Men need to be trained to not rape.

[The united imperial sector]

So theres a large number of men who don't understand what no means?

On the evidence of these threads there are a large number of men who don't understand much about rape or about consent.

Okay then, could you please explane to me what both rape and consent are just to see if we both have the same defintion of the two.

[Individuality-ness]

We're talking about the same guy Nadkor.

All I am proposing is a innocent until proven guilty approach to dealing with rape.

You realize that in the null hypothesis, your null is the one that makes the fewest assumptions, right? So the null is "no, she doesn't want sex", because that makes the fewest assumptions. Which is already the case and has always been the case.

[Len Hyet]

So theres a large number of men who don't understand what no means?

On the evidence of these threads there are a large number of men who don't understand much about rape or about consent.

No means no, OH GOD YES means Continue, this is most acceptable.

Sorry, I deal with heavy topics by making jokes. But in all seriousness, most guys understand that if she says no, it's rape, if she says yes, it's consent.

[Free Tristania]

The British method of hanging is probably the most humane way to execute people.

We don't have a method of hanging. Perhaps we once did, but we grew up and joined the civilised world.

Well it was used in Britain until ( I think) 1965. So that's why it's "British method" because it differed from the "American method".

[Saint Jade IV]

The problem is that, as has been discussed at length in this thread, many, many rapists simply aren't aware that what they are doing is rape. They aren't even aware that they are "harming women". There's even a charming gentleman who believes that if a man buys a woman dinner, she owes him sex. Regardless of her feelings on the matter. He sees that if she denies him, HE is the real victim.

That's not what I meant. But if a man is doing things like that the women has a responsibility to make him aware that she is not sexually interested in him, not just take advantage of him.

Why? Why should the woman assume that the man is sexually interested in her? Why should she assume anything except that he wishes to buy her dinner? Why should he assume that he is owed anything more than her company?

The problem is that, as has been discussed at length in this thread, many, many rapists simply aren't aware that what they are doing is rape. They aren't even aware that they are "harming women". There's even a charming gentleman who believes that if a man buys a woman dinner, she owes him sex. Regardless of her feelings on the matter. He sees that if she denies him, HE is the real victim.

Maybe in America but the woman owns a man nothing at all. It's that clear and if there is no consent it is rape. It's that simple. It's the actually the very definition of rape: sex without consent.

See above. It's great that you see that, and I am sure many men do. The problem lies in a lack of understanding by certain men of what constitutes consent, or a lack thereof. Which is why we need to educate them.

There was a guy in the other rape thread (now there's a depressing couple of words) who genuinely believed that consent for any and all sexual acts should be presumed to have been given and can only be taken away by direct and vocal withdrawal of that consent. In fact, both rape threads have been half-filled with a succession of men who don't understand consent and don't realise that a lot of what they think is acceptable is actually rape.

Yet these guys also seem to be the ones who are most adamant that we don't need to teach about rape, and that everybody already knows not to rape people.

Which, if anything, is a perfectly good argument in favour of educating people.

So theres a large number of men who don't understand what no means?

There's a large number of men who seem to think that if a girl does not say no, that means that they can go for gold, regardless of whether she is even conscious or not.

[Ifreann]

On the evidence of these threads there are a large number of men who don't understand much about rape or about consent.

Okay then, could you please explane to me what both rape and consent are just to see if we both have the same defintion of the two.

Try reading the "What is rape?" thread.

[The united imperial sector]

On the evidence of these threads there are a large number of men who don't understand much about rape or about consent.

No means no, OH GOD YES means Continue, this is most acceptable.

Sorry, I deal with heavy topics by making jokes. But in all seriousness, most guys understand that if she says no, it's rape, if she says yes, it's consent.

OH MY GOD I HAVE FOUND SOMEONE WHO FINALY UNDERSTANDS THAT THANKYOU! (I had to type it like that thanyou for having sense)

[Saint Jade IV]

There was a guy in the other rape thread (now there's a depressing couple of words) who genuinely believed that consent for any and all sexual acts should be presumed to have been given and can only be taken away by direct and vocal withdrawal of that consent. In fact, both rape threads have been half-filled with a succession of men who don't understand consent and don't realise that a lot of what they think is acceptable is actually rape.

Yet these guys also seem to be the ones who are most adamant that we don't need to teach about rape, and that everybody already knows not to rape people.

Which, if anything, is a perfectly good argument in favour of educating people.

We're talking about the same guy Nadkor.

What's sad is that there are evidently enough men floating around this forum with that view that confusion was actually a possibility.

[The united imperial sector]

Okay then, could you please explane to me what both rape and consent are just to see if we both have the same defintion of the two.

Try reading the "What is rape?" thread.

I would prefere you give me your defintion of it or what you got from the 'what is rape thread".

[Nadkor]

On the evidence of these threads there are a large number of men who don't understand much about rape or about consent.

Then they should be explained the consent of consent. I have always been a great fan of the concept of "learning through (hard) labour". Nothing works as well as breaking rocks under the baking sun.

Just one of the issues with this is that by the time you have someone who doesn't understand rape or consent doing hard labour they've probably already raped someone, and that's kind of missing the point.

[Nadkor]

There was a guy in the other rape thread (now there's a depressing couple of words) who genuinely believed that consent for any and all sexual acts should be presumed to have been given and can only be taken away by direct and vocal withdrawal of that consent. In fact, both rape threads have been half-filled with a succession of men who don't understand consent and don't realise that a lot of what they think is acceptable is actually rape.

Yet these guys also seem to be the ones who are most adamant that we don't need to teach about rape, and that everybody already knows not to rape people.

Which, if anything, is a perfectly good argument in favour of educating people.

The whole response to this woman's statement really just serves to prove her right.

Oh, definitely.

[Free Tristania]

Then they should be explained the consent of consent. I have always been a great fan of the concept of "learning through (hard) labour". Nothing works as well as breaking rocks under the baking sun.

Just one of the issues with this is that by the time you have someone who doesn't understand rape or consent doing hard labour they've probably already raped someone, and that's kind of missing the point.

True. So how about teaching those that have committed petty crimes the hard way before they commit a real felony (like rape) ?

[Free Council Communes]

That's not what I meant. But if a man is doing things like that the women has a responsibility to make him aware that she is not sexually interested in him, not just take advantage of him.

She has no such responsibility. Certainly she shouldn't take advantage of men who do her favours because they falsely think it will earn them sex, but if you do something nice for a woman she does not need to explain to you that you're not getting laid out of it.

---

There was a guy in the other rape thread (now there's a depressing couple of words) who genuinely believed that consent for any and all sexual acts should be presumed to have been given and can only be taken away by direct and vocal withdrawal of that consent. In fact, both rape threads have been half-filled with a succession of men who don't understand consent and don't realise that a lot of what they think is acceptable is actually rape.

Yet these guys also seem to be the ones who are most adamant that we don't need to teach about rape, and that everybody already knows not to rape people.

Which, if anything, is a perfectly good argument in favour of educating people.

The whole response to this woman's statement really just serves to prove her right.

Actually she does. If a man uses a women for sex by making her think she will love him then that is highly frowned upon. If she commits suicide over it then he is even likely to get charged with depraved heart murder. If a woman uses a man, she gets away with it. Even if he commits suicide, she will not be charged.

[Individuality-ness]

We're talking about the same guy Nadkor.

What's sad is that there are evidently enough men floating around this forum with that view that confusion was actually a possibility.

I know. I mean, damn it people, the null hypothesis is always "no, I don't want to have sex", unless your partner says otherwise. And that sex is an act within itself and that you can't use it as a bargaining tool because it's not. And that no one is entitled to sex.

[Free Council Communes]

The sexism and misandry coming from radical feminists in this thread is simply disgusting.

[Neutraligon]

She has no such responsibility. Certainly she shouldn't take advantage of men who do her favours because they falsely think it will earn them sex, but if you do something nice for a woman she does not need to explain to you that you're not getting laid out of it.

---

The whole response to this woman's statement really just serves to prove her right.

Actually she does. If a man uses a women for sex by making her think she will love him then that is highly frowned upon. If she commits suicide over it then he is even likely to get charged with depraved heart murder. If a woman uses a man, she gets away with it. Even if he commits suicide, she will not be charged.

... I'm not sure where you even got that idea. Source.

[The united imperial sector]

What's sad is that there are evidently enough men floating around this forum with that view that confusion was actually a possibility.

I know. I mean, damn it people, the null hypothesis is always "no, I don't want to have sex", unless your partner says otherwise. And that sex is an act within itself and that you can't use it as a bargaining tool because it's not. And that no one is entitled to sex.

Forgive me if im reading this wrong, but are you saying even if a women says yes to sex she is still being raped? Or did I just make myself look stupid?

[Priory Academy USSR]

The sexism and misandry coming from radical feminists in this thread is simply disgusting.

I can safely assure you that the feminists here aren't radical, at least in the sense you're thinking of.

[Neutraligon]

I know. I mean, damn it people, the null hypothesis is always "no, I don't want to have sex", unless your partner says otherwise. And that sex is an act within itself and that you can't use it as a bargaining tool because it's not. And that no one is entitled to sex.

Forgive me if im reading this wrong, but are you saying even if a women says yes to sex she is still being raped? Or did I just make myself look stupid?

I read it as unless s/he says yes, then it is rape.

[Ifreann]

She has no such responsibility. Certainly she shouldn't take advantage of men who do her favours because they falsely think it will earn them sex, but if you do something nice for a woman she does not need to explain to you that you're not getting laid out of it.

---

The whole response to this woman's statement really just serves to prove her right.

Actually she does.

Actually she doesn't.

If a man uses a women for sex by making her think she will love him then that is highly frowned upon.

Yes.

If she commits suicide over it then he is even likely to get charged with depraved heart murder.

Did you just make that term up?

If a woman uses a man, she gets away with it.

Not really.

Even if he commits suicide, she will not be charged.

Because what would she be charged with? Not fucking someone who has done nice things for you is not a crime.

[The united imperial sector]

Forgive me if im reading this wrong, but are you saying even if a women says yes to sex she is still being raped? Or did I just make myself look stupid?

I read it as unless s/he says yes, then it is rape.

Thankyou, in that case then that dosnt make any sense if a man and women both want each othier they will genraly take thier clothes of and do it if one of them says no and the othier person (man or woman) still forces them selves on that nay sayer then it is rape.

[Ifreann]

The sexism and misandry coming from radical feminists in this thread is simply disgusting.

Hey look, another post without logic.

[Individuality-ness]

I know. I mean, damn it people, the null hypothesis is always "no, I don't want to have sex", unless your partner says otherwise. And that sex is an act within itself and that you can't use it as a bargaining tool because it's not. And that no one is entitled to sex.

Forgive me if im reading this wrong, but are you saying even if a women says yes to sex she is still being raped? Or did I just make myself look stupid?

You're reading it wrong, if a woman says yes to sexual activity, consent has been given and you can go ahead and have sex with her.

[The united imperial sector]

Forgive me if im reading this wrong, but are you saying even if a women says yes to sex she is still being raped? Or did I just make myself look stupid?

You're reading it wrong, if a woman says yes to sexual activity, consent has been given and you can go ahead and have sex with her.

Oh my bad.

[Individuality-ness]

I read it as unless s/he says yes, then it is rape.

Thankyou, in that case then that dosnt make any sense if a man and women both want each othier they will genraly take thier clothes of and do it if one of them says no and the othier person (man or woman) still forces them selves on that nay sayer then it is rape.

Consent can be revoked at any time. I can consent to oral, but not to anal, for example.