Men need to be trained to not rape.

[Free Council Communes]

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.

Unless she objects or is incapable of doing so, it is not rape. This is called "innocent until proven guilty". Sadly, radical feminists and other bourgeois counterrevolutionaries are destroying this system. These women are not feminists in any traditional sense of the word. They clearly have no interest in ending gender roles. They are counterrevolutionary lobbyists; not feminists.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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.

Losing sexual interest in someone is not a crime.

[Individuality-ness]

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.

No problem, good thing you asked.

[The united imperial sector]

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.

Then thats the right to stop if you don't want to do it if the man still does it then thats rape even if before that you gave oral, right right?

[Individuality-ness]

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

Unless she objects or is incapable of doing so, it is not rape. This is called "innocent until proven guilty". Sadly, radical feminists and other bourgeois counterrevolutionaries are destroying this system. These women are not feminists in any traditional sense of the word. They clearly have no interest in ending gender roles. They are counterrevolutionary lobbyists; not feminists.

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.

[Nadkor]

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) ?

I'm not quite sure how speeding is a gateway crime for rape.

[Individuality-ness]

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

Then thats the right to stop if you don't want to do it if the man still does it then thats rape even if before that you gave oral, right right?

Yes. If I told him "no anal" and he goes ahead and does it anyway despite my protests, that's rape, because I did not give consent to that activity. This is why it's always smart to ask whether it's okay to do <sexual act> before you actually do it.

[The united imperial sector]

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

I'm not quite sure how speeding is a gateway crime for rape.

One thing can lead to anothier and I don't think speeding is a crime I think it's just a fineable offense.

[Free Council Communes]

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.

Yes, but if he sticks his dick near your asshole, you have to make sure he is aware you don't want anal. If you just lie their with your ass stuck out and do not object then that is not rape.

[Ifreann]

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

Unless she objects or is incapable of doing so, it is not rape.

Unless all parties involved consent, it is rape.

This is called "innocent until proven guilty".

You do not appear to understand what that term means. Presumption of innocence applies only to court cases. It has nothing to do with consent.

Sadly, radical feminists and other bourgeois counterrevolutionaries are destroying this system. These women are not feminists in any traditional sense of the word. They clearly have no interest in ending gender roles. They are counterrevolutionary lobbyists; not feminists.

I assure you that I could not care less about your worker's revolution.

[The united imperial sector]

Then thats the right to stop if you don't want to do it if the man still does it then thats rape even if before that you gave oral, right right?

Yes. If I told him "no anal" and he goes ahead and does it anyway despite my protests, that's rape, because I did not give consent to that activity. This is why it's always smart to ask whether it's okay to do <sexual act> before you actually do it.

Yes I agree and thats also what consent is being willing to take part in something of your own free will.

[Individuality-ness]

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

Yes, but if he sticks his dick near your asshole, you have to make sure he is aware you don't want anal. If you just lie their with your ass stuck out and do not object then that is not rape.

And if I'm unconscious or sleeping? It's not rape then?

[Individuality-ness]

Yes. If I told him "no anal" and he goes ahead and does it anyway despite my protests, that's rape, because I did not give consent to that activity. This is why it's always smart to ask whether it's okay to do <sexual act> before you actually do it.

Yes I agree and thats also what consent is being willing to take part in something of your own free will.

Exactly. Unfortunately, as it has been demonstrated in every single rape thread, there are people who don't understand that silence does not equate to yes.

[Ifreann]

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

Yes, but if he sticks his dick near your asshole, you have to make sure he is aware you don't want anal. If you just lie their with your ass stuck out and do not object then that is not rape.

Absolutely it is.

---

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

I'm not quite sure how speeding is a gateway crime for rape.

All these objections, it's like you don't want to force people to do hard labour for no reason whatsoever.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Perhaps this could be solved if we understood that rape is bad, no matter what's between your legs. That raping a woman or raping a man is as equally dehumanizing and bad.

In other words, instead of saying that men need to be trained to not rape, we could attack the actual problem and say that rapists - regardless of gender/sex - need to be trained to not rape. After all, not all men are rapists, nor are all rapists men.

I feel like I said something wrong. Did I?

I want to think that I am an egalitarian person. Hence why I don't target just men. But everyone.

This is not to say that rape is no longer a feminist issue. It is. Women are being raped. I just recognize that men can and have been raped and that it's necessary to draw awareness to that too.

It's not about being butthurt, as someone else put it so not eloquently. It's about being egalitarian, or at least that's my take on the issue brought forth by the OP.

[Nadkor]

I'm not quite sure how speeding is a gateway crime for rape.

One thing can lead to anothier and I don't think speeding is a crime I think it's just a fineable offense.

Petty crimes here would be summary offences. Speeding is a summary offence.

Also, "I don't think it's a crime, I think it's an offence" is not something that makes sense.

[The united imperial sector]

Yes I agree and thats also what consent is being willing to take part in something of your own free will.

Exactly. Unfortunately, as it has been demonstrated in every single rape thread, there are people who don't understand that silence does not equate to yes.

Ya thats true in class we talked about how if a women is raped they are to scared or embarased to tell some one about it.

[Ifreann]

Exactly. Unfortunately, as it has been demonstrated in every single rape thread, there are people who don't understand that silence does not equate to yes.

Ya thats true in class we talked about how if a women is raped they are to scared or embarased to tell some one about it.

Or too scared to fight back against their rapist.

[YellowApple]

One thing can lead to anothier and I don't think speeding is a crime I think it's just a fineable offense.

Petty crimes here would be summary offences. Speeding is a summary offence.

Also, "I don't think it's a fine, I think it's an offence" is not something that makes sense.

Namely because "offence" is the action, while "fine" is the response to said action.

[Free Council Communes]

Unless she objects or is incapable of doing so, it is not rape.

Unless all parties involved consent, it is rape.

This is called "innocent until proven guilty".

You do not appear to understand what that term means. Presumption of innocence applies only to court cases. It has nothing to do with consent.

Sadly, radical feminists and other bourgeois counterrevolutionaries are destroying this system. These women are not feminists in any traditional sense of the word. They clearly have no interest in ending gender roles. They are counterrevolutionary lobbyists; not feminists.

I assure you that I could not care less about your worker's revolution.

Innocent until proven guilty needs to be applied to all legal matters. And if a women strips off her clothes and jumps onto of a man and they start having sex, neither of them need to say "I wanna have sex". Consent needs to be assumed to be given if they are perfectly capable of objecting and fail to do so.

[Nadkor]

Petty crimes here would be summary offences. Speeding is a summary offence.

Also, "I don't think it's a fine, I think it's an offence" is not something that makes sense.

Namely because "offence" is the action, while "fine" is the response to said action.

Hah, now there's an error.

It was meant to be "I don't think it's a crime, I think it's an offence"

I can only attribute it to a brainfart

[Gravlen]

Explain to me how the bolded "pushes aside female rape victims."

Explain to me what part of our "culture" endorses rape.

As far as I know, rapists are more vilified than murderers. The only kind of criminal that is actually stigmatized more than a rapist is a child molester.

Consider that the vilifying of rapists and child molesters as evil monsters is directly connected in multiple ways to rape myths and a culture that excuses sexual violence. For example, the idea that rapists are monsters contributes to not believing someone who is "normal" or famous or known personally cannot be guilty of sexual violence. This is similar to the perception that rape is committed by strangers, happens in dark alleys or parks, or involves brutal violence. When sexual violence is alleged that does not match these stereotypes, people often do not consider what happened rape.

(I'm having trouble functioning at the moment. If this is not clear, perhaps I can clarify later.)

This is absolutely clear, and completely true.

Some rapists will fit into the "monster" category. Many do not. Some are even horrified when they realize that they've raped someone.

Rape is a very diverse type of crime.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Unless all parties involved consent, it is rape.

You do not appear to understand what that term means. Presumption of innocence applies only to court cases. It has nothing to do with consent.

I assure you that I could not care less about your worker's revolution.

Innocent until proven guilty needs to be applied to all legal matters. And if a women strips off her clothes and jumps onto of a man and they start having sex, neither of them need to say "I wanna have sex". Consent needs to be assumed to be given if they are perfectly capable of objecting and fail to do so.

How many more times must we correct you on this? How many more before you get it? Really.

[YellowApple]

Namely because "offence" is the action, while "fine" is the response to said action.

Hah, now there's an error.

It was meant to be "I don't think it's a crime, I think it's an offence"

I can only attribute it to a brainfart

Gotcha.

In that case, you remain correct. It would be akin to saying "I don't think this hamburger patty is cow meat, I think it's muscular and fatty tissues from a cow."

[Free Council Communes]

Yes, but if he sticks his dick near your asshole, you have to make sure he is aware you don't want anal. If you just lie their with your ass stuck out and do not object then that is not rape.

Absolutely it is.

I hope you are joking. This is far more ridiculous then even this