anything of you, so why do you care? And why should I care that you care?

Then, why did you reply?

0 Replies

Serious question:

When ever anyone talks about male sexual aggression the feminists turn up their noses and scrunch up their faces as if someone farted in church. Then they scream. However the Kama Sutra talks at length about male aggression, techniques to manipulate your partner, biting, scratching, hitting, sex as combat....nay, the REQUIRMENT for force to be used in order to perfect the ****......

So the question is this: why are Americans apparently so sure that the feminists are right, and that the ancients are wrong? Which way works better for you?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The kama sutra makes lots of wild claims about what people should do. Have you ever faced east and held a sun dried tiger penis while having sex? The ancients mystified sex in some pretty stupid ways. I'm inclined to say that our modern knowledge of the human body and mind is far better than theirs.

No problem where I'd put my money.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

No problem where I'd put my money.

I can't picture you EVER doing any act that your woman had not pre approved...The Kama Sutra could be 100% correct and you would never know.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am a man who knows what he wants

EVERYONE is a man who knows what he wants (i.e., desires).
It is an oxymoronic contradiction-in-terms to assert that something is desired
without KNOWing that it is desired
because desire is a function of the conscious mind.

Do u deny that ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Do u deny that ?

Yes, I do. I think that there are a lot of people who dont know their own mind....they don't know what they believe until they check with their friends to see what the approved belief is.

When is comes to desires it is a little different...what we see is a lot of denial of desires that are not approved. We live in an extremely repressed society. And that ain't good because the thing about desires is that they can not be made to go away like the mind can usually extinguish thoughts. Desires which are repressed will always be back in some new form, and usually it is not pretty when this happens.

For instance male aggression is not something that can be made to go away. We are trying to repress it, pretend that we can pass a few laws and beat on a few individuals and make it go away, we are trying to reprogram human nature by coercive techniques. I don't buy it.... I see an explosion in our future.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Does the Kama Sutra address rape or just the things that you seem to think back up your desires?

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

....biting, scratching, hitting, sex as combat...

The Kama Sutra really advises that? Haven't read it. If if does, could this amount to some primitive Indian contraception device, analogous to the African tradition of female genital mutilation? Stands to reason that women subjected to severe pain and suffering during intercourse would avoid it like the plague, with the net result of fewer pregnancies. Combined with high infant mortality that would keep the population from exploding.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
No problem where I'd put my money.

I can't picture you EVER doing any act that your woman had not pre approved...

I can't imagine myself doing that either. Same for her. I don't expect her to do anything not pre-approved. I have a partner, neither of us are pets.

hawkeye10 wrote:

The Kama Sutra could be 100% correct and you would never know.

Nothing new under the sun. It is not as if people did not have enjoyable sex prior to the KS. Anything worthwhile in it's texts is plagiarized. Such is the nature of books like it. They didn't invent anything.

It is after all a religious text, and in it is archaic gender roles. I'm unimpressed.

A
R
T

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know