Post: #26

(04-25-2013 11:23 AM)jammer Wrote:  If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

A woman has consensual sex with a man and he has an orgasm as a result. End of story.

Consider the implications of criminalizing male orgasms after consent.

You are either trolling or are a total moron. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

Post: #27

(04-25-2013 01:10 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:23 AM)jammer Wrote:  If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

A woman has consensual sex with a man and he has an orgasm as a result. End of story.

Consider the implications of criminalizing male orgasms after consent.

You are either trolling or are a total moron. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

She told him not to cum in her. If she didn't say anything, he can cum in her, but she told him not to cum in her and he agreed. What do you think should happen in those situations?

Post: #28

(04-25-2013 12:15 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The problem here isn't rape, it's religion.

Come on dude, every religion in the world is more male-friendly than feminism.

Both religion and feminism are fucked up.

Men who bow to religion are beta. God is an alpha overlord.

It's religious guys who usually the white knights. They don't question what they are told.

Then every guy who works for a boss or pays his taxes is a beta pussy. Bosses and Government are alpha overlords.

Post: #29

(04-25-2013 01:30 PM)jammer Wrote:  She told him not to cum in her. If she didn't say anything, he can cum in her, but she told him not to cum in her and he agreed. What do you think should happen in those situations?

The pull-out method doesn’t work and a woman can get pregnant through pre-cum. If she didn’t want to get pregnant, she should have used birth control.

Post: #30

(04-25-2013 01:34 PM)megatron Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:15 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:The problem here isn't rape, it's religion.

Come on dude, every religion in the world is more male-friendly than feminism.

Both religion and feminism are fucked up.

Men who bow to religion are beta. God is an alpha overlord.

It's religious guys who usually the white knights. They don't question what they are told.

Then every guy who works for a boss or pays his taxes is a beta pussy. Bosses and Government are alpha overlords.

Not if you run scams. Scams are easier to run if you're under the umbrella of a company, not a figurehead of a company.

Not that I'd know of course

Post: #31

(04-25-2013 09:31 AM)jammer Wrote:  That title is completely misleading. That's not consent at all. She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

This is the funniest thing I've ever read, and quite possibly the most comment that's been posted on the RVF boards.

So, if I understand correctly, THIS is how sex is supposed to go down:

A man asks if his date would like to come inside for a drink.
Once she agrees, he has to ask her to kiss her. If he leans in for a kiss that she didn't ask for, that's sexual assault.
If she agrees to the kiss, then he has to ask to touch her body. If they're kissing and he touches her body without consent, that's sexual assault.
If she agrees to touching, he has to ask to remove her clothing, because if she doesn't consent to the removal of her clothing, that's sexual assault.
If she agrees to being disrobed, he has to ask permission to finger her.
Then he has to ask permission to fuck her.
Then he has to ask permission to change positions.
Then he has to ask permission to orgasm.

You know, this is very British thinking. The British stereotype is one of walking on eggshells.

It's the same as a guy walking into a restaurant and ordering a steak, and then asking his server, "Do you think that maybe I could perhaps look at the wine list in the off chance that I might be able to bother you for just a little splash of wine?"
And then, "Gosh, that meal was sublime. Do you think that maybe I could perhaps look at the dessert menu in the off chance that I might be able to bother you for just a little slice of that cherry pie?"

You think women respond well to this?

Post: #32

No longer content to have control over their own bodies, now women demand control over men's bodies as well.

"What? I didn't give consent for your to ejaculate. You were just supposed to fuck me like a human dildo. If you came, that's rape!"

Post: #33

reminds me of the case against Assange in Sweden

Post: #34

(04-25-2013 02:25 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 09:31 AM)jammer Wrote:  That title is completely misleading. That's not consent at all. She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

This is the funniest thing I've ever read, and quite possibly the most comment that's been posted on the RVF boards.

So, if I understand correctly, THIS is how sex is supposed to go down:

A man asks if his date would like to come inside for a drink.
Once she agrees, he has to ask her to kiss her. If he leans in for a kiss that she didn't ask for, that's sexual assault.
If she agrees to the kiss, then he has to ask to touch her body. If they're kissing and he touches her body without consent, that's sexual assault.
If she agrees to touching, he has to ask to remove her clothing, because if she doesn't consent to the removal of her clothing, that's sexual assault.
If she agrees to being disrobed, he has to ask permission to finger her.
Then he has to ask permission to fuck her.
Then he has to ask permission to change positions.
Then he has to ask permission to orgasm.

You know, this is very British thinking. The British stereotype is one of walking on eggshells.

It's the same as a guy walking into a restaurant and ordering a steak, and then asking his server, "Do you think that maybe I could perhaps look at the wine list in the off chance that I might be able to bother you for just a little splash of wine?"
And then, "Gosh, that meal was sublime. Do you think that maybe I could perhaps look at the dessert menu in the off chance that I might be able to bother you for just a little slice of that cherry pie?"

You think women respond well to this?

You are arguing a complete strawman. read the article. She clearly said beforehand that she didn't want him to ejaculate in her and he agreed. That means he can't. Your example has nothing to do with that.

Post: #35

(04-25-2013 02:00 PM)Atilla Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 01:30 PM)jammer Wrote:  She told him not to cum in her. If she didn't say anything, he can cum in her, but she told him not to cum in her and he agreed. What do you think should happen in those situations?

The pull-out method doesn’t work and a woman can get pregnant through pre-cum. If she didn’t want to get pregnant, she should have used birth control.

You framing it all wrong. He's not coming inside of her. She's enveloping his erection with her pussy. Her pussy is sucking the cum out of his dick.

It takes two to tango.

Post: #36

(04-25-2013 03:14 PM)jammer Wrote:  You are arguing a complete strawman. read the article. She clearly said beforehand that she didn't want him to ejaculate in her and he agreed. That means he can't. Your example has nothing to do with that.

Come on man, you can't be serious here. How many countless times have women claimed to be on the pill, then wound up pregnant?

How many times have they been criminally charged for that?

If cumming inside a girl without her permission is rape, then a girl getting pregnant and having the baby without the guy's consent is grand larceny.

Post: #37

(04-25-2013 12:37 PM)Fitzgerald Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:47 AM)Roosh Wrote:  The feminist idea that all sex is rape is slowly coming to fruition.

Andrea Dworkin was big on this. Ugly fat toad of a woman married to a gay guy, go figure. If time travel is possible in my lifetime, I'm going to go push her mother down the stairs when she's expecting...

She was the one who first said it in public. She's like the mother of the concept.

Back to the original article, if the woman didn't want more kids, why didn't she have her tubes tied, or employ some other form of contraception she had control over?

Post: #38

Anyone else want to get in before the ban?

Post: #39

Hammer's in b4b:

Post: #40

in b4 ban

Post: #41

Quote:Anyone else want to get in before the ban?

I do, I do!

(04-25-2013 03:14 PM)jammer Wrote:  You are arguing a complete strawman. read the article. She clearly said beforehand that she didn't want him to ejaculate in her and he agreed. That means he can't. Your example has nothing to do with that.

What if he came by accident? Have you ever had sex before? Your dick is not 100%.

Can he accidentally rape someone?

Post: #42

IB4B

Post: #43

(04-25-2013 03:14 PM)jammer Wrote:  You are arguing a complete strawman. read the article. She clearly said beforehand that she didn't want him to ejaculate in her and he agreed. That means he can't. Your example has nothing to do with that.

A strawman involves misrepresenting the opponent (in this case the rape accuser)

I'll save any longwinded, male-driven, logical counter to your 'strawman' assertion and simply state that it's impossible to strawman any female statement. It's impossible to misrepresent women when they themselves, all 100% of them, are subject to psychotic and erratic behavior at the drop of a hat. It is completely impossible to strawman a woman's position when she herself DOES NOT KNOW WHAT SHE WANTS.

Am I in b4b?!

Post: #44

(04-25-2013 01:30 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 01:10 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:23 AM)jammer Wrote:  If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

A woman has consensual sex with a man and he has an orgasm as a result. End of story.

Consider the implications of criminalizing male orgasms after consent.

You are either trolling or are a total moron. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

She told him not to cum in her. If she didn't say anything, he can cum in her, but she told him not to cum in her and he agreed. What do you think should happen in those situations?

An orgasm is not a voluntary response. More than one man is known to have slipped and ejaculated when he didn't want to. This is why people have an issue with this. He's being punished for what might be an error of his biology, not his will.

I've had women involuntarily piss on me when they came. Had we agree for them not to do it beforehand, they'd have also been "guilty" of something they couldn't control.

What this does is put an onus on men beyond what they are capable of biologically. We've been slouching towards this since that case where they found a man guilty of rape because he stopped like five seconds after a girl asked him to. Again, the system expects men to be automatons and assumes actions of biology are actions of malice.

Post: #45

(04-25-2013 06:31 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  An orgasm is not a voluntary response. More than one man is known to have slipped and ejaculated when he didn't want to. This is why people have an issue with this. He's being punished for what might be an error of his biology, not his will.

I've had women involuntarily piss on me when they came. Had we agree for them not to do it beforehand, they'd have also been "guilty" of something they couldn't control.

What this does is put an onus on men beyond what they are capable of biologically. We've been slouching towards this since that case where they found a man guilty of rape because he stopped like five seconds after a girl asked him to. Again, the system expects men to be automatons and assumes actions of biology are actions of malice.

It is more basic than that. The entire purpose of sex is the male orgasm.

Post: #46

Why did they prosecute this case?

Relevant:

Post: #47

LOL if this becomes legit I guarantee there will be a HUGE rise in real rape. What are they going to do next, haul babies off to jail for being born with a dick? Guaranteed future rapists don't cha know!

Post: #48

So...If I agree to have sex with a girl but tell her not to make me cum.
Then she mounts me..wraps her legs around and rides me till I damn near pass out.

I can say she raped me?

...Fuck yea..Im bout to go get raped

Post: #49

I think that court needed a clearer definition of rape.

Post: #50

(04-25-2013 09:44 AM)Millz Wrote:  ...cream pies are now illegal

Fear not!

Rape is non-consensual penetration, right? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Once I've consensually penetrated, if I nut before she says "pull out now," it's maybe grounds for her to be pissed, but not technically illegal, right? She can say "don't nut in me," but that would be more like asking a favor versus restricting the legal boundaries of the act. I know there's a jailhouse lawyer somewhere on the forum who know the answer!