# Marital Rape



## DlusionAl (Apr 9, 2011)

Im going to stick with actions speak louder than words concept

you can say no, but if you show yes, its a yes in my book.


----------



## kristle (Oct 21, 2010)

No means no, but it's usually a lot more complicated than that.

Take the following as an example: Man marries woman and has a prenup that states having sex outside of the marriage means he loses some serious momentary assets come divorce time. Now, woman knows this and withholds sex in an attempt to win her way in arguments that would otherwise have to be talked over and compromised on. 

This can occasionally create a really complicated situation where the women will use non-physical harm that is harder to place a value on, and the man will react with physical harm that is easy to place a finger on.

In this situation I still think it would be despicable for the man to force himself on the woman. However, isn't that the cause and effect just waiting to happen here? He can't go outside the marriage, he's turned down inside and even if he hits the divorce button he's still looking at a lengthy amount of time that she's controlling his sexual options.

I don't know. I would never deny my husband unless it was for a short, agreed upon time, or we were splitting up. And on the same token he would always agree to that time and never turn to rape. Married couples are supposed to be eachother's sexual outlets. Turn that valve off and you're just asking for trouble. 

**I'm sure there is a reverse gender situation out there where the woman is being the rapist. I'm not implying otherwise. This is just the greyest, possible situation I could come up with for general discussion.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

None of the 'tircky' examples are specific to marriage, opinion. They could just as easily happen between two non-stranger adults.



bigtex1989 said:


> I don't think sexual arousal is an accurate indicator of consent. Maybe that's just me though. I do think this issue may be a lot less black and white than originally anticipated!


It isn't. It's quite common for rape victims to show signs of arousal. It's more a physical response and protection mechanism than consent. I.e. if the vagina lubricates etc. it minimises injury.



FearsomeCritter said:


> Thank you, for this lovely sexist comment.


I didn't see that comment as sexist. I see it as her simply stating what some men might think. And trust me, some men do think that way. . . and they have the backing of the courts too. Spousal rate does not exist in many countries, and it's usually because of that kind of thinking.



kristle said:


> No means no, but it's usually a lot more complicated than that.
> 
> Take the following as an example: Man marries woman and has a prenup that states having sex outside of the marriage means he loses some serious momentary assets come divorce time. Now, woman knows this and withholds sex in an attempt to win her way in arguments that would otherwise have to be talked over and compromised on.
> 
> ...


That is no excuse for rape. The perpetrator, not the victim, is at fault.
She doesn't have sex with him. But he can go with out. It's not a life-threatening condition to do so. 
And if really feels than he can't go without then he can go outside the marriage and it might not be seen as a breach of contract since his actions since she is contributing to the situation and forcing him down that route (a bit like a constructive dismissal scenario). AND he could divorce her.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

DlusionAl said:


> Im going to stick with actions speak louder than words concept
> 
> you can say no, but if you show yes, its a yes in my book.


I would advise anyone to stop at 'no'. The rest is too open to interpretation.
You can't read minds, so best to go with what has been said.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> I didn't see that comment as sexist. I see it as her simply stating what some men might think. And trust me, some men do think that way. . . and they have the backing of the courts too. Spousal rate does not exist in many countries, and it's usually because of that kind of thinking.


Thank you. It wasn't intended as a sexist comment, and his posting wasn't worth responding too. I knew when i left it someone would take it out of context, no doubt a man  I actually read it in a article one time, women who have been raped by their husbands. This was what they stated as the reason behind it being o.k in the eyes of their husbands.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> I see it as her simply stating what some men might think.


Yeah, men, those lot of folk that rape.

Sexist: Some men might think no means yes and in turn rape.
Non-sexist: Some people might think no means yes and in turn rape.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Thank you. It wasn't intended as a sexist comment, and his posting wasn't worth responding too. I knew when i left it someone would take it out of context, no doubt a man  I actually read it in a article one time, women who have been raped by their husbands. This was what they stated as the reason behind it being o.k in the eyes of their husbands.


were those words from the husbands mouth? Otherwise it's specious and speculative.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> And trust me, some men do think that way. . . and they have the backing of the courts too. Spousal rate does not exist in many countries, and it's usually because of that kind of thinking.


Is it safe to say that those thoughts whom you identify with will lead you to be more defensive of opposing opinion and divisive with pedantic like categorization to defined convictions of others?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> were those words from the husbands mouth? Otherwise it's specious and speculative.


I don't know. All i know is it was from the wife's mouth, that is enough for me. If she says she was raped, i believe it. End of story.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Yeah, men, those lot of folk that rape.
> 
> Sexist: Some men might think no means yes and in turn rape.
> Non-sexist: Some people might think no means yes and in turn rape.


*Correction*

Sexist: I think that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
Non Sexist: Some men think that some women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.

The first one is expressing an opinion - a sexist one.
The second one is just stating an occurrence.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> *Correction*
> 
> Sexist: I think that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
> Non Sexist: Some men think that some women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
> ...


Well that depends on if it's a thought from someone saying some men, or a statistic from a study that states some men, or an interview of some men stating that they did in fact rape, or that there was evidence to prove that some men did rape, and I'm willing to bet the former is apart of the posters example and not the latter.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> were those words from the husbands mouth? Otherwise it's specious and speculative.


You don't believe that a man could think this?

Some men do think this way.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Yeah, men, those lot of folk that rape.


Yes they do 'rape'.

However, in some societies, it wouldn't be seen as rape. Sex is seen as a wifely obligation and therefore in the eyes of the law (and society) a man cannot rape his wife.
Did you even read the wikipedia article?

It's not that far-fetched.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> You don't believe that a man could think this?


Possible, meaning it can or cannot, but not probable meaning it has some truth to it happening or all truth in it happening.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Well that depends on if it's a thought from someone saying some men, or a statistic from a study that states some men, and I'm willing to bet the former is apart of the posters example and not the latter.


You don't need a study for every statement.

If I said "some men don't eat chicken" would I need a statistic for that? It's bleedingly obvious.

But in any case:

Marital rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bear in mind that in many countries (and no I don't have stats) that women are little more than chattel. So it stands to reason that they will think that a woman's duty is to have sex.

Until recently some states in the US that didn't regard spousal rape as a crime. And I wouldn't be surprised if some parts of it were still reluctant to treat it as a crime.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

ChanceyRose said:


> Consider this is a marriage or long term relationship with a history of some form of non-physical abuse. What if person B (the woman) believes that giving in to person A's (the man's) demands is the only way he'll leave her alone. Or, what if she believes that telling him no will only escalate the situation to the point of violence?
> 
> As @bigtex1989 indicated, I don't think this is as clear cut as stranger rape. No should mean no but does it?


I think it's rape only under the threat of violence and physical force (she's physically being held down and in place).

In the above senario, the abuse has been non-physical to date but the woman fears it may become physical. That's tricky. I would say it's not rape because she is afraid or presuming he may become violent. Her gut instincts might be right but she has no proof of that.

I would say this case only becomes rape when she physically and verbally resists and is met with physical force -- otherwise, it's psychological intimidation. The husband is being selfish and inconsiderate, but I don't think it's rape since she is not resisting and has given her consent by giving in. True she has given in because of fear, but it's unsubstantiated fear because he hasn't been violent before.

In the other cases I think that the man may feel like she protested at first but after a little cajoling he got her in the mood and _seduced_ her.

I am all for women's rights, but men are people too and they have to be protected against false accusations of rape -- since it's a very serious charge. In a court of law there has to be evidence she feared for her life or her health and well being were in danger if she didn't verbally and physically protest. 

Men rape. But women also lie about _being_ raped. Therefore, there has to be evidence she was in danger, and I don't believe this woman in this senario has reasonable evidence to conclude that.


----------



## kristle (Oct 21, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> However, in some societies, it wouldn't be seen as rape. Sex is seen as a wifely obligation and therefore in the eyes of the law (and society) a man cannot rape his wife.
> Did you even read the wikipedia article?
> 
> It's not that far-fetched.


I think those societies are usually where the man is not really allowed to go outside of his marriage to fulfill himself should the wife turn him down. As a rule of thumb I think it's fair enough to say Americans might frown on extramarital affairs, but they are undeniable common, and not very socially ostracizing. :sad: So with that said it's unlikely marital rape would be accepted (or ever need to be accepted) in America since we would just expect the spouse not getting any to go elsewhere or select a new spouse (or hell, not even be married in the first place).

In a place where that is not an option there is going to be more of leeway for the man. The woman also picks up sex as more of duty then a recreational choice for the evening. If they are not allowed to divorce, and he is not allowed to go elsewhere now we're talking about more then just sex. It becomes an issue of being able to have children or not. What if having children is necessary to their way of life? I don't think either one of them should be able to single handedly make that kind of family choice without the involvement of the other - not by rape and not by denying the man.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> You don't need a study for every statement.
> 
> If I said "some men don't eat chicken" would I need a statistic for that? It's bleedingly obvious.
> 
> ...


Well, any evidence in forensics is gone out the wayside so yeah prosecution is seemingly improbable if not impossible.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

kristle said:


> I think those societies are usually where the man is not really allowed to go outside of his marriage to fulfill himself should the wife turn him down. As a rule of thumb I think it's fair enough to say Americans might frown on extramarital affairs, but they are undeniable common, and not very socially ostracizing. :sad: So with that said it's unlikely marital rape would be accepted (or ever need to be accepted) in America since we would just expect the spouse not getting any to go elsewhere or select a new spouse (or hell, not even be married in the first place).
> 
> In a place where that is not an option there is going to be more of leeway for the man. The woman also picks up sex as more of duty then a recreational choice for the evening. If they are not allowed to divorce, and he is not allowed to go elsewhere now we're talking about more then just sex. It becomes an issue of being able to have children or not. What if having children is necessary to their way of life? I don't think either one of them should be able to single handedly make that kind of family choice without the involvement of the other - not by rape and not by denying the man.


Divorce and extra-marital affairs did not begin 20 year ago in the US. But some US states only outlawed marital rape less than 20 years ago. . . and even then it was seen as a lesser crime.

I don't think that's particularly relevant.
It's more to do with the status (or perceived lack of status) of women.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Well, any evidence in forensics is gone out the wayside so yeah prosecution is seemingly improbable if not impossible.


It's not easy to prosecute.
But rape, in general, is hard to prosecute.
That stat (yes stats) on rape convictions are usually appalling even with physical evidence.

A lot of rapes go un-reported and that is probably even more so with spousal rape.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

twoofthree said:


> Divorce and extra-marital affairs did not begin 20 year ago in the US. But some US states only outlawed marital rape less than 20 years ago. . . and even then it was seen as a lesser crime.
> 
> I don't think that's particularly relevant.
> It's more to do with the status (or perceived lack of status) of women.


I think you two are _both_ right. 

I think some women use sex as a "weapon" by withholding it to get what they want and that is cruel. It also puts men in a position of forced celibacy. If they cheat they risk losing their marriage, their children, their home and a lot of money.
I am of the opinion that while men and women are equal we are also different. Men seem to _need_ sex more than women do. And the husband and wife are supposed to be the others sexual outlet as Krstal said. I think men in general are fairly understanding of this in women but are women understanding of men's sexual needs in the West? I think less so.

This becomes might be more clear if the roles were reversed. How would a woman feel if her husband turned her down for sex? Shocked, appalled, insulted, unwanted. But women expect men to accept being turned down all the time and to just deal with it.

On the other hand, this is never grounds to force sex on their wives. It's hard to deal with, true but it's quite possible to go without and either work out the relationship or leave it. It only takes a couple of months to become legally separated, during which time sex outside the marriage is legal.

But I also agree that in many countries, including the West (until rather recently) -- forced sex within a marriage didn't constitue rape.
People believed it wasn't possible to "rape" your _wife_ simply because she was your wife. Some may have viewed it as unkind and cruel but not rape.

I think in many countries it is acceptable to abuse your wife in this way and no one would consider it rape.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> I'm sorry, my internet persona is indeed ENTJ, outside though I am a heartfelt P.


lulz...so ENTP?

K...that was my second guess...


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

fourtines said:


> lulz...so ENTP?
> 
> K...that was my second guess...


Bring it kitty, you no scare me wit dat hoody.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Bring it kitty, you no scare me wit dat hoody.


I iz gangsta kitteh! 

*looks fierce*


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

@Thomas D M Thompson I think that people who lie about being raped are just as bad as the rapists.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

@fourtines raised a set of very valid points. Both in England and the US the Puritan movement caused serious damage in legislation terms. Many people use the turn of phrase "a rule of thumb", but the etymology of that phrase is legal. In the days of Puritan Christian jurisprudence, marital rape was not possible because the Christian marriage contract describes the husband and wife as one entity, with the husband as "Lord and Master". As one entity, the woman couldn't withhold consent from herself right? The same is the case of the rule of thumb. A husband could beat his wife with a stick that was as thick as his thumb. No thicker, as Christianity is truly compassionate, and God would be horrified at beaten women with sticks thicker than their husband's thumbs...

Anyhow, not the point. Marital rape exists only in certain jurisdictions as an offence, but equally what "rape" even is differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In many European countries, the crux of rape lies in force. So it is "forcible sex", in most Common Law countries the issue is one of consent. Rape of any ilk is hard to prove/disprove. And as someone who sees the trial process from some considerable proximity; I assure you it is harrowing for both complainant and defendant. The standard of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt" means that a lawyer's duty carries them to attacking the other side's credibility. I've seen complainants reduced to tears and even faint in the witness box under fire. I've seen defendants get angry, tearful and violent in witness boxes. One of the major reasons that rape and domestic violence go so frequently unreported is precisely this. The trial is long, the offence hard to prove, and the court battle is vicious. It's not for the faint hearted, and in a court room, the jury is quite literally judging you, which I imagine is not fun for parties that aren't barristers...


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

Some of the replies I read in this thread are scary. I don't think this is a black and white, cut and dry issue that no just means no. There are all kinds of different scenarios and they need to be looked at by a case by case basiis. For a majority of the time, I would agree no means no. And i don't think that men should be able to just take their wives or girlfriends whenever they have the urge and that the wife has no say in the matter. Actually, that goes for both sexes, woman don't have any more right to force their partners into sex than men do. 

Some interesting scenarios were brought up by some people and they were very grey, in my opinion. Like the whole foreplay scenarios. At first one of the partners may not be totally into to it, and the other presses the issue a little by preceeding witht some foreplay and sex ensues. If the other person starts to get into to it, even though they already said no, I really don't think that is rape? On the other hand if they don't warm to the idea, and the partner still persists, that is a different matter.

Sex is an interesting thing because it has many uses. If it was only for procreation to carry on the species, then why can it be so pleasureable? It can also be used to show intimacy or love. And some can use or abuse it for power or control. This is why I don't feel that the "no means no" is not applicable 100% of the time. Nothing is ever absolute 100% of the time and if someone says otherwise, I would be really cautious of that person. The hardcore moralists or extremists can be just as dangerous as people committing the crimes. They often are not openminded enough to see anything other than their own opininion and they tend to like to force that on everyone. Good topic to debate though!


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

lifeisanillusion said:


> Some of the replies I read in this thread are scary. I don't think this is a black and white, cut and dry issue that *no just means no*. There are all kinds of different scenarios and they need to be looked at by a case by case basiis. For a majority of the time, I would agree no means no. And i don't think that men should be able to just take their wives or girlfriends whenever they have the urge and that the wife has no say in the matter. Actually, that goes for both sexes, woman don't have any more right to force their partners into sex than men do.
> 
> Some interesting scenarios were brought up by some people and they were very grey, in my opinion. Like the whole foreplay scenarios. At first one of the partners may not be totally into to it, and the other presses the issue a little by preceeding witht some foreplay and sex ensues. If the other person starts to get into to it, even though they already said no, I really don't think that is rape? On the other hand if they don't warm to the idea, and the partner still persists, that is a different matter.
> 
> Sex is an interesting thing because it has many uses. If it was only for procreation to carry on the species, then why can it be so pleasureable? It can also be used to show intimacy or love. And some can use or abuse it for power or control. This is why I don't feel that the "no means no" is not applicable 100% of the time. Nothing is ever absolute 100% of the time and if someone says otherwise, I would be really cautious of that person. The hardcore moralists or extremists can be just as dangerous as people committing the crimes. They often are not openminded enough to see anything other than their own opininion and they tend to like to force that on everyone. Good topic to debate though!


Some people, especially those who have been sexually abused in the past, learn that to say "no" is to open ones self up to attack. Saying no is dangerous because the violence of the rapist escalates at that point. Giving in to the demands or as you described, pressure, of a rapist promotes the chances of survival. It also gives the victim a sense (however false) of power over the situation. Rape isn't just about the power of the rapist. At the core of all the psychological damage done to the survivor is that same issue. The illusion that they had sovereignty over their own body has been destroyed and that is what drives the various coping mechanisms that rape survivors employ. 

That idea that no doesn't always mean no is exactly the defense of rapists who deny their crime but can't deny having had sex with the victim. This is how 98% of all rapists manage to never serve time in prison. More than half of them never even get reported to the police because of this kind of mentality. To accept such a deplorable excuse to commit one of the most egregious crimes a person can commit against another is to validate rape as acceptable. No _*always *_means no but it's not enough because as you said, what if a person can just make their partner feel like the issue is going to be forced until they give in? Yes means yes. To accept anything less than enthusiastic interest as a green light for consent is coercion at best. That is an issue of power and relates to rape. It could never even touch the true intimacy of sex.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

lifeisanillusion said:


> Some of the replies I read in this thread are scary. I don't think this is a black and white, cut and dry issue that no just means no. There are all kinds of different scenarios and they need to be looked at by a case by case basiis. For a majority of the time, I would agree no means no. And i don't think that men should be able to just take their wives or girlfriends whenever they have the urge and that the wife has no say in the matter. Actually, that goes for both sexes, woman don't have any more right to force their partners into sex than men do.
> 
> Some interesting scenarios were brought up by some people and they were very grey, in my opinion. Like the whole foreplay scenarios. At first one of the partners may not be totally into to it, and the other presses the issue a little by preceeding witht some foreplay and sex ensues. If the other person starts to get into to it, even though they already said no, I really don't think that is rape? On the other hand if they don't warm to the idea, and the partner still persists, that is a different matter.
> 
> Sex is an interesting thing because it has many uses. If it was only for procreation to carry on the species, then why can it be so pleasureable? It can also be used to show intimacy or love. And some can use or abuse it for power or control. This is why I don't feel that the "no means no" is not applicable 100% of the time. Nothing is ever absolute 100% of the time and if someone says otherwise, I would be really cautious of that person. The hardcore moralists or extremists can be just as dangerous as people committing the crimes. They often are not openminded enough to see anything other than their own opininion and they tend to like to force that on everyone. Good topic to debate though!


She consent to foreplay but not full sex.

Or in the case of Julian Assange, she could consent, but cry rape on the count that he refused to wear a condom.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> She consent to foreplay but not full sex.
> 
> Or in the case of Julian Assange, she could consent, but cry rape on the count that he refused to wear a condom.


Aye, but that is because in Sweden, the definition of rape is one of degree. The degree of force used etc. It is a "forcible sex" definition. If the complainant was "forced" to have sex without a condom, then it becomes one of the degrees of rape per the laws of Sweden.


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

True that whole idea of implied consent just flew out the window.Example A flirts with B in a bar then goes home with him.She wakes up next morning too hung over to recall what happened.B says they had sex and A believes that it must have been rape because she didn't remember saying yes.In court witnesses say that they saw A flirting with B and willingly leave the bar with him.

Is this implied consent or is she too drunk to be able to agree to having sex with B?Did he take advantage of her condition?

Well something like that happened where I live earlier this year.A footballer (Australian Rules) was accused of raping and impregnating a teenage schoolgirl.While a team mate of his took pictures.The school girl changed her story that many times and her pregnancy was a lie.Several players had their reputations dragged through the mud when they were actually innocent.The publicity and media attention the girl received added fuel to the fire.The manager of several of the players involved had consensual sex ?? with the teenager (he was 47,she 17)It was obvious that she set him up.

What he did was wrong,but she deliberately lied to get these men in trouble and received payment from several magazines for her story and was featured on " 60 minutes".Troubled teen or conniving money grabbing bitch!!You be the judge.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

Ozziechick1966 said:


> True that whole idea of implied consent just flew out the window.Example A flirts with B in a bar then goes home with him.She wakes up next morning too hung over to recall what happened.B says they had sex and A believes that it must have been rape because she didn't remember saying yes.In court witnesses say that they saw A flirting with B and willingly leave the bar with him.
> 
> Is this implied consent or is she too drunk to be able to agree to having sex with B?Did he take advantage of her condition?
> 
> ...


Was that the hawthorn blokes that copped that? I remember hearing something like that happened to hawthorn (But really I don't think any team has hasnt had that happen)


As for the OP No means No, rape etc is not on, it is the lowest of the low that even the scum of the earth would spit on. Also if you do it to your partner then you've sunk eons lower because you have also broken a bond of trust and safety

Anyone who does that stuff deserves to be celled up with chopper


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Ozziechick1966 said:


> True that whole idea of implied consent just flew out the window.Example A flirts with B in a bar then goes home with him.She wakes up next morning too hung over to recall what happened.B says they had sex and A believes that it must have been rape because she didn't remember saying yes.In court witnesses say that they saw A flirting with B and willingly leave the bar with him.
> 
> Is this implied consent or is she too drunk to be able to agree to having sex with B?Did he take advantage of her condition?
> 
> ...


That's where judgement comes in.
As in, use your judgement, especially when you're in a prominent position, and don't sleep with every hot young thing that offers.


----------



## MXZCCT (May 29, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> Some people, especially those who have been sexually abused in the past, learn that to say "no" is to open ones self up to attack. Saying no is dangerous because the violence of the rapist escalates at that point. Giving in to the demands or as you described, pressure, of a rapist promotes the chances of survival. It also gives the victim a sense (however false) of power over the situation. Rape isn't just about the power of the rapist. At the core of all the psychological damage done to the survivor is that same issue. The illusion that they had sovereignty over their own body has been destroyed and that is what drives the various coping mechanisms that rape survivors employ.
> 
> That idea that no doesn't always mean no is exactly the defense of rapists who deny their crime but can't deny having had sex with the victim. This is how 98% of all rapists manage to never serve time in prison. More than half of them never even get reported to the police because of this kind of mentality. To accept such a deplorable excuse to commit one of the most egregious crimes a person can commit against another is to validate rape as acceptable. No _*always *_means no but it's not enough because as you said, what if a person can just make their partner feel like the issue is going to be forced until they give in? Yes means yes. To accept anything less than enthusiastic interest as a green light for consent is coercion at best. That is an issue of power and relates to rape. It could never even touch the true intimacy of sex.


I've seen what rape does to victims, firsthand. What you stated pretty much hits the nail on the head. Although rape is almost never committed without another crime, like domestic abuse. A relative of mine has a career in these dealings, she's an advocate for both of these crimes.

I've never understood why some of these women let these things go way to far, or why they actually take up defense for this guy when he may get in legal trouble. I understand the mentality "He's the man of the house, he is the financial security." But even then, I still cannot fathom why someone would put themselves through that.


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

@Vaan it was St Kilda,but yes other AFL teams have had similar scandals.The player manager involved was Ricky Nixon and he definitely had his brains in his dick when he slept with that teenager girl in a hotel room."Rick the dick"as in "dickhead" was what sprung to mind at the time.And yes @twoofthree you are right,but men in that position and I guess some women too have ego's so big and think that they are entitled to everything they want.Judgement probably doesn't enter into the equation when teenagers who look older than their years throw themselves at these elite athletes feet.

To add to my earlier post my ex husband used to have sex with me when I was asleep.He knew it was taboo as I am an insomniac and value what little sleep I can get.I'd wake up and tell him to stop but he would always continue even as I protested.And having our toddler son in the bed with us wasn't enough of a deterrent to him either.Again I would tell him "NO",and he would just proceed.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

I agree that in a society that views women as equals and not mere sexual/reproductive objects or marital possessions, there must be a right to refuse sex no matter their marital status. There are two big problems at work here, however.

1) What does "no" sound like, and when does it become absolute - as we all know, in the traditional female sexual submissive role where the male continues to flirt/goad/pressure, etc. for sex, an initial "no" may well be part of the foreplay, the welcome sexual tension as it were. Some women even feel that they "must" say "no" just so as not to appear too eager for sex, even though that's precisely what they want. There are probably dozens of other variations of this scenario.

2) How do you prove, legally and criminally, that a "no" (however you are defining it) actually occurred sufficient to know you're doing justice? In the overwhelming majority of "date rape" cases (and this is the most similar genre) it's purely a "he said, she said" scenario with no independent witnesses and no physical evidence. Rape is a HUGELY serious and stigmatizing criminal charge to have leveled against someone, and it even can stain the reputation if the person is later exonerated. Women have also been known to level false charges of abuse against men to better themselves and increase their child custody rights in divorce proceedings - this actually happens a lot more often than people talk about. 

We can cavalierly debate the rights and wrongs of "marital rape" as a philosophical matter, but it's an extremely difficult issue to incorporate into our legal doctrine and our justice system.


----------



## busyCHilD (Sep 1, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> That's where judgement comes in.
> As in, use your judgement, especially when you're in a prominent position, and don't sleep with every hot young thing that offers.


That isn't a fair assumption to make. Almost any guy is going to be sexually attracted to a young girl, that is the nature of things. Obviously these men didn't recognize the girl was using them, otherwise they would have said no to begin with. 

On another note, Women wielding sex to get what they want is about power, women don't need sex like men do, so who is any woman to say that withholding sex from a man (in certain instances) doesn't hurt him the same physiologically. When he is confined inside of marriage with no other alternative, he might take what he wants. 

If I didn't want to have sex, I wouldn't have bothered even meeting women. How frustrated would you be if your S/O all of a sudden began disregarding your sexual needs. Oh wait there is a whole other issue regarding how some men can't have sex with their wives after she gives birth. Those wive's aren't very happy about it. Think about how they feel and multiply that by however much more you think a man puts importance on sex.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

busyCHilD said:


> That isn't a fair assumption to make. Almost any guy is going to be sexually attracted to a young girl, that is the nature of things. Obviously these men didn't recognize the girl was using them, otherwise they would have said no to begin with.


Of course they're attracted. But that doesn't mean you have to act on it.
Be a bit more discerning.


----------



## busyCHilD (Sep 1, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Of course they're attracted. But that doesn't mean you have to act on it.
> Be a bit more discerning.


You're right it doesn't mean you have to act on it, but that doesn't mean anything either. If we are arguing morals, peoples' morals differ, and in the case of having sex with someone much younger than you, there isn't so much of a clear boundary. Also some people don't respect boundaries like other's do. I for instance do not care for any boundaries, but because I recognize their importance to the proper functioning of our society. I respect others boundaries when they present them to me, but in some cases, (since I have no real boundaries for myself, outside of the few I keep in order to remain a functioning member of society) this can lead to misunderstandings in intention if the boundary isn't actually stated. A lot of this debate seems to be around whether or not implied consent was given, I think a lot of marital rape cases could be avoided if the spouse only spoke up. 

I've never personally been in a non-violent spousal rape situation, but I could see how it would go down from the man's point of view.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

It's a shame that justice isn't truly blind, the gender roles and implications I've read in this thread are sad to note we are "still here" and haven't grown much.

No is an easily defined word and is a resulting answer of a choice given. People make choices everyday, consequences to all choices, yin and yang. People are responsible for their choices made, this is a genetic accountability we place on society and all individuals in accordance with what is defined to be socially acceptable. That doesn't mean it's "correct" just because it's a rule that we have defined. 

In a relationship such as marriage (of any kind) it's a joint union, when choice is "_truly_" given (*NO *ulterior motives present from either/any person(s)) the other person's answer/choice should be respected. In my opinion a persons right to choice in the terms of sexual activity should be protected by law as choice is one of the basic foundations of freedom.

People make good and bad choices. Some make all the wrong ones.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

MXZCCT said:


> I've seen what rape does to victims, firsthand. What you stated pretty much hits the nail on the head. Although rape is almost never committed without another crime, like domestic abuse. A relative of mine has a career in these dealings, she's an advocate for both of these crimes.
> 
> I've never understood why some of these women let these things go way to far, or why they actually take up defense for this guy when he may get in legal trouble. I understand the mentality "He's the man of the house, he is the financial security." But even then, I still cannot fathom why someone would put themselves through that.


People who take up for their abusers are usually people who have been abused their entire lives. The younger a person is when they learn that it's "normal", the more difficult it is to unlearn or even realize what constitutes as abuse. When you know no other life or lack the education to realize how much better things can be, a realization of how much better life can and should be is pretty far out of reach. Even if one were to approach someone who is being abused and explain out right how good things could be, there's still a mental block. It has to be actualized before they can fully realize that things don't have to be that way.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

redmanXNTP said:


> Please explain how all domestic violence can be stopped or at least punished, how that's not a utopian dream.


Why? I never suggested that all domestic violence could be stopped.



> I did read the article. I regard that single article as anecdotal. Yes, domestic violence needs to be further punished, but I've also outlined why punishment of it will always fall short, frustratingly so.
> 
> I'm not like you and it frustrates you. I don't think people are perfectable. People lie, cheat, steal. They act selfishly. They're morally weak. They're fearful. They hurt people. That's not unique to a particular gender, though the genders have different tendencies.


Oh, I know you're not like me but that's okay with me, really. I don't think people are perfectable either. But this thing about genders having different tendencies? Is that where you start talking about how women say no when they really mean yes? Or are you referring to something else? Because attributing that total lack of an ability to know or express what one wants to women, especially when it's in regard to sex...that's just plain wrong. That's something I've heard expressed on tv or Maxim magazine...but never from a real woman. That's the kind of sexism in the media that does so much damage to the prosecution of rape. If you really expect me to take statements like that seriously, you're going to have to provide evidence. I'm not talking about getting someone who lists themselves as female to post agreeing with you. I want stats from a credible source.



> Violence is as much a part of human nature and human life as sex, defacation and bad breath. I think we as a society try to urge people to do the best we can, and we try to force them to when they won't do their best. Even under the best of circumstances that will fall fall short because of how difficult it is to discern what goes on behind the proverbial closed doors in other peoples' relationships, much less beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the criminal standard for conviction in the US, of course).


Violence is an action so I couldn't agree that it's inborn. There may be a natural inclination toward aggression but the rest of it is environmental. At some point violence can be necessary for survival but I'm still pretty sure it's learned. Will need to do some research into that one though. Either way, people can still control their actions and can be held accountable for them for that reason. 



> I'm not a utopian. I'm not going to pretend that people or the systems or cultures or laws that they create are perfectable. I prefer to be realistic, not romantic. Maybe that bugs you. Maybe that makes you think I don't care. On the contrary, I care enough about this subject to look at it with open eyes. I respect the subject matter enough to be honest.
> 
> Again, if you think that there is a perfect cure to domestic violence or (to get back on topic here) marital rape, please lay it out. So far all you have done to respond to me is simply to say I'm wrong without explaining how.


I wish there was a perfect cure but that's about as utopian as I get. Besides that bit about no not always meaning no and the point you made about women having the upper hand in situations of domestic abuse, your attacks on my credibility were nasty, but that's whatever. If you honestly believe that women have the upper hand in situations of domestic abuse, you really need to do some research on domestic violence statistics. Otherwise such an assertion is theoretical with no grounding in reality and therefore pretty much useless to the discussion.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

I do not understand why so many people find it difficult to understand what constitutes consent. There seems to be some confusion about the idea that sometimes "no means yes", which of course is a defense that many rapists use. I think anyone with a reasonable level of sensitivity can tell the difference between acting out a fantasy and actually raping someone. If you are taking part in a fantasy that is so realistic that you can't tell the difference, then there should be some kind of safe word involved and a nessacery level of trust and understanding between you and your partner. Same goes for the concept of coercing someone into sex, if you don't understand what constitutes inappropriately pressuring someone into sex, then I really think that you must be lacking empathy and respect.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Blind faith in the words based on stereotyping a gender seems wrong.

If a woman accuses a guy of rape (without any knowledgeable evidence presented to you.) How many women would think she's telling the truth? Men?

If a man accuses a woman of rape (without any knowledgeable evidence presented to you.) How many women would think she's telling the truth? Men?

Then you have man raping a man, and woman raping another woman, etc....

If anyone answered yes to the above questions it's already cracking the foundation of the American justice system (which in the system advocates that a person is innocent until proven guilty), sadly justice is hardly ever truly captured. 


I do tend to see many people in this thread continuing to talk about rapists and keeping things gender neutral until they talk about victims or simply imply that males are the _only _rapists on women. So anyone calling for something being discriminating but using discriminating arguments towards their "cause" seems to be self-defeating themselves or at least losing credibility.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Oh also the more "blindly believed" something is the worse it is going to be for us. If it's believed a potential victim is correct in a situation of rape before any evidence is presented, how scared (in a scenario where it is truly false) would the accused "aggressor" be and feel hopeless to the fact people believe first then ask if there's proof even though their mind is slightly made up already. Some of these kinds of swift judgments are why people are getting divided with these kinds of things.

Many-a-time situations seem like crusades where one gender is being unjustly or under prejudice pursued which always starts a divide.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Oh also the more "blindly believed" something is the worse it is going to be for us. If it's believed a potential victim is correct in a situation of rape before any evidence is presented, how scared (in a scenario where it is truly false) would the accused "aggressor" be and feel hopeless to the fact people believe first then ask if there's proof even though their mind is slightly made up already. Some of these kinds of swift judgments are why people are getting divided with these kinds of things.


I doubt this is the case.

No one is convicted in 95% of rapes.
If there was a tendency to believe the victim, then we should have a higher conviction rate.

Also consider that 99% of rape offenders are male, and 91% of the victims are female.
You're more inclined to believe something that happens more often.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Luke said:


> I do not understand why so many people find it difficult to understand what constitutes consent. There seems to be some confusion about the idea that sometimes "no means yes", which of course is a defense that many rapists use. I think anyone with a reasonable level of sensitivity can tell the difference between acting out a fantasy and actually raping someone. If you are taking part in a fantasy that is so realistic that you can't tell the difference, then there should be some kind of safe word involved and a nessacery level of trust and understanding between you and your partner. Same goes for the concept of coercing someone into sex, if you don't understand what constitutes inappropriately pressuring someone into sex, then I really think that you must be lacking empathy and respect.


Yes, I agree.


I think this is pretty interesting to think about and I'll read through the entire thread (I've only read the first and last page) and post a better response this weekend.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> If there was a tendency to believe the victim, then we should have a higher conviction rate.
> 
> Also consider that 99% of rape offenders are male, and 91% of the victims are female.
> You're more inclined to believe something that happens more often.


. .



Hokahey said:


> Many-a-time situations seem like crusades where one gender is being unjustly or under prejudice pursued which always starts a divide.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

twoofthree said:


> Also consider that 99% of rape offenders are male, and 91% of the victims are female.
> You're more inclined to believe something that happens more often.


Still looking but I followed "wikipedia's" "source" and have yet to come across anything that says 99% of rape offenders are male. Even went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics where the "data" was suppose to come from, however I find nothing indicating this info, most of the data is all about the victims only.

Also that particular quote isn't linked to The Bureau of Labor Statistics but some other website, which also doesn't say 99% of offenders are male.


Edit: Nevermind I finally found a substantiated claim. Sorry. Though it is based on "arrests" which isn't convictions. But obviously any convictions from 99% of the "arrests" would still equal 99% of males anyway.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus8009.pdf


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> I do tend to see many people in this thread continuing to talk about rapists and keeping things gender neutral until they talk about victims or simply imply that males are the _only _rapists on women. So anyone calling for something being discriminating but using discriminating arguments towards their "cause" seems to be self-defeating themselves or at least losing credibility.


I don't think it's fair to assume that someone doesn't recognize that men can be raped and women can be rapists simply because they've referred the victims as female and rapists as male. It's very easy to have the inclination to refer to women as the victims and men as the aggressors because statistically speaking, these are the vast majority of cases that we hear about. A person isn't discriminating simply because they're not talking about men getting raped.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> I don't think it's fair to assume that someone doesn't recognize that men can be raped and women can be rapists simply because they've referred the victims as female and rapists as male. It's very easy to have the inclination to refer to women as the victims and men as the aggressors because statistically speaking, these are the vast majority of cases that we hear about. A person isn't discriminating simply because they're not talking about men getting raped.


I regress. It's just hard watching this thread because (guilt, innocence, lying, and not lying) are all being prejudiciously based on gender (through statistics) and I just find that limiting and "holding us back" from moving forward.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Luke said:


> I do not understand why so many people find it difficult to understand what constitutes consent.


I can't get this either and it kind of baffles/frightens me. I know everyone is different and has different experiences, but I have to say, in my entire sexual and romantic life I've never done anything with anyone where consent was ambiguous to my knowledge, and no one has ever said anything after the fact implying that my actions were inappropriate. I don't say this to brag, I think (or at least, I hope) the same can be said for most people. I'm just really baffled by men who seem to live in perpetual fear of being accused of rape or who write these tortured diatribes trying to come up with these ridiculous scenarios where rape isn't really rape, or where the man is justified without consent, or where it's very easy for the woman to falsely accuse a man of rape and maybe this happens all the time, and so on. I hate to sound judgmental but it really makes me think...not good things about a person. I feel like this sort of thing falls under a "if you have to ask if its rape..." type clause.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Regarding doubts about consent. . .

It's doubtful if it goes against what you want to hear. . . and what your hormones are urging you to do.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Still looking but I followed "wikipedia's" "source" and have yet to come across anything that says 99% of rape offenders are male. Even went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics where the "data" was suppose to come from, however I find nothing indicating this info, most of the data is all about the victims only.
> 
> Also that particular quote isn't linked to The Bureau of Labor Statistics but some other website, which also doesn't say 99% of offenders are male.
> 
> ...


First of all, it's true that the overwhelming majority of physical abuse occurs with male perpetrators upon females. It's not worth arguing the point, even if the 99% number is wrong. That, however, is the point I was making about the disadvantages that men have when there are accusations of domestic violence - it's not uncommon (no, I don't have numbers, but it came up often in my former (female) law partner's family law practice, for example) for women to make marks on themselves or even outright injure themselves to get their male partner locked up and to gain advantage in divorce and child custody proceedings. There in the last decade or two are even laws mandating arrest by police who respond to DV calls and who directly observe marks - even minor marks such as skin redness - on the purported victim that ostensibly substantiate the DV accusations. 

To portray women purely as wounded lambs in dysfunctional relationships is frankly disrespectful of women and unjust to men. 

My girlfriend's a psychologist who deals with troubled families, and who studied that as part of her PhD. She recently told me that the highest rates of domestic violence occur in lesbian households. Certainly, this is very much a minority population, and it also has its different dynamics, but it reinforces the idea that rape and violence in the domestic setting are best or fairly characterized as a male problem. 

Also, while I don't subscribe as much to this as many here do, on a board where so much attention gets paid to sets and subsets of gender identity, it's pretty funny that this point needs to be made at all.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Regarding doubts about consent. . .
> 
> It's doubtful if it goes against what you want to hear. . . and what your hormones are urging you to do.


I agree that anyone with any level of decency and common sense can and should be able to figure out whether their partner is willing to engage in sexual behavior with them. There's even room for error in this - I'm sure by some point in our 20's most of us have been in a situation where we were intimate with someone and tried to advance the effort, so to speak, perhaps by putting a hand somewhere, moving in for a kiss, whatever, and sensing the other person pulling back and not welcoming the advance. It happens, but you stop. 

There are people, particularly guys, who either don't get it or don't care and will continue, and they're jerks or worse. 

What I reject is the flat "no means no" nonsense. Romantic and sexual communication, which often includes a LOT of non-verbal signals, is far more complex than that. Moreover, people have very different communications styles, temperaments, physical comfort levels, etc., and often times they may be in doubt as to whether something feels like it's going too far until it actually starts to. I would think that concept would be particularly understandable by people who are members on a MBTI message board.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Luke said:


> I do not understand why so many people find it difficult to understand what constitutes consent.


I don't understand why so many people find it difficult to understand people lie. Both victim and rapist.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I feel like this sort of thing falls under a "if you have to ask if its rape..." type clause.


Are you saying only men fall into this question of "if you have to ask if it's rape...."?

I think @redmanXNTP makes a good point right here.



> What I reject is the flat "no means no" nonsense. Romantic and sexual communication, which often includes a LOT of non-verbal signals, is far more complex than that. Moreover, people have very different communications styles, temperaments, physical comfort levels, etc., and often times they may be in doubt as to whether something feels like it's going too far until it actually starts to. I would think that concept would be particularly understandable by people who are members on a MBTI message board.




And yes, women lie, just like men lie. No sure why that's a hard concept to grasp either.



> in my entire sexual and romantic life I've never done anything with anyone where consent was ambiguous to my knowledge, and no one has ever said anything after the fact implying that my actions were inappropriate.


Not everyone's sexual and romantic lives are "standard" and only follow the same circumstances and viewpoints. Also let's say someone did come forward and imply you acted inappropriately (where you didn't) how much would you be believed? Also what if you were falsely imprisoned because of it. Would you simply say "well it makes sense because statistics say this...."?

I doubt people "live in perpetual fear of false accusations" more like when the subject is brought up, people bring perspective related to their own filters/experiences. 

I'm not trying to give green lights for anyone to rape another human being. I just don't buy into "well this person says it happened, so they must be right because of statistics". I mean if that were the case we could just save a lot of money on trials because we would already know the outcomes we could just go to swift judgments and sentencing. 

Like red said, when is anything involving a romantic attachment _absolute _black and white? I understand No is actually an easily defined word, and choices are people's responsibilities. But I would think the purpose of the thread is to define all boundaries or at least more of them through discussion to better educate, or give clearer perspective, especially given the title of the thread as marital rape could be harder to define considering the relationship of the two people involved. Again, these aren't "green lights" but it's still not _necessarily black and white_.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

redmanXNTP said:


> First of all, it's true that the overwhelming majority of physical abuse occurs with male perpetrators upon females. It's not worth arguing the point, even if the 99% number is wrong. That, however, is the point I was making about the disadvantages that men have when there are accusations of domestic violence - it's not uncommon (no, I don't have numbers, but it came up often in my former (female) law partner's family law practice, for example) for women to make marks on themselves or even outright injure themselves to get their male partner locked up and to gain advantage in divorce and child custody proceedings. There in the last decade or two are even laws mandating arrest by police who respond to DV calls and who directly observe marks - even minor marks such as skin redness - on the purported victim that ostensibly substantiate the DV accusations.


This is where your arguments get frustrating because you are advocating for the falsely accused over objectivity, yet you acted earlier as if advocacy discredits my opinions. Personally, I don't think this alone is enough to discredit your position though. On the contrary, I think there is a valid fear of powerlessness over such situations that can easily become a challenge in any person's life. This fear is often fueled by high profile cases in the media and the way in which they are portrayed. But to believe that so-called victims are falsifying evidence in large proportions is to allow this fear to become blown out of proportion. This is why it's so important that you have some empirical data to back it up.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> This is where your arguments get frustrating because you are advocating for the falsely accused over objectivity, yet you acted earlier as if advocacy discredits my opinions. Personally, I don't think this alone is enough to discredit your position though. On the contrary, I think there is a valid fear of powerlessness over such situations that can easily become a challenge in any person's life. This fear is often fueled by high profile cases in the media and the way in which they are portrayed. But to believe that so-called victims are falsifying evidence in large proportions is to allow this fear to become blown out of proportion. This is why it's so important that you have some empirical data to back it up.


Just to be clear, you are an _*alleged*_ rape victim if you are bringing a case to trial, and a victim once the man has been found guilty.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> But to believe that so-called victims are falsifying evidence in large proportions is to allow this fear to become blown out of proportion.


But are all so-called accusations looked at with objectivity? This aligns the problem we face, an earlier poster said she believes the woman no matter what. Then there's others who believe the man no matter what. 

How many people believed Michael Jackson was guilty/or even still think he was guilty BEFORE he even went to trial? Why?

Sexual assaults generally aren't looked at objectively. Sometimes in favor of victims and other times not. Statistics shouldn't matter. Staying objective about anything is hard to do when dealing with the factual cruelty that people inflict on others.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Just to be clear, you are an _*alleged*_ rape victim if you are bringing a case to trial, and a victim once the _*perpetrator *_has been found guilty.


Fixed. Sorry.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Fixed. Sorry.


I'll thank you but it was intended that way for the advocacy of the poster I was quoting ^.^

And again, ALL statistics of rape brought to trial are bumpkis because of the following:

A woman has to admit that she lied in order for a rape charge to be determined as false, in most studies and in most courts and communities. Most, if not all, police departments will not declare a rape charge as false just because the complainant fails to pursue the charge or does not cooperate on the case, regardless how much doubt the police may have regarding the validity of the charge.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Just to be clear, you are an _*alleged*_ rape victim if you are bringing a case to trial, and a victim once the man has been found guilty.


A victim is still a victim even when a court of law fails to recognize it. A liar is still a liar even when a court of law can't prove it and an innocent person gets sent to prison. Quit needling me.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> A victim is still a victim even when a court of law fails to recognize it. A liar is still a liar even when a court of law can't prove it and an innocent person gets sent to prison. Quit needling me.


...not if they're lying lol.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> ...not if they're lying lol.


Seriously, what is the point of your flippancy if not to troll?


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> *Correction*
> 
> Sexist: I think that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
> Non Sexist: Some men think that some women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
> ...


an occurrence that's someone's opinion based on observation, and a sexist one at that. BOOYAH!


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> Seriously, what is the point of your flippancy if not to troll?


To make objectivity possible for your arguments.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> But are all so-called accusations looked at with objectivity? This aligns the problem we face, an earlier poster said she believes the woman no matter what. Then there's others who believe the man no matter what.
> 
> How many people believed Michael Jackson was guilty/or even still think he was guilty BEFORE he even went to trial? Why?
> 
> Sexual assaults generally aren't looked at objectively. Sometimes in favor of victims and other times not. Statistics shouldn't matter. Staying objective about anything is hard to do when dealing with the factual cruelty that people inflict on others.


Do you believe that there is anyone in this world that is absolutely, 100% not biased under any circumstance? Why do you criticize the lack of objectivity in sexual assault investigations yet say that some form of empirical data shouldn't matter? I mean really, if you're going to place this condition that objective criteria shouldn't be considered while asking questions that would require statistical data as answers, how do you expect me to discuss this with you? What are you even trying to tell me? That I shouldn't have the opinions that I do or take up for this cause that I believe in? Because that's what it looks like you're trying to tell me, so please correct me if I've misunderstood. Otherwise, that's a point you're going to have to accept that I won't be integrating.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> To make objectivity possible for your arguments.


Why then, did you just seemingly ignore half what I said that addressed exactly what you were trying to point out? You're not making any difference, you're just upping your post count with redundancy.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

snail said:


> I'm against violence, but I am glad that I'm not the only person who is angry about this. My abusive ex was a rapist, and even though we weren't legally married, we were living together for seven years and calling each other husband and wife. He sexually neglected me most of the time, but about once every three months or so, he would get frustrated with me and force himself on me to punish me for whatever it was he hated me for at the time. I said no, but he was bigger and stronger, so it didn't matter. I was scared of him because of his violence, and when he forced himself on me, I never fought back physically. I have been a lifelong pacifist. I tried to squirm away, I cried, but my signs of not wanting to participate rarely actually worked. Failure to effectively resist the attack is different from giving consent. If it weren't, then every victim would be at fault for allowing rape to happen, and the perpetrators would take no responsibility for their crimes.
> 
> Having a naturally responsive body is also different from giving consent. There have been situations with other people where my automatic bodily reactions have been mistaken for a desire for sex. There have been times when I had to repeatedly insist that I didn't want sex before someone stopped trying to pressure me, just because I moved a certain way while being cuddly, or my breathing changed to signal arousal. When someone says no, and when there is no alternative "safe word" agreed upon to be a substitute for saying no, then it is the attacker's moral responsibility to stop, even if the would-be victim is physically aroused.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not the only person who understands this.


Did I ever mention on this forum that I too was a rape victim? The guy did get convicted and was a male.

I know what the stigma is of every person thinking that I was gay after the incident and the prejudice by gay males that followed from that shit even getting verbally abused by those same jerks. That did not stop me one iota from getting the asshole what he deserved from the shit that happened. I didn’t care what was said; what was thought of me because that’s not my problem if people choose to be ignorant and judgmental, I’ll let God sort them out if need be. ALL BECAUSE I WAS A MAN they thought I had initiated the act and was playing a victim card just because it would look bad if I didn’t and this was by females who can go fuck themselves for that kind of attitude.

But guess what, I don’t hold on to the anger or frustration and I wouldn’t even if he wasn’t convicted, I don’t even have problems in the bedroom because of what happened and it was violent. I don’t treat anyone differently who happens to be gay because of what occurred although I am more cautious of my surroundings and motives of others, male or female.

I made this same speech to the school after the fact to make one point clear, NOTHING should make you stop living just because something bad happened.

Those who play a victim card as an excuse to feeling horrible about their life because of ONE event that happened are cowards at best and need to grow up as I did when it happened to me. It is NOT your responsibility that it happened, it is NOT your fault for what took place, and it is most certainly NOT your pain to own, let everyone else own it if they wish.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> Why then, did you just seemingly ignore half what I said that addressed exactly what you were trying to point out? You're not making any difference, you're just upping your post count with redundancy.


Was it directly half? so that amount was advocacy at best and improper statistics as well?


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Was it directly half? so that amount was advocacy at best and improper statistics as well?


That wasn't even coherent although I'm still able to glean that you're still trying to troll me. I have nothing more to say to you. Leave me alone.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> Do you believe that there is anyone in this world that is absolutely, 100% not biased under any circumstance? Why do you criticize the lack of objectivity in sexual assault investigations yet say that some form of empirical data shouldn't matter? I mean really, if you're going to place this condition that objective criteria shouldn't be considered while asking questions that would require statistical data as answers, how do you expect me to discuss this with you? What are you even trying to tell me? That I shouldn't have the opinions that I do or take up for this cause that I believe in? Because that's what it looks like you're trying to tell me, so please correct me if I've misunderstood. Otherwise, that's a point you're going to have to accept that I won't be integrating.


Well it sounds like you are saying other posters aren't being objective because they don't believe the accusers, but then I'm simply asking are you being objective by simply believing the accusers? That's the main point, everyone goes into situations with prejudice, does that make it right? Is it "helpful" to continue being non-objective with a situation as serious as rape? (_*Anyone*_, I'm not just picking on you.)


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> Well it sounds like you are saying other posters aren't being objective because they don't believe the accusers, but then I'm simply asking are you being objective by simply believing the accusers? That's the main point, everyone goes into situations with prejudice, does that make it right? Is it "helpful" to continue being non-objective with a situation as serious as rape? (_*Anyone*_, I'm not just picking on you.)


Have you been watching the volley from the beginning? You haven't seen me state that I simply believe accusers. It's an opinion that's being assumed by you and I imagine others because of the side of the debate I choose to defend. I've acknowledged that people do lie, yet still no credit is given in this regard because I think that this point is blown out of proportion. That victims sometimes le does not need to be given equal weight to the opposing argument because it does not happen even half the time. I read somewhere that the FBI cites 8% of accusers of this type of crime to be lying. If you want me to cite a source past that, I'll have to do some digging, and I'll admit, it might not be accurate but it falls in line well enough with other stats I can verify immediately that I'm willing to throw that number out there. 

Anyway, since it's become so clear that my position has been grossly misunderstood, I will try to make it more clear. Sometimes people lie about being victims. Most of the time, they do not. Almost all of the time, calling a REAL victim a liar does psychological damage to them that I would never want to cause. Therefore, people who claim victimhood should always be treated as though they are not lying while a proper investigation that is as objective as humanly possible should be done, outside of the accusers purview.

EDIT: The point I made about objectivity was in response to the same point being made about me. I don't appreciate being criticized for supposedly failing to meet a standard that one doesn't even hold to themselves. I also don't expect people to be as objective as they sometimes like to claim they are in such a discussion.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> Anyway, since it's become so clear that my position has been grossly misunderstood, I will try to make it more clear. Sometimes people lie about being victims. Most of the time, they do not. Almost all of the time, calling a REAL victim a liar does psychological damage to them that I would never want to cause. Therefore, people who claim victimhood should always be treated as though they are not lying while a proper investigation that is as objective as humanly possible should be done, outside of the accusers purview.
> 
> EDIT: The point I made about objectivity was in response to the same point being made about me. _I don't appreciate being criticized for supposedly failing to meet a standard that one doesn't even hold to themselves. _ I also don't expect people to be as objective as they sometimes like to claim they are in such a discussion.


Yes, I apologize if any of my comments were taken with offense. It just seemed like the comment you edited. Thank you for clarifying. I do absolutely agree any rape claim should be taken very serious and with respect, however I feel respect to both the accuser and accused. Which is very hard to maintain. But bias based on gender alone whether it's accuser or accused is what I aim to avoid in such a thread. I do think we have gotten off topic though, even though we are talking about rape, I think the OP is talking about in a relationship of marriage wondering if situations are black and white. We are discussing percentages when the OP is asking about situations/scenarios.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> Yes, I apologize if any of my comments were taken with offense. It just seemed like the comment you edited. Thank you for clarifying. I do absolutely agree any rape claim should be taken very serious and with respect, however I feel respect to both the accuser and accused. Which is very hard to maintain. But bias based on gender alone whether it's accuser or accused is what I aim to avoid in such a thread. I do think we have gotten off topic though, even though we are talking about rape, I think the OP is talking about in a relationship of marriage wondering if situations are black and white. We are discussing percentages when the OP is asking about situations/scenarios.


You haven't been offensive. Some derailment is bound to happen in an 18 page thread but the information is closely related enough to the original topic, it has been widespread enough to possibly lose half the thread to being deleted and the OP isn't complaining so I haven't seen any reason to try change the flow of the discussion.

Back to the original topic though. I wonder if people who are so interested in exploring suggestions such as no not really meaning no realize how threatening it is to the safety and well being of any potential or actual victims that may be reading this thread. I mean really, if I can't say no and honestly expect it to be taken seriously 100% of the time then I will always be open to an attack that a rapist can cause reasonable doubt over in court every single time. The validation of such a backwards interpretation of a word that has unambiguous meaning is why so many real rapists who stand trial end up walking. It's appalling.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> I mean really, if I can't say no and honestly expect it to be taken seriously 100% of the time then I will always be open to an attack that a rapist can cause reasonable doubt over in court every single time. The validation of such a backwards interpretation of a word that has unambiguous meaning is why so many real rapists who stand trial end up walking. It's appalling.


Well in the case of a marriage (OP's topic) I think it's reasonable that there is communication. However, mixed communication is possible. I think as the person who is saying "no means no" isn't so cut and dry, black and white when it comes to a relationship like marriage. In a lot of cases yes, however in a close relationship what's reasonable "consent"? Example, a guy goes to his spouse and wants to/indicates sexual intentions, at first she says no, they have a fight (verbal) but later things settle and they have sex but she never "retracted" her statement of no, and never indicated a non-interest at that time. Did the husband rape her? Is it black and white? This is what I believe to be the intention of saying it's not so black and white when considering most relationship communication isn't always verbal.

Saying it's not "black and white" isn't giving green lights to obvious things, it's simply being open minded to out of the ordinary circumstances.

Would it be fair if the wife had a fight the next day and claimed rape, again (was there rape)? It's not cut and dry.

Would it be fair if the wife felt like she was obligated/feared reprisal if she didn't have sex? I'd assume no.

Would it be fair if the husband felt similar? Again, I'd assume no. A lot of gender stereotyping automatically go to the aspect that men "always want sex" though. 

Would it be fair if the husband had to go through a trial with something at wasn't "cut and dry", for something he thought was innocent?

I'm not victim blaming btw, everything goes two ways.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> Well in the case of a marriage (OP's topic) I think it's reasonable that there is communication. However, mixed communication is possible. I think as the person who is saying "no means no" isn't so cut and dry, black and white when it comes to a relationship like marriage. In a lot of cases yes, however in a close relationship what's reasonable "consent"? Example, a guy goes to his spouse and wants to/indicates sexual intentions, at first she says no, they have a fight (verbal) but later things settle and they have sex but she never "retracted" her statement of no, and never indicated a non-interest at that time. Did the husband rape her? Is it black and white? This is what I believe to be the intention of saying it's not so black and white when considering most relationship communication isn't always verbal.
> 
> Saying it's not "black and white" isn't giving green lights to obvious things, it's simply being open minded to out of the ordinary circumstances.



I think situations like that depend largely on the context. Telling my husband no one night obviously doesn't mean never again. But when the situation changes due to circumstances outside the realm of pressuring ones partner to change their mind, I'd say there's nothing wrong with another approach. When two people become so intimately close as in the bonds of marriage, an enthusiastic consent can be expressed purely through body language. It's really not so difficult to figure out if sexual advances are welcome. It's when individuals have trouble understanding and respecting boundaries that the terrain becomes so perilous. My first post in this thread discussed how some people are afraid to say no and why. I think it's pretty obvious when such a person isn't enthusiastic because of body language and their level of involvement in sexual relations. They do still need to take responsibility for themselves at some point but that doesn't give anyone, spouse or not, the right to take advantage of them. I would have to say that when an aggressive person does not care enough to try to honestly improve upon an issue like that they place themselves squarely in the wrong.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> I think situations like that depend largely on the context.


Right, so it's not black and white as the person was saying.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> Right, so it's not black and white as the person was saying.


Well I'm not agreeing that no doesn't always mean no. That is a very clear case of black and white. I think if a person is confused about whether or not their sexual advances are welcome, they have a responsibility to either err on the side of caution and back off or try to open up communication so they can achieve better clarity. They never have any business proceeding with sexual activity in a situation like that. Seems pretty clear cut to me. I suppose the only instance where it might not be so black and white is when a person gets blindsided by their partners desires or lack thereof but in those cases, I suspect there's a convenient overlooking of their partners cues.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

screamofconscious said:


> Well I'm not agreeing that no doesn't always mean no. That is a very clear case of black and white. I think if a person is confused about whether or not their sexual advances are welcome, they have a responsibility to either err on the side of caution and back off or try to open up communication so they can achieve better clarity. They never have any business proceeding with sexual activity in a situation like that. Seems pretty clear cut to me. I suppose the only instance where it might not be so black and white is when a person gets blindsided by their partners desires or lack thereof but in those cases, I suspect there's a convenient overlooking of their partners cues.


Yeah, I know, most people are unlikely to change their opinion on such matters regardless of scenarios presented. Though you say you're not agreeing and that things are black and white but then give a scenario where it "might not be" later in your reply. I'm confused. Or are you saying the word 'no' indicates 'no'? I would agree with that verbal command. Because it's an answer to a choice given.

There are scenarios that happen that don't always fall into a cookie-cutter happenings. 


We need to come out with sexual contracts for all to sign before anything happens. Think about how many lawyers would make tons of money producing those.

But seriously, in the case I said it comes down to a judgment call. Again, judgment calls automatically make things not so black and white. Like I said, she said no at one point and then later became willing, though maybe she really didn't and didn't give any signals, can't be a mind reader. And I'm not talking about rape, it's marital rape which is actually different because of the closeness of the two individuals. So the determining factors are actually clouded. Not in all situations, some are actually clear cut, but some aren't.

Does a husband of 20 years after having hearing no at first, having a verbal fight, things calm down seem ok, things like foreplay happen and the mood rises, does he really have to say "are you really sure you want to have sex, I don't want to feel like I'm raping you."?


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

Inphamous said:


> Isis said:
> 
> 
> > Ive been raped mutiple times by this deffinition. I have never fiven a clear yes and its already been established that arousal doesnt = consent. Ive had a couple partners that would jump me with out warning all he time. Never realized i would being raped though. : )
> ...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Isis said:


> Inphamous said:
> 
> 
> > Did it bother you? I have a friend who waxes eloquently about how great it is to wake up in such a way...
> ...


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Women in general have to put a lot of trust in men. You should read up on rape culture.
> 
> 
> 
> It is disgusting that any rape victim is either laughed at, ignored or not seen as much of a victim because of their sex, or what clothes they were wearing, or where they were at the time, or how drunk they were and so on. Rape is a vile crime where many victims won't report it and where many rapists get away with it time and time again.


Concerning women needing to trust men: this was my original point. That is a matter of the way we evolved with men in general being stronger. While women should be legally protected it is mot the place of the law to penalize men for this by forcing them to then have to trust women to tell the truth and need no evidence. If we go that rout we may as well make men take hormone injections once a month to simulate a womans menstral cycle or make other arrangements to make a mans life = unconfortable.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Concerning women needing to trust men: this was my original point. That is a matter of the way we evolved with men in general being stronger. While women should be legally protected it is mot the place of the law to penalize men for this by forcing them to then have to trust women to tell the truth and need no evidence. If we go that rout we may as well make men take hormone injections once a month to simulate a womans menstral cycle or make other arrangements to make a mans life = unconfortable.


The number of women who would lie about things like that is very low, and generally women aren't like that anyway.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

Isis said:


> Inphamous said:
> 
> 
> > Did it bother you? I have a friend who waxes eloquently about how great it is to wake up in such a way...
> ...


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> The number of women who would lie about things like that is very low, and generally women aren't like that anyway.


So you think its ok to have laws that trust in the honesty of women >men? Isnt that deffinitionally sexist?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> So you think its ok to have laws that trust in the honesty of women >men? Isnt that deffinitionally sexist?


How did you get that from my post? What I said was that the number of women who lie about such things is no higher than the number of men who life about such things. I don't believe in laws discriminating against people for something they were born with, such as their biological sex.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

Inphamous said:


> Isis said:
> 
> 
> > Ive been raped mutiple times by this deffinition. I have never fiven a clear yes and its already been established that arousal doesnt = consent. Ive had a couple partners that would jump me with out warning all he time. Never realized i would being raped though. : )
> ...


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> How did you get that from my post? What I said was that the number of women who lie about such things is no higher than the number of men who life about such things. I don't believe in laws discriminating against people for something they were born with, such as their biological sex.


You said you doubted that many women would lie about such a thing. I assume "such a thing" to meen rape that was uproveable but would still get a conviction solely on her word. If you dont think that if that went in as law many people would sieze that oportunity to get back at any man hey disliked for any reason you have far more faith in humanity than I. I meen in general if the complaint of any crime alone wih out supporting evidence is considered convictable then it just a matter of acusing every1 before they do you.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> Inphamous said:
> 
> 
> > i dont think its about lack of a yes, but implementation of a no. If you are being woken that way you can push the person off of you and tell them no and then even call the cops, but if you are having sex with someone and dont want to but dont say or do anything to let them know that its not ok, how are they supposed to know?
> ...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> You said you doubted that many women would lie about such a thing. I assume "such a thing" to meen rape that was uproveable but would still get a conviction solely on her word.


No court would convict someone based solely on the word of the accuser. There has to be actual evidence, although I will admit that people have been convicted with very little evidence before.



> If you dont think that if that went in as law many people would sieze that oportunity to get back at any man hey disliked for any reason you have far more faith in humanity than I.


I honestly believe that most people would not make up a false accusation of a crime.



> I meen in general if the complaint of any crime alone wih out supporting evidence is considered convictable then it just a matter of acusing every1 before they do you.


What non-corrupt court would convict someone based only on an accusation?


----------



## Anonynony (Jun 24, 2012)

Rape is rape. In "The Pillars of the Earth" a dude gets killed for trying raping his wife! He desiervied it though, he was a meanie the entire book!


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

Inphamous said:


> Mendi the ISFJ said:
> 
> 
> > The post i quoted from Isis did imply that lack of yes =rape. I have never given explicit consent.
> ...


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> No court would convict someone based solely on the word of the accuser. There has to be actual evidence, although I will admit that people have been convicted with very little evidence before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have a fundamental misunderstanding lol. Obviously if there is evidence other than her word yes he should be tried and convicted. I thought the entire point of te conversation at this point was about what would = consent and how it could practically be enforced with out evidence if it was something like she was drunk and went along willingly (not passed out) but did not remember in the morning. If this is rape how can you prove it? Should an err in judgment that some1 else simply allowed you to make while drunk count against them? Consinos would be horrified lol.

Point being some people want to expand rape far beyond actual forceful penatration and create a situation where it is essentially her word vs his. I realize that would not stand in todays court but i understood you to be argueing that it should.

On a side note if there are any true rape victims out there i am truely sry that someone would do something like that. An assualt upon anyones sovereignty over their own body is appauling. I just dont like the idea of my freedom (someone who is already very hesitant to trust any1) hinging on the honesty of any human being lol.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> Inphamous said:
> 
> 
> > ok, i think that it would be a little awkward to say "yes you can go ahead and have sex with me" LOL
> ...


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Should an err in judgment that some1 else simply allowed you to make while drunk count against them? Consinos would be horrified lol.


If one person is drunk and the other sober, then the sober person should not be attempting to have sex with the drunk person. If both are drunk, ideally they wouldn't have sex whilst inebriated, but it does happen and the issue of consent becomes clouded.



> Point being some people want to expand rape far beyond actual forceful penatration and create a situation where it is essentially her word vs his. I realize that would not stand in todays court but i understood you to be argueing that it should.


I'm certainly not arguing that it should.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Mendi the ISFJ said:
> 
> 
> > Believe it or not many woman (probably far far from a majority though) not only want that but some hardcore feminists actually want signed contracts lol
> ...


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

I need some clarity. There is a big, taboo gray area that's been lightly touched on & I want to dissect it, study it objectively, understand it & move on a wiser fool. And here it be: I've heard "No" means "No" since Gloria Steinem was a young celebrity. And I believed it, lived by it & always will. Fine, all is good. Now here's the gray area: Today, "No' still usually means "No'. But to some (not all) women it means yes. Or it means maybe, depending on the guy or her mood. And, some women say they like to be "taken". They like a guy to chase them down & force themselves on them. And some in polls/surveys admit to having rape fantasies. They say they WANT to be dominated. Excuse me but, WTF?! I know these women aren't the majority but there's enough of them to mix up the signals. To those women who like sex forced on them, is that rape to you or not? Is that black & white to you or is it gray? I apologize in advance to those I've offended by asking this question or by stating facts. Maybe I'm weird but I have exactly zero urge to rape my wife & if she expected me to I'd probably leave at some point but, that's just me.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Aqualung said:


> I need some clarity. There is a big, taboo gray area that's been lightly touched on & I want to dissect it, study it objectively, understand it & move on a wiser fool. And here it be: I've heard "No" means "No" since Gloria Steinem was a young celebrity. And I believed it, lived by it & always will. Fine, all is good. Now here's the gray area: Today, "No' still usually means "No'. But to some (not all) women it means yes. Or it means maybe, depending on the guy or her mood. And, some women say they like to be "taken". They like a guy to chase them down & force themselves on them.


There's quite a lot of difference between a woman being violated and a woman being dominated with her consent, and I'm sure people who enjoy that sort of sex have a good idea of the difference.



> And some in polls/surveys admit to having rape fantasies. They say they WANT to be dominated. Excuse me but, WTF?! I know these women aren't the majority but there's enough of them to mix up the signals. To those women who like sex forced on them, is that rape to you or not? Is that black & white to you or is it gray? I apologize in advance to those I've offended by asking this question or by stating facts. Maybe I'm weird but I have exactly zero urge to rape my wife & if she expected me to I'd probably leave at some point but, that's just me.


A rape fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Noone truly wants to be raped, and a rape fantasy would involve people who were fully consenting towards the act. It doesn't involve actual rape.


----------



## GROUNDED_ONE (May 23, 2012)

Aqualung said:


> I need some clarity. There is a big, taboo gray area that's been lightly touched on & I want to dissect it, study it objectively, understand it & move on a wiser fool. And here it be: I've heard "No" means "No" since Gloria Steinem was a young celebrity. And I believed it, lived by it & always will. Fine, all is good. Now here's the gray area: Today, "No' still usually means "No'. But to some (not all) women it means yes. Or it means maybe, depending on the guy or her mood. And, some women say they like to be "taken". They like a guy to chase them down & force themselves on them. And some in polls/surveys admit to having rape fantasies. They say they WANT to be dominated. Excuse me but, WTF?! I know these women aren't the majority but there's enough of them to mix up the signals. To those women who like sex forced on them, is that rape to you or not? Is that black & white to you or is it gray? I apologize in advance to those I've offended by asking this question or by stating facts. Maybe I'm weird but I have exactly zero urge to rape my wife & if she expected me to I'd probably leave at some point but, that's just me.


Valid point and thank for speaking up about it. I agree that now people are looking for a bigger thrill and it might be confusing. But anger and terror are hard to mistake.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> If one person is drunk and the other sober, then the sober person should not be attempting to have sex with the drunk person. If both are drunk, ideally they wouldn't have sex whilst inebriated, but it does happen and the issue of consent becomes clouded.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not arguing that it should.


Seems we have reached an agreement on the later point. What either person says is irrelavent in he face of evidence. As far as being drunk, if only 1 person is drunk then while i think its not in the best of character for someone to have sex with them i dont hink its rape unless they are passed out. Hell, my first (and only so far) threesome was while i was so drunk i barely remember. I knew what environment i was in thouh and what might happen. 

Also both being drunk to a relatively = extent does not "cloud" the issue in my opinion, it makes it more clear. To be fair they must eiher both be innocent or both be guilty of the same thing. Anything less is sexist

Oh and the hardcore feminist contract thing is just something i remember from years ago. Too tired to look it up but yea i realize its a small minority. Only brought it up to show that it might not be as far fetched as some think.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Seems we have reached an agreement on the later point. What either person says is irrelavent in he face of evidence.


Evidence is vital, yes.



> As far as being drunk, if only 1 person is drunk then while i think its not in the best of character for someone to have sex with them i dont hink its rape unless they are passed out.


I would say it's better not to have sex at all in that situation, unless the drunk person has specifically stated whilst sober that they would be OK with it. Alcohol can impair your judgement.



> Hell, my first (and only so far) threesome was while i was so drunk i barely remember.


It depends on whether you consented before or not. 



> I knew what environment i was in thouh and what might happen.


If you felt that you could consent, there is no problem, but I think it depends on the individual.



> Also both being drunk to a relatively = extent does not "cloud" the issue in my opinion, it makes it more clear. To be fair they must eiher both be innocent or both be guilty of the same thing. Anything less is sexist


Why would anything less be sexist?


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Evidence is vital, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anything less was meant as anything less than = guilt or innocence. Because they were oth stipulated as being intoxicated and to show favortism toward one gender is deffinitionally sexist.

I agree with your first point but being morally wrong and being rape is different. I dont believe in enforcing highly subjective degrees of morality. 

Point 2: i did not consent before hand but im not a moron and knew what might happen.

Point 3: as ive said before, ones feelings shouldnt be used as any standard as they are too subjective and unprovable. Some women feel like they have been raped if the man does not show them propper affection AFTER the sex act is over lol.
Also expection others to discern the feelings of others with out explicite comunication (preferably verbal) is dangerous. I myself have actually tested in the realm of an aspergers sufferer concerning empathy and the ability to guess what others are feeling. Highly obvious ones i can do but subtle ques i tend to miss or misinterpret


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Anything less was meant as anything less than = guilt or innocence. Because they were oth stipulated as being intoxicated and to show favortism toward one gender is deffinitionally sexist.


What about same-sex couples?



> Point 2: i did not consent before hand but im not a moron and knew what might happen.


It doesn't matter if you're not a moron or not, alcohol can still affect you quite radically. I'm a very quiet, introverted person but when I'm drunk I'm quite outgoing, silly and talkative.



> Some women feel like they have been raped if the man does not show them propper affection AFTER the sex act is over lol.


How do you know this, and do you have any evidence that there are such women who feel like this?



> Also expection others to discern the feelings of others with out explicite comunication (preferably verbal) is dangerous. I myself have actually tested in the realm of an aspergers sufferer concerning empathy and the ability to guess what others are feeling. Highly obvious ones i can do but subtle ques i tend to miss or misinterpret


Then perhaps you should be careful when choosing partners for sex?


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Inphamous said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt it's more than a tiny, tiny minority. Do you know of any sites that show sources for your claims?
> ...


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

@_skycloud86_

I knew you would bring up the same sex thing : ) u get my point though.

When one chooses to put themselves into an impaired state they are still responsible for their own actions. You dont get exceptions made for you just because you made a bad choice and certainly no one should be responsible for your choices.

I know atleast one woman who always acted like i was a sexual predator after sex even when she literally told me to come into the bedroom where she was naked and started kissing and making out wih me. Hen lay down and invited me explicitly to have sex. She also actually texted me (we were both in the same house) asking for a quickie and both of those times after we were done she acted like i had violated her and even made a coment about me seeming like a sexual predator once lol. And im a very passive guy so i have no idea where she got that from. I just assume it was due to my lack of emotional connection and the fact that im sure its most apparent during and after sex when most women would be expecting it most. 

THis girl was abused as a child too so that could have played a part but she is a big reason i dont like the idea of trusting peoples feelings. And i doubt she is the only 1 in 7 billion.


----------



## Subtle Murder (May 19, 2012)

Inphamous said:


> if it was something like she was drunk and went along willingly (not passed out) but did not remember in the morning. If this is rape how can you prove it? Should an err in judgment that some1 else simply allowed you to make while drunk count against them?





Inphamous said:


> Seems we have reached an agreement on the later point. What either person says is irrelavent in he face of evidence. As far as being drunk, *if only 1 person is drunk then while i think its not in the best of character for someone to have sex with them i dont hink its rape unless they are passed out*.


If someone is drunk, it's an automatic "no". The person is not in their right state of mind to give proper consent. It is not in the best of character for the sober person to have sex with the drunk person _at all_. If you're concerned about the consequences of having sex with a drunk person: _don't do it_. That should clear up any misunderstandings as a result.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> When one chooses to put themselves into an impaired state they are still responsible for their own actions. You dont get exceptions made for you just because you made a bad choice and certainly no one should be responsible for your choices.


Are you actually victim blaming? What's next, blaming female rape victims for wearing skimpy clothes or walking down a dark alley?



> I know atleast one woman who always acted like i was a sexual predator after sex even when she literally told me to come into the bedroom where she was naked and started kissing and making out wih me. Hen lay down and invited me explicitly to have sex. She also actually texted me (we were both in the same house) asking for a quickie and both of those times after we were done she acted like i had violated her and even made a coment about me seeming like a sexual predator once lol. And im a very passive guy so i have no idea where she got that from. I just assume it was due to my lack of emotional connection and the fact that im sure its most apparent during and after sex when most women would be expecting it most.
> 
> THis girl was abused as a child too so that could have played a part but she is a big reason i dont like the idea of trusting peoples feelings. And i doubt she is the only 1 in 7 billion.


Sorry, but personal anecdotes do not prove anything other than your personal experience. Your assumption about lack of emotional connection is most likely, if not certainly, the reason for her reaction.


----------



## Skum (Jun 27, 2010)

There are so many gross responses in this thread.

Being married does not mean you give up consent to your own body. Why is this so mind-bendingly difficult to understand. Jesus Christ are some of you embarrassing.

If it becomes an issue of one partner never wanting to have sex, it is more than likely caused by extenuating circumstances that deserve more attention. Loss of self-esteem through issues in life, depression, stress, bad diet. Sometimes it may indicate not being attracted to one's partner, but then the issues run a bit deeper, don't they?


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

Am I happy? Does my partner listen to me? Can I say no at anytime and will he immediately listen? Is he willing to stop at any time?

What it comes down to- if I am questioning if what is going on in the bedroom is rape or not (this has happened to me with my ex-husband), then I take time to re-evaluate my situation. <3


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Are you actually victim blaming? What's next, blaming female rape victims for wearing skimpy clothes or walking down a dark alley?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but personal anecdotes do not prove anything other than your personal experience. Your assumption about lack of emotional connection is most likely, if not certainly, the reason for her reaction.


Im not victim blaming, im saying if u drink and then have sex you are no more a victim of rape than you would be of robbery if you drank and then went and gambled at a casino. Sex is no special matter.

And personal anecdotes show that there is atleast one person like what i describe and even you admit their reaction is likely due to my lack of emotional display. If you mean to argue that a lack of emotional connection wih a consenting partner is still rape if they "feel" raped i will laugh my self to death lol. I assume u meant otherwise though.

Do you truely doubt that there are people that would feel raped if thier partener didnt reciprocate emotionally during and after consenting sex and act on those feelings if "feeling raped" were he only neccassary criteria? Feeling are just too subjective was my point on that all along. I may not even be capable of knowing someone well enough to be that close.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

Marital rape has very little to do with slaking one's sexual appetite and everything to do with punishing and displaying one's power over one's partner. Being in a committed relationship with someone does not make it okay to force yourself on that person.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Im not victim blaming, im saying if u drink and then have sex you are no more a victim of rape than you would be of robbery if you drank and then went and gambled at a casino. Sex is no special matter.


But alcohol impairs your judgement and lowers your inhibitions. Your attempt to see it in the same way as someone gambling at a casino doesn't work because a casino wouldn't let a drunk person in, or continue to gamble, just like a bartender will refuse to serve someone who has obviously already had too much to drink.



> And personal anecdotes show that there is atleast one person like what i describe


No, they show nothing more than an unprovable story. If I said that I had an alien living in my garden, you would want to see evidence, correct?



> and even you admit their reaction is likely due to my lack of emotional display. If you mean to argue that a lack of emotional connection wih a consenting partner is still rape if they "feel" raped i will laugh my self to death lol. I assume u meant otherwise though.


No, I'm saying that because of your lack of emotional display, she probably felt like she was being used or violated. It's probably not a very nice feeling to be having sex with someone who doesn't show any emotion.



> Do you truely doubt that there are people that would feel raped if thier partener didnt reciprocate emotionally during and after consenting sex and act on those feelings if "feeling raped" were he only neccassary criteria? Feeling are just too subjective was my point on that all along. I may not even be capable of knowing someone well enough to be that close.


There probably are people like that, humans are very diverse.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

I have never seen any casino kick someone out becuase they were drunk (as long as they are no falling down passing out drunk which i did say earlier was different from just drunk). Infact most serve alcohol. 

I valid point vs anicdotes but as you said people are diverse and there is likely a subset of people like that. The law however need to apply and be as fair as possible to all people and allowing people like that to effectively force a consenting partner to emotionally conect (unproveable and. Ery subjective) is insane but thats just my opinion.

To be honest im getting the feeling your against casual sex in general and perhaps are in favor of laws favoring romance? A dangerous thing if so but im probably wrong. I hope i am.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> I have never seen any casino kick someone out becuase they were drunk (as long as they are no falling down passing out drunk which i did say earlier was different from just drunk). Infact most serve alcohol.


They're a business, and if they want to keep going, they have to ensure that they don't get in trouble with the police.



> I valid point vs anicdotes but as you said people are diverse and there is likely a subset of people like that. The law however need to apply and be as fair as possible to all people and allowing people like that to effectively force a consenting partner to emotionally conect (unproveable and. Ery subjective) is insane but thats just my opinion.


So are you saying your need for sex is greater than your partner's need for emotional connection? If your need for sex is so great, maybe you should look for a partner who doesn't need so much of an emotional connection.



> To be honest im getting the feeling your against casual sex in general


I'm not, actually, and I have no idea why you are getting the feeling that I do. Is it because I'm not accepting your excuses and personal anecdotes?



> and perhaps are in favor of laws favoring romance?


Laws favouring romance? What the hell would they be, and why is romance a bad thing?



> A dangerous thing if so but im probably wrong. I hope i am.


How on earth is it dangerous?


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

Since your always asking me to prove everything i guess you should prove that casinos routinely remove people for drinking when i know damn well they serve drinks at the gambling tables lol. There is no law that im aware of in the major "gambling capitols" that obligates a casino to stop a drunk gambler unless he was violent or baligerant or passing out.

I guess you can consider a "feeling" of rape due to emotional neglect rape if you want but it will never be law. Its unproveable and legislating emotions is just silly.

I have made no excuses and you dont have to accept the anecdotes but to deny that the given scenarios are almost certain to have acured somewhere for someone is just silly. It would be something akin to saying no one has ever rolled a yatzee.

Laws requiring emotional connection in order to avoid being a rapeist = romance laws.

Need i explain how that could be dangerous?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> Since your always asking me to prove everything i guess you should prove that casinos routinely remove people for drinking when i know damn well they serve drinks at the gambling tables lol.


Except that I didn't say that they remove people for drinking. Remember your point about there being a difference between drunk and passing out? Well, there is a difference between drinking at the gambling table and being a rowdy drunk causing a scene.



> There is no law that im aware of in the major "gambling capitols" that obligates a casino to stop a drunk gambler unless he was violent or baligerant or passing out.


You're only agreeing me and not disproving my point. Again, I said that they are a business and won't want to get in trouble with the police. Hence they will, like you say, stop the really drunk gamblers who get violent or belligerent or pass out.



> I guess you can consider a "feeling" of rape due to emotional neglect rape if you want but it will never be law. Its unproveable and legislating emotions is just silly.


I didn't say that.



> I have made no excuses and you dont have to accept the anecdotes but to deny that the given scenarios are almost certain to have acured somewhere for someone is just silly. It would be something akin to saying no one has ever rolled a yatzee.


I didn't say that they couldn't have happened somewhere, i said that personal anecdotes cannot be used as evidence to prove a point.



> Laws requiring emotional connection in order to avoid being a rapeist = romance laws.


I wouldn't be for such laws, no, but people who can't connect well emotionally would probably be better off not sleeping with someone who needs a strong emotional connection, otherwise neither will get the most out of the experience.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

The fact that a casino would throw someone out for being as drunk as i alrwady stated would be boyo d what i consider able to consent is a moot point. My point is that thy WANT you to drink just enough to impair your judgement a little.

By the same token i would agree if they are passing out or incoherant then yea its rape. But if they are just a bit tipsy i cant see it being rape. And if you are both a bit tipsy i deffinately dont see how one can be any more resposible than the other but thats a different arguement. Just something i was reading on a feminist website a minute ago where it seems its the mans fault if there is a woman involved period lol. Like i said though i know your not argueing that just irks me is all.

A cew posts ago i thought you did say that if a person felt they had been violated it was rape and thats when i gave my anecdote of the ex that felt violated after consentu sex due to emotional neglect and then i thought u had persisted with that whih logically meens that anything one might do to make a person "feel" violated would = rape Nd thats not reasonable. Sry if im wrong it is late and i need sleep but i did think you had backed that point before


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

No means no means no means
no.

However, there can be a gray area because yes and no are not always said in those words or any words, for that matter, example, when I have sex I never ever say, 'Yes, I will allow you to have sex with me', just kind of happens. So what if initially I said no but changed my mind but never said so but began paritcipating in the act...
if a guy I wann't close with tried to "change my mind", I'd consider that pressuring, borderline rape, and quite frankly scary, but if my boyfriend playfully tried to change my mind aka entice me, that'd be ok. so i mean, really, it isn't black and white and at a certain point attitude and intentions come into play.


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Isis said:
> 
> 
> > That sounds fine for them, they are OK with it, enjoy it and have obviously given their partner a clear idea that it is OK with them. Not everyone is going to be like your friend, though. I personally would be horrified if I woke up and someone was having some sort of sexual contact with me, and I would certainly feel violated.
> ...


----------

