NationStates Jolt Archive

Again, for some strange reason, you operate under an assumption that rape is necessarily and unquestionably a bad thing, while many argue there's a lot of arguments to the contrary.

Ah, I get it. The Enyclopedia Dramatica picture, this statement. You're a troll!

If the spouses don't want to have sex with each other, they should reconsider marrying.
Even if one spouse just doesn't want to have sex on that one occasion? So, in the world under your little troll bridge, spouses are not allowed to be sick or tired or too busy for sex at any given moment, and if they are, that destroys the entire marriage? Please, you are so full of crap, and it's really getting old.

You mean the marriage mitigating factor or the IDIFTL legal defense?
I was referring to the mitigating factor claim, but I am willing to expand my comment to cover anything you might think is a good idea.

The reason you assume that "no" is somehow the default condition, rather than "yes". If I'm driving into a parking zone, there's a space, it's not busy, and there are no notices telling I can't use it, shouldn't I assume a "yes" to whether I can take it?

If it's a "yes by default" with car parking, why not with cock parking?
I can see that you think you're very amusing. Not content to compare rape to first burglary and then to trespass, now you're comparing it to parking. Har, har, it is to laugh. I'm cutting you off, troll. You're getting hooked on yourself.

Only if there's a male witness.

Again, for some strange reason, you operate under an assumption that rape is necessarily and unquestionably a bad thing, while many argue there's a lot of arguments to the contrary.
For instance, here's an article from a big mainstream newspaper detailing some:


And here is the second time you have allowed your trollery to veer into outright offensiveness. Do not do this again. It really is NOT okay.

I can see that you think you're very amusing. Not content to compare rape to first burglary and then to trespass, now you're comparing it to parking. Har, har, it is to laugh. I'm cutting you off, troll. You're getting hooked on yourself.

It's no fun when they stop even trying. :(

It's no fun when they stop even trying. :(

Feh, that one ran out of gas and was running fumes pages ago. He's just now, finally, sputtering to a stop.

And by the way, until you've had someone you loved and trusted sexually assault you, kindly shut up about how it's not that bad. I have no idea whether or not being assaulted by a stranger would have been worse, and I hope never to find out, but I assure you what I went through was plenty bad.

^This, kthnx.

Also, possible to have a woman rape a male, and possible that rape doesn't include beating and such, and likely that no, I won't be going into this in more detail. :P And you seem to not know what rape is, vault-person.

Have we factored in the occasional, but ever present sexaholic? Where the only thing that matters (to the sexaholic) is that they feed that lust?

So now my vagina has a price tag?
Well, let's ask a question. Would you be more likely, offered both, to date and have sex with a guy who drives a Bentley Arnage, has a villa on the Mediterranean coast, and owns a corporation, over a similar guy who drives a Kia Rio, rents a flat in Utah, and works as an office clerk?
Honestly?


If my boyfriend has sex with me against my will, instead of making him a rapist it makes me a prostitute? Fine solution.
Only keep in mind that by "mandatory sex education" I meant surgical removal of the penis and extensive professional training in passive anal sex, along the lines of "I'll do it until you like it". If one can't manage a cock, he should use his butt for future sexual endeavors.


But things get so complicated when you're in a relationship. People in close relationships share a lot, so if my boyfriend decides to help himself to $40 from my wallet and I get upset, it isn't theft, it's a misunderstanding. We love each other, so he assumed I'd be more than happy to give him the money. And after all, I never said he couldn't take money from me.
I once had my car crashed by, so to say, the person I have a relationship with. Not destroyed (it's a Toyota), but not exactly $40 either.
Do you think I sued?
Would you?

1) The offender is ultimately to blame for the crime, both in the moral and legal sense.

2) However, if there was an element of irresponsibility on the part of the victim, the victim bears only responsibility to the extent that they failed to do what a reasonable and rational person would do, and are in fact also a victim of their own negligence. In the small percentage of instances where these circumstances exist, that is. And obviously one would not be in their right mind to bring a legal or civil case against themselves for their own negligence.

3) The offender is ultimately to blame for the crime, both in the moral and legal sense.

I blame the Jews.

Well, let's ask a question. Would you be more likely, offered both, to date and have sex with a guy who drives a Bentley Arnage, has a villa on the Mediterranean coast, and owns a corporation, over a similar guy who drives a Kia Rio, rents a flat in Utah, and works as an office clerk?
Honestly?
So in your trollish brain all women are whores? That explains a lot -- about you.

Only keep in mind that by "mandatory sex education" I meant surgical removal of the penis and extensive professional training in passive anal sex, along the lines of "I'll do it until you like it". If one can't manage a cock, he should use his butt for future sexual endeavors.
And you apparently have violent rape fantasies of your own. This explains a lot more -- about you.


I once had my car crashed by, so to say, the person I have a relationship with. Not destroyed (it's a Toyota), but not exactly $40 either.
Do you think I sued?
Would you?
And you still have no point to make, and are now lapsing into repeated musings over the condition of your own finances and property. This explains yet a bit more -- about you.

This morning I went to a breakfast put on by local government as part of the "Not violent, not silent" campaing to reduce domestic violence against women.

One statistic they provided surprised me: in Australia for women between 15 and 45 the major cause of illness and injury is domestic violence or assault by men.

Oz doesn't have a gun culture: very few people have guns and very few are injured with guns. This means that most injuries suffered by women in this age group will be from bashings and assault with other sorts of weapons.

Sort of puts the pro-rape line in this thread in perspective.

Well, let's ask a question. Would you be more likely, offered both, to date and have sex with a guy who drives a Bentley Arnage, has a villa on the Mediterranean coast, and owns a corporation, over a similar guy who drives a Kia Rio, rents a flat in Utah, and works as an office clerk?
Honestly?

What the hell kind of question is that?

Ohhh, right. I forgot, women are only interested in money, and they use sex as a weapon to get it. My bad.

Of the many people I could have dated over the past five years, the man I was with, the love of my life, drove a 19-year-old Honda Civic, worked 80+ hours a week as a video game tester/programmer, and lived with his father.

He also happened to be an incredibly smart, funny, beautiful, fascinating guy who, despite being drunker than I was the first time we had sex, asked me repeatedly if I was "really sure" I wanted to do it, because he really liked me and didn't want to do anything I would regret in the morning. What a freak of nature, right?

I blame the Jews.

Truly spoken like Il Ruffino!

So in your trollish brain all women are whores? That explains a lot -- about you.

Yep. And not only is it not as traumatic and wrong to be raped by your spouse/partner as it is to be raped by a stranger, but it's not as traumatic to be raped by a guy who drives a Bentley as it is to be raped by a guy who drives a hoopty, apparently.

This morning I went to a breakfast put on by local government as part of the "Not violent, not silent" campaing to reduce domestic violence against women.

One statistic they provided surprised me: in Australia for women between 15 and 45 the major cause of illness and injury is domestic violence or assault by men.

Oz doesn't have a gun culture: very few people have guns and very few are injured with guns. This means that most injuries suffered by women in this age group will be from bashings and assault with other sorts of weapons.

Sort of puts the pro-rape line in this thread in perspective.

But didn't you know? Rape has nothing to do with domestic violence. It's called "taking what you're owed", apparently.

But didn't you know? Rape has nothing to do with domestic violence. It's called "taking what you're owed", apparently.

Hey! That ring didn't cost no handful of pennies!

Have we factored in the occasional, but ever present sexaholic? Where the only thing that matters (to the sexaholic) is that they feed that lust?

Um... into what exactly are we factoring this person?

Um... into what exactly are we factoring this person?

The equation of love.
Which is in fact, a misnomer. Since it deals only with sex.

Heh, indeed. I just don't understand how sex addicts need to be specially accounted for in a discussion of rape, is all.

Heh, indeed. I just don't understand how sex addicts need to be specially accounted for in a discussion of rape, is all.

When talking about legalizing reefer you have to factor in the crack addicts.

When talking about legalizing reefer you have to factor in the crack addicts.

QFT, where T = a hilarious yet lamentable tendency by stupid people.

Nothing more hilarious than a satirist's piece exploding in his face while readers all over tear him to shreds over it.

Nothing more hilarious than a satirist's piece exploding in his face while readers all over tear him to shreds over it.

That was satire?

I'll show you satire.
Yea. (http://www.newanimal.org/tumnus_faun_satyr.jpg)

Nothing more hilarious than a satirist's piece exploding in his face while readers all over tear him to shreds over it.

Are we talking about Hamm's satire or Vault's? Not that it matters, I guess.

Are we talking about Hamm's satire or Vault's? Not that it matters, I guess.

What? Is there a cabal of masochistic satirists around here?

Well, let's ask a question. Would you be more likely, offered both, to date and have sex with a guy who drives a Bentley Arnage, has a villa on the Mediterranean coast, and owns a corporation, over a similar guy who drives a Kia Rio, rents a flat in Utah, and works as an office clerk?
Honestly?

The guy with the Kia... except if he lived near me, not in Utah. I require time and attention more than money.

[This only deals with male rapists, not female rapists, as the overall subject is geared towards women who entice men.]

One point needs to be made here: Men need to be more responsible. If you're a rapist, you're not a man, because you're not responsible. Rapists fall somewhere between the lines of "spoiled little boy," and "scum of the earth." They obviously expect they deserve far more than they do, and, in so, cannot be true men, and may only be so chronologically, but not in the sense that they are responsible human beings.

Women, however, are not at all to blame for rape. No, they do not invite it. To say they do is only to try and say that men do not have to be quite as fully responsible as we must. Nay, if a woman prances around entirely naked, unless she physically says "I wish to have sex with you!" or invites it with kisses and does not resist action on behalf of the man, she does truly in no way have anything to account for in the subject of rape.

Women dress to entice men. However, because we live in a civil society, they cannot be blamed for rape, why? Because men owe it to women to ensure protection upon them (just as women to men, men to men, and women to women), simply for the fact that all men and women should be able to be safe in this society. It does not happen, but we, as humans, and by the Golden Rule, owe it to one another to not be raped, murdered, assaulted, mugged, et cetera.
For such things, the victim is neverat fault!
Again, women dress to entice men. Why? Either:
1) They wish to have a future mate, or
2) They wish to further entice a current mate.
AND, in generally all cases:
3) They wish to know that they are cared for, about, or that they are at least, wanted. It's a fundamental part of the human psyche, especially in the female variety, to be wanted. Not, perhaps, sexually, but that can be a manifestation of it - it is simply that all humans, to some extend, do not wish to be nothing more than hunk of flesh and bone, we wish to be needed and wanted by another person, as it gives us a sense of purpose. In a world where men are increasingly able to cook and fend for themselves, women have found it more and more necessary to be attractive than to be skillful.

Now, is it right to dress provocatively? Not really, as it does cause lust. Many women these days however, and especially teenagers, often confuse lust for love. Blame the media on that one, but that is another story.
Should women stop dressing provocatively to stop rape? Yes, not necessarily to stop inviting it, as theoretically they do not - women dressed conservatively can also be raped, as a situational wrong-time, wrong-place scenario - but because many "men" are morally and/or responsibly weak and need a good kick in the pants (or for many sex offenders, knife to the groin). They should not do so because they invite it, but to make themselves blend better to the crowd.

In an age of web-based pornography, too many men think that there are many women out there who openly want sex and that it can just be taken. They are fooled.
Women, however, don't share such a same mentality, and too many are naive in some aspects of a man's logic, and when they flirt, do not always mean what a man may think they mean.
Men need to step up and learn that women must be respected. Men, in rape, hold all responsibility. The woman does not.

Are we talking about Hamm's satire or Vault's? Not that it matters, I guess.

Well, except insofar as the former is writing entertaining satire and the latter is just trolling rather nastily.

Well, except insofar as the former is writing entertaining satire and the latter is just trolling rather nastily.

I'd declare the thread a success. We get to see the nastier elements of NSG coming out the woodwork to "defend" the satirical position.

I'd declare the thread a success. We get to see the nastier elements of NSG coming out the woodwork to "defend" the satirical position.

Oh, oh. Is this where we tally up the votes from Joking, Tolling or Insane and see who's won?

*crosses fingers and hopes to win at least a pot noddle*

Again, for some strange reason, you operate under an assumption that rape is necessarily and unquestionably a bad thing, while many argue there's a lot of arguments to the contrary.
For instance, here's an article from a big mainstream newspaper detailing some:

*snip satirical article*

When one is winning an argument, suddenly switching to "only joking" is gracious.

When one is losing, it's a concession of defeat.

And an ungracious one. "OK, I was wrong" would have served you better.

When one is winning an argument, suddenly switching to "only joking" is gracious.

When one is losing, it's a concession of defeat.

And an ungracious one. "OK, I was wrong" would have served you better.
To be fair, we're talking about a guy who either likes the idea of raping, or finds rape funny. The fact that he's an ungracious loser kind of goes without saying.

Indeed. It's a bit like asking whether you'd rather have your eyes gouged out by a friend or an enemy.


Except you don't have your eyes actually damaged. It's more like whether you'd rather be imprisoned in a prison cell or in your own home.

No, I think you'll find the physical and psychological consequences of rape are readily comparable with being maimed.

"OK, I was wrong" would have served you better.
Why, I never intended to be right.
What's funny is not rape, but rather for how many posts people continue to argue after someone admitted trolling, as long as the topic concerns rape (compare: how quickly they stop if it doesn't concern rape). Although I'm not really trolling; it's better described by the medieval term "Devil's advocate", and if even he's not exempt...


But well, now, let's try to rather look at the bright side of life. And, so, the bright side of the subject event.

Do you think there can be a situation, any situation, where rape is good or justified?




I know you're thinking, "Hell no, it's so preposterous to even think of!"
But people tend to change their mind if they consider the one being raped to be evil. You know, a bad person, a convicted criminal, a male, a rapist?

Do you think there can be a situation, any situation, where rape is good or justified?

Maybe if the alternative is the extinction of the human race.
Then again, maybe it is better to die out than to live on in such a manner.

Well, except insofar as the former is writing entertaining satire and the latter is just trolling rather nastily.

It got so outrageous that I guess I was hoping it was a really long-winded devil's advocate, at the very least. :(

It got so outrageous that I guess I was hoping it was a really long-winded devil's advocate, at the very least. :(

it's kinda disappointing in the end isn't it?

I know you're thinking, "Hell no, it's so preposterous to even think of!"
But people tend to change their mind if they consider the one being raped to be evil. You know, a bad person, a convicted criminal, a male, a rapist?

We already had that argument. Next?

We already had that argument. Next?

I don't think there's going to be a next. After having all his "arguments" torn apart ad nauseam, called out for making utterly inappropriate comments, "jokes" and going round and round in circles, Vault 10 has gone with the "Oh, but I'm being the Devil's Advocate here!" line.

SO!

I vote for "Trolling". Let's wait for everyone's favourite host, after these messages!

We already had that argument. Next?

We had, but the thing is that some people do seriously hold a belief that rape is justified in some cases:
Very bad women deserve rape. The following are examples: [...]
3) Traitors who reside in democratic countries
no, because they are in prison, away from society, and the rape is being carried out by prisoners, not government employees.
Undoubtedly they deserve it.

Some (e.g. Muravyets) have expressly stated a "no" in all cases. But there's still apparently a lot of people who have a "threshold" for who deserves rape - if so, draw your line.

Some (e.g. Muravyets) have expressly stated a "no" in all cases. But there's still apparently a lot of people who have a "threshold" for who deserves rape - if so, draw your line.
No, there are not "a lot" of people with such a "threshold." There's just you and one other poster.

it's kinda disappointing in the end isn't it?
The disappointment is hardly surprising though. One could read his first post and know "this isn't going to end well."

Well, let's ask a question. Would you be more likely, offered both, to date and have sex with a guy who drives a Bentley Arnage, has a villa on the Mediterranean coast, and owns a corporation, over a similar guy who drives a Kia Rio, rents a flat in Utah, and works as an office clerk?
Honestly?

You idiot.

Who gives a shit what the dude has in his wallet? In this day and age, sisters are doing it for themselves.

What my lover makes or what he or she owns is entirely irrelevant to me choosing him or her.

Honestly.

no kidding.

women arent whores to trade themselves to the highest bidder.

you date the man (or woman) who seems like the most fun person to date.

Why, I never intended to be right.
What's funny is not rape, but rather for how many posts people continue to argue after someone admitted trolling, as long as the topic concerns rape (compare: how quickly they stop if it doesn't concern rape). Although I'm not really trolling; it's better described by the medieval term "Devil's advocate", and if even he's not exempt...

The thing is: You fail at it. You fail hard. Actually, you fail so epically and move so deeply into trolling that you should write a book about your journey and what you've learned, so we can teach children for generations to come how not to do it.

no one is ever blameworthy for being raped.

Some (e.g. Muravyets) have expressly stated a "no" in all cases. But there's still apparently a lot of people who have a "threshold" for who deserves rape - if so, draw your line.
my line... I dunno really...

a woman who uses her sexuality like a weapon and uses it frequently to bind men and women to her for no other reason than to hold power over them? maybe.

while I have yet to hear of a case where the victim deserves being raped, I cannot support a blanket statement of "no one deserve rape." I believe there are execptions to the rule, however, I will also admit that I, as of yet, have not encountered any such execptions.

The OP actually has some merit, sort of. Wearing provocative clothing does in fact make you more likely to get raped. Now, it can't be said its your fault, but by wearing said clothing you should understand ahead of time that your increasing your chances of becoming a victim. Its like the time I stopped at Circle K at 4:30 in the morning, and was so tired that I forgot to put my wallet back in my pocket as I left the store, and some guy pulled out a knife and demanded it. It wasn't my fault, but being in that situation and acting the way I did increased my chances, and it wouldn't have happened if I had acted more wisely (wiser?). In retrospect, a series of bad decisions on my part led to that and it was easily avoidable. So I think the same holds up for women who get raped; it's not your fault, but don't act surprised if you dress like that or walk down dark alleyways at night or get drunk and it happens. It may be wrong, but its reality.

The OP actually has some merit, sort of. Wearing provocative clothing does in fact make you more likely to get raped. <snip>
No. It. Doesn't.

Read. The. Thread.

This myth has already been busted by another poster. What is it going to take to get this through people's heads?

It may be wrong,
Full stop.

but its reality.
Oops, a step back into wrong.

I don't think there's going to be a next. After having all his "arguments" torn apart ad nauseam, called out for making utterly inappropriate comments, "jokes" and going round and round in circles, Vault 10 has gone with the "Oh, but I'm being the Devil's Advocate here!" line.

SO!

I vote for "Trolling". Let's wait for everyone's favourite host, after these messages!

That's a pretty hard call, there - the Devil's Advocate claim may be real. He'd be TOWARDS trolling in this case, but a different kind thereof, and not necessarily a bad kind, just a Devil's Advocate. IF he's simply hiding his trolling under such a claim, then trolling it is.

We had, but the thing is that some people do seriously hold a belief that rape is justified in some cases:




Some (e.g. Muravyets) have expressly stated a "no" in all cases. But there's still apparently a lot of people who have a "threshold" for who deserves rape - if so, draw your line.

Oh, gods... THERE IS NO LINE! FOR CRYING OUT THE FUCK LOUD!!! WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS???!! REALLY???!!!

Oh, gods... THERE IS NO LINE! FOR CRYING OUT THE FUCK LOUD!!! WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS???!! REALLY???!!!

Sure - why not ?
So, let us put a spin on it:
Some women are best described as "cockteasers". While raping them is obviously out, how should they be punished ? After all, every freedom and action has consequences.

To be fair, we're talking about a guy who either likes the idea of raping, or finds rape funny. The fact that he's an ungracious loser kind of goes without saying.

Actually, I think we have a guy who's a bit of military-nerd, and wasn't taking the subject very seriously from the start.

When I wander into weapons threads, or car-admiration threads, or even some of the political threads, I tend to say silly things and get rather heated responses.

It is a bit difficult to suddenly take a subject seriously, when you've barely even thought about it before. Saying "I was wrong" does imply an intention to not be wrong in future ... so "I was joking"/"I was being the devil's incompetent advocate" is really the easier way out of a place you wish you'd never gone.

To you, and the other posters who took up Vault 10's wrong statements: sorry I dropped the subject like that. It was just a mistake, I lost the thread among all my open tabs. I will do better in the future, and I'll do it by only posting to one thread at a time.

For now: that one got away. I hope it learns, and I hope it gets caught again, on a stronger hook, and makes a proper meal for one of us.

===============

Oh, gods... THERE IS NO LINE! FOR CRYING OUT THE FUCK LOUD!!! WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS???!! REALLY???!!!

*debating move #0*

"The horror! The horror!"

EDIT: That was kind of obscure. Joseph Conrad wrote a book called "Heart of Darkness" and I did very much enjoy reading it. Essentially, it goes "I try very hard to describe this very strange thing which affected me deeply but in ways I still do not understand. I try my very best to describe everything as I saw it, and to describe my own reactions to it. But the final words I leave to one far more experienced and far more involved in what I describe, and his words are "The horror!"

*debating move #0*

"The horror! The horror!"

EDIT: That was kind of obscure.

The day Conrad and Coppola count as "obscure" is the day I eat my hat with a side of hat sauce.

Sure - why not ?
So, let us put a spin on it:
Some women are best described as "cockteasers". While raping them is obviously out, how should they be punished ? After all, every freedom and action has consequences.
Their reputation? That would appear to suffer with such behavior

The day Conrad and Coppola count as "obscure" is the day I eat my hat with a side of hat sauce.

Hold the trans fats. :)

I wanted to make plain that I was referencing Conrad NOT Coppola.
Plus, there are certainly posters who wouldn't get either, and my point was blank without the reference. I try not to do that.

Sure - why not ?
So, let us put a spin on it:
Some women are best described as "cockteasers". While raping them is obviously out, how should they be punished ? After all, every freedom and action has consequences.
Maybe you should call the fashion police and have them arrested for looking too pretty.

Sure - why not ?
So, let us put a spin on it:
Some women are best described as "cockteasers". While raping them is obviously out, how should they be punished ? After all, every freedom and action has consequences.


you dont go out with them any more and you tell your friends that she doesnt put out no matter how flirtatious she seems.

you dont go out with them any more and you tell your friends that she doesnt put out no matter how flirtatious she seems.

Women who are described as "cockteases" are often nothing of the sort.

Men who have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and believe that hot looking girls obviously want a lot of sex from random men, are the ones likely to label women in this way.

you dont go out with them any more and you tell your friends that she doesnt put out no matter how flirtatious she seems.

Or ... go out with her repeatedly, and beg her for sex. Then when she says yes, suddenly 'discover' that your mother is in hospital and leave, pausing only to make another date. Bring flowers and chocolates to apologize for the misunderstanding. Beg her for sex again, and if she says yes, suddenly remember that you left the cat out and leave, pausing only to propose marriage. Bring a fat diamond ring to show that you really meant it, and beg for sex some more. She probably has the suss now, so perhaps employ violins or kittens to disturb her judgement. When she says yes the third time ... tell her how ugly and ill-natured she is, and that you wouldn't sleep with her if she was the last man alive. Then jump on the back of your boyfriend's Harley (the one you bought for him) and boom outa there.

Lots of effort and expense, I guess. But it would sure make the point. ;)

Some women are best described as "cockteasers". While raping them is obviously out, how should they be punished ? After all, every freedom and action has consequences.

Carrying out vigilante 'justice' on someone who hasn't actually committed a crime is also an action that could have consequences.

Women who are described as "cockteases" are often nothing of the sort.

Men who have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and believe that hot looking girls obviously want a lot of sex from random men, are the ones likely to label women in this way.

well yes but that is no reason to go out with her again now is it?

Or ... go out with her repeatedly, and beg her for sex. Then when she says yes, suddenly 'discover' that your mother is in hospital and leave, pausing only to make another date. Bring flowers and chocolates to apologize for the misunderstanding. Beg her for sex again, and if she says yes, suddenly remember that you left the cat out and leave, pausing only to propose marriage. Bring a fat diamond ring to show that you really meant it, and beg for sex some more. She probably has the suss now, so perhaps employ violins or kittens to disturb her judgement. When she says yes the third time ... tell her how ugly and ill-natured she is, and that you wouldn't sleep with her if she was the last man alive. Then jump on the back of your boyfriend's Harley (the one you bought for him) and boom outa there.

Lots of effort and expense, I guess. But it would sure make the point. ;)

lol yes it would.

if the point is that you are insane.

Sure - why not ?
So, let us put a spin on it:
Some women are best described as "cockteasers". While raping them is obviously out, how should they be punished ? After all, every freedom and action has consequences.Oh-kay, let me put it this way. I knew a girl once (when I was a young and testosterone driven little munchkin) - she was very sexy, always wore (no pun intended) skirts that could be mistaken to be belts, teased guys, always got drunk at the bar I was working (yeah, illegally, I was too young to even go there, legal age of drinking is 18 around here) and made passes at me more than once. I wanted her; no, I craved for her and one night she got drunk at the bar, I was off early that day and we got to kissing at a corner table. I took her to a friend's place, sheteased and played all night and I may even have begged, I'm not sure, but no sex happened.

Can you guess why?

The thought of raping her did not even cross my mind, that's why.

Although I started to put a couple of extra beers on her tab from then on to cover my own quota excesses but I'm not proud of it. :)

Cheerio!

hold The Trans Fats. :)

More like "trans hats" amirite?

And I'm spent.

This idea of there being a "fine line" with rape is such rubbish.
If you are unable to tell whether your partner wants to be having sex with you, then ask. Really, if you are unable to tell whether your partner/date wants to be having sex with you, then you probably need psychological help. And if you don't mind whether they want to be having sex with you, then you definitly need psychological help.

But I'll make it simple for those people who seem to think there's some blurred line between consensual sex and nonconsenual sex:

If the woman/man is crying, is sobbing, is whimpering, is shouting for help, begging you to stop, has to be held down on the bed, is looking at you with horror, is unconcious, is so drunk she/he is unable to speak, is so drunk she/he is unaware of her surroundings, is asking "why are you doing this?", is pushing you away, is struggling to get away from you, had to be shouted into submission, had to be physically forced, had to be threatened or had to be intimidated then she/he does not want to be having sex and you are raping them.

I think all those signs are pretty clear signs, and I think anyone who is having sex forced on them will show at least one of these signs.

If they are looking scared, looking very uncomfortable, cannot meet your eye, are showing no signs or enjoyment, or are wincing in pain then they might not want to be having sex with you, and you should check. I would assume that at regular points during sex you would be noticing your partner and become aware of any of these things.

Did you ever try to get leather pants off of someone who doesn't want to take them off? That's actually the biggest problem of an eskimo rapist. Up at the north pole where it's rather cold and things tend to shrink..

So if more women used tight leather pants world would be a safer place, those things don't look too bad either. :p

Women who are described as "cockteases" are often nothing of the sort.

Men who have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and believe that hot looking girls obviously want a lot of sex from random men, are the ones likely to label women in this way.
I disagree. There are women whose sense of self-worth appears to primarily derive from being desired. A number of these do not want to have sex with the men they wish to affirm their attractiveness, and thus become teasers of penises, creating maximum amounts of sexual frustration. Then there are also a handful who sexually tease certain men for the same reasons any person teases any other person in any fashion - some sense of schadenfreude.

It is one thing to be attractive, or dress in a provocative manner; it is another altogether to engage in flirtatious behavior.

Men who tease women in a similar fashion are rarer, but do exist. It is not yet considered as apropos for a woman to call a man a "****-tease" as a man to call a woman a "cock-tease," just as many have difficulty with the idea that a man might file a sexual harassment suit against a woman.

Did you ever try to get leather pants off of someone who doesn't want to take them off? That's actually the biggest problem of an eskimo rapist. Up at the north pole where it's rather cold and things tend to shrink..

So if more women used tight leather pants world would be a safer place, those things don't look too bad either. :p

as the Late George Carlin said (from memory)
Ever tried to remove Leather leggins off of a women who doesn't want them off? you'll lose your hard on in an instant!

Yeah rape CAN be funny and apparently he (Carlin) was right. I at least lol'd a bit when reading this thread.

I disagree. There are women whose sense of self-worth appears to primarily derive from being desired. A number of these do not want to have sex with the men they wish to affirm their attractiveness, and thus become teasers of penises, creating maximum amounts of sexual frustration. Then there are also a handful who sexually tease certain men for the same reasons any person teases any other person in any fashion - some sense of schadenfreude.

It is one thing to be attractive, or dress in a provocative manner; it is another altogether to engage in flirtatious behavior.

Men who tease women in a similar fashion are rarer, but do exist. It is not yet considered as apropos for a woman to call a man a "****-tease" as a man to call a woman a "cock-tease," just as many have difficulty with the idea that a man might file a sexual harassment suit against a woman.
i read an article a while back about men who enjoy doing just that. they get a woman in bed then just leave her there unfucked.

i dont even remember where i read it but the author seemed to think it was a real phenomenon.

i read an article a while back about men who enjoy doing just that. they get a woman in bed then just leave her there unfucked.

i dont even remember where i read it but the author seemed to think it was a real phenomenon.
I think it's one of those things where it's only newsworthy because it's a man doing it to a woman, and that it completely goes against the grain of the "traditional" perspective on male sexuality, particularly the sexuality of unattached straight men (that they are always willing to supply sex).

I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's a growing trend, but it's probably still very rare. I say this, of course, as a man who has actually been accused of being a terrible tease. It's quite possible that we will achieve equity in the field of teasing, or that the proportions may eventually reverse, but I don't think we're there yet, or that we'll get there within the next decade.

Addendum: That Jolt censors the equivalent slang for female genitalia as "cock" is, I think, not unrelated to the variance in perception of male and female sexualities... somehow, it's considered more vulgar.

I think it's one of those things where it's only newsworthy because it's a man doing it to a woman, and that it completely goes against the grain of the "traditional" perspective on male sexuality, particularly the sexuality of unattached straight men (that they are always willing to supply sex).

I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's a growing trend, but it's probably still very rare. I say this, of course, as a man who has actually been accused of being a terrible tease. It's quite possible that we will achieve equity in the field of teasing, or that the proportions may eventually reverse, but I don't think we're there yet, or that we'll get there within the next decade.

Addendum: That Jolt censors the equivalent slang for female genitalia as "cock" is, I think, not unrelated to the variance in perception of male and female sexualities... somehow, it's considered more vulgar.
going through all the trouble to seduce someone then not follow through on it (barring finding that you are not interested in sex with them after all) is an odd way of punishing the opposite sex. it seems far too dramatic to me. some people love drama.

there are less vulgar words for female genitalia that the censor will let through......

ARE there any words for male genitals that are still too vulgar for your mother to use?

no one is ever blameworthy for being raped.

it's still true! :eek:

going through all the trouble to seduce someone then not follow through on it (barring finding that you are not interested in sex with them after all) is an odd way of punishing the opposite sex. it seems far too dramatic to me. some people love drama.

there are less vulgar words for female genitalia that the censor will let through......

ARE there any words for male genitals that are still too vulgar for your mother to use?
I don't think any of the words for male genitals are considered vulgar enough for the filter. (The Vagina Monologue folks have a real point in saying we need to get over this).

Dick. Cock. Penis. Dork. Willy. Wang. Chode. Jimmy. Schlong. Pecker. Dong. Yep. Male genitals are inherently less vulgar than female genitals. Go figure.

i dont think that there are any of those that you cant say in front of your mother.

i dont think that there are any of those that you cant say in front of your mother.

I could say any of them in front of my mother, but I don't know that the majority of people could say "cock" in front of their mothers. Clearly we need to conduct some polling on this.

I could say any of them in front of my mother, but I don't know that the majority of people could say "cock" in front of their mothers. Clearly we need to conduct some polling on this.
it depends on the context i think.

I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, I don't have time at the moment to go through all posts on this one, but has anybody guessed who the "Wise NSG Poster" is yet?

Thank you.

Also.....really, NSG? Really?

He sums it up most convincingly when he says:


It is elegant, obvious, yet inexorably true. If a woman wants to be attractive, of course she deserves at least SOME blame for being raped.

Not very convincing to me (nor true).

Anyone notice this thread only perpetuates the stereotype that only attractive people get raped?

Anyone notice this thread only perpetuates the stereotype that only attractive people get raped?
it tries to but i dont think it succeeds.

Anyone notice this thread only perpetuates the stereotype that only attractive people get raped?

Much like Missing White Woman Syndrome, people only care about rape when it involves the beautiful people.

Much like Missing White Woman Syndrome, people only care about rape when it involves the beautiful people.

And let's not forget the Sensitive Assholes who will make a comment on rapes of people who aren't considered attractive by social norms to the effect of "Why are they complaining? They finally got some."

I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, I don't have time at the moment to go through all posts on this one, but has anybody guessed who the "Wise NSG Poster" is yet?

Thank you.

Also.....really, NSG? Really?

I'm pretty sure calling the poster out by name would be considered flaming. Which is obviously your whole plan, you sadistic bastard. I mean, your whole plan outside of raping women and trying to toast bacon.

Really.