Men need to be trained to not rape.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, I am.

It doesn't tolerate that kind of bullshit.

Now if we put "consent culture" in the mainstream...

We would be considered Fascists by people like Free Council Communes (whatever). Don't you know?

[Individuality-ness]

A marriage contract =! consent to sex. Having a relationship with someone =! consent. You ask EVERY SINGLE TIME.

No, but if the person you are in a relationship with doesn't reject you when you try to initiate sex, then it's not rape.

Drug-assisted rape is still rape dude.

[Free Council Communes]

No and that shouldn't be rape. That should be classified as unlawful coercion.

And you just proved my core point throughout this entire thread:

It's not that many men don't see rape as wrong, it's just that, thanks to the power of the human mind, they have the capacity (and the balls) to come up with shitty rhetoric to try to bypass the inherent immorality of rape, by claiming that the rape they commit is not rape, due to peculiar circumstances.

Thank you! Thank you for making MY case and that of many of us here all the more compelling!

I never said it wasn't wrong. The penalty for such an act should indeed be harsh, but not technically classified as rape.

[Ifreann]

I think what he's trying to say is that once a couple have agreed to have sex that it would only be rape if after the fact consent was withdrawn. That's simply legally true.

No, he's saying that consent is assumed for all sexual activity, and can only be withdrawn by expressly stating so before or during sex. Which is simply legally bollocks.

In fact, here's exactly what he said

Actually, sexual acts should be considered consensual unless one partner directly & verbally objects to said sexual act.

I'm afraid you were wrong about what you thought he was saying.

[Freelanderness]

This is bordering on hate speech; men are not inherently savages that cannot avoid temptation into rape.

Salon is a garbage publication, and this writer is an idiot. Fuck stuff and things D:<

Did you read the actual article? Jwing.

[Tubbsalot]

I think most men know that forcing women to have sex with you against their will is wrong

Yeah, obviously, almost everyone know it's wrong to wait in a bush before jumping out and raping someone at gunpoint.

But a lot of people think it's perfectly fine to have sex with someone who's blackout drunk, or really anyone who doesn't violently resist. Some people think it's fine to have sex even if the victim is violently resisting.

How about if you pressure someone into sex over the course of six months, and they don't want to have sex but do it just because they feel they owe you, or in the hope it'll shut you up? How many people do you think recognise they're doing something like that and stop doing it because it's wrong?

[Zweite Alaje]

Why the fuck are you still here.

Because I'm not going to back down simply because a bunch of fascists decide I lost simply because they think they can pull facts out of their asses.

Please, don't misuse the fascist the name, kk.

[Individuality-ness]

A marriage contract =! consent to sex. Having a relationship with someone =! consent. You ask EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Note the part where I wrote "have agreed to have sex".

And it's only applies to that specific encounter only. It expires right after.

[Free Council Communes]

No, consent to sex isn't a lifetime permit. If somebody isn't in the position where they are able to consent to sex as it's occuring (ie. unconscious) then one legally can't assume that consent is there anyway.

Consent is a ongoing process that can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Yes, exactly! But you have to make it clear that you are revoking consent.

[Freelanderness]

And you just proved my core point throughout this entire thread:

It's not that many men don't see rape as wrong, it's just that, thanks to the power of the human mind, they have the capacity (and the balls) to come up with shitty rhetoric to try to bypass the inherent immorality of rape, by claiming that the rape they commit is not rape, due to peculiar circumstances.

Thank you! Thank you for making MY case and that of many of us here all the more compelling!

I never said it wasn't wrong. The penalty for such an act should indeed be harsh, but not technically classified as rape.

And I bet you think all rapes are women walking home alone, stranger in the bushes type deals?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Consent is a ongoing process that can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Yes, exactly! But you have to make it clear that you are revoking consent.

Untrue, because consent is not and indeed cannot be presumed to be in effect.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I bring up my past example of how this is just plain stupid.
Scumbag roofies a girl at a party, girl is unconscious, can't talk and therefore can't withdraw consent. Scumbag fucks her brains out, she's powerless to stop him.
By your definition this would not be rape. Do you see the problem with your theory yet?

No and that shouldn't be rape.

What the actual fucking fuck?

[The Rich Port]

Now if we put "consent culture" in the mainstream...

We would be considered Fascists by people like Free Council Communes (whatever). Don't you know?

... Fascists? Really?

God forbid a country prohibits wanton sexual violence.

[Wamitoria]

And you just proved my core point throughout this entire thread:

It's not that many men don't see rape as wrong, it's just that, thanks to the power of the human mind, they have the capacity (and the balls) to come up with shitty rhetoric to try to bypass the inherent immorality of rape, by claiming that the rape they commit is not rape, due to peculiar circumstances.

Thank you! Thank you for making MY case and that of many of us here all the more compelling!

I never said it wasn't wrong. The penalty for such an act should indeed be harsh, but not technically classified as rape.

There really is no serious difference between rape an unlawful coercion.

[Individuality-ness]

Now if we put "consent culture" in the mainstream...

We would be considered Fascists by people like Free Council Communes (whatever). Don't you know?

Then we shall wear the Fascist label proudly and keep working on it! Duh!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Consent is a ongoing process that can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Yes, exactly! But you have to make it clear that you are revoking consent.

Allow me to ask you this: is it ok to fuck a woman who's passed out drunk?

[Tubbsalot]

Consent is a ongoing process that can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Yes, exactly! But you have to make it clear that you are revoking consent.

And if they can't do so, because you've shoved a chloroformed rag over their face? Is it fine to have sex with them?

[Individuality-ness]

I never said it wasn't wrong. The penalty for such an act should indeed be harsh, but not technically classified as rape.

And I bet you think all rapes are women walking home alone, stranger in the bushes type deals?

Apparently, since he already said that drug-assisted rape isn't rape.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

We would be considered Fascists by people like Free Council Communes (whatever). Don't you know?

... Fascists? Really?

God forbid a country prohibits wanton sexual violence.

But see, I am making fun of how ridiculous your post was. You called us a 'bunch' of fascists because we're correcting you in your error.

[Ifreann]

A marriage contract =! consent to sex. Having a relationship with someone =! consent. You ask EVERY SINGLE TIME.

No, but if the person you are in a relationship with doesn't reject you when you try to initiate sex, then it's not rape.

If they have not consented, then it absolutely is.

---

Consent is a ongoing process that can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Yes, exactly! But you have to make it clear that you are revoking consent.

You have to get consent first before you can worry about it being withdrawn.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Consent is a ongoing process that can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Yes, exactly! But you have to make it clear that you are revoking consent.

Being unconscious is revoking consent. You are unable to consent to something if you are unconscious because you don't know what's happening. Even if they say "I want to have sex" immediately before they pass out, they are unable to make consent from that point after. This is how rape laws work.

[Free Council Communes]

I never said it wasn't wrong. The penalty for such an act should indeed be harsh, but not technically classified as rape.

And I bet you think all rapes are women walking home alone, stranger in the bushes type deals?

No, actually, I don't. Most rape victims are generally raped by someone they trust. And how does that even relate to my point about how unlawful coercion involving sex needing to result in a harsh penalty?

[Freelanderness]

And I bet you think all rapes are women walking home alone, stranger in the bushes type deals?

Apparently, since he already said that drug-assisted rape isn't rape.

but there are so many types of rape I thought I'd clarify

[Individuality-ness]

Apparently, since he already said that drug-assisted rape isn't rape.

but there are so many types of rape I thought I'd clarify

True.

[Freelanderness]

And I bet you think all rapes are women walking home alone, stranger in the bushes type deals?

No, actually, I don't. Most rape victims are generally raped by someone they trust. And how does that even relate to my point about how unlawful coercion involving sex needing to result in a harsh penalty?

Do you think those people are held at gun point?