Men need to be trained to not rape.

[Free Council Communes]

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trying to say is that once a couple have agreed to have sex that it would only be rape if after the fact consent was withdrawn.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.

Thank you!

[The Rich Port]

Not all men are violent and rapey.

However, American cultural values are incredibly bizarre and twisted, I will admit, and it definitely could confuse many people.

The media and popular culture just need to catch up from the 1850's when it comes to women.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And I'm all for it, love.

Oh, but my rap sheet is so, deliciously clean. I'm quite tempted to dirty it for him however. After all. He clearly deserves it, he's posting in such a provocative manner, and why, he never said no!

Lewd behavior. He clearly's asking for it.

[Individuality-ness]

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trying to say is that once a couple have agreed to have sex that it would only be rape if after the fact consent was withdrawn.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.

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

[Aurumaquaria]

We all know that people only commit crimes because they don't know that what they're doing is wrong...

In the case of rape, sure. It happens a lot, actually.

I doubt it. I think most men know that forcing women to have sex with you against their will is wrong... In other circumstances where the definition lacks a concreteness, then perhaps that's where the issue in which you speak of arises.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I can't vouch for every kink community out there. But the ones I frequent, he would be banned in no time.

You are in a good community then Nana.

Yes, I am.

It doesn't tolerate that kind of bullshit.

[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trying to say is that once a couple have agreed to have sex that it would only be rape if after the fact consent was withdrawn.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No, he's saying that consent is assumed for all sexual activity, and can only be withdrawn by expressly stating so before or during sex.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.

[The Steel Magnolia]

In the case of rape, sure. It happens a lot, actually.

I doubt it. I think most men know that forcing women to have sex with you against their will is wrong... In other circumstances where the definition lacks a concreteness, then perhaps that's where the issue in which you speak of arises.

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexu ... d_rape.htm

Try again.

[Socialist States Owen]

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:<

[Vitaphone Racing]

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, 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.

[Eliasonia]

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. That should be classified as unlawful coercion.

I can't believe what I'm reading right now. So forcibly incapacitating someone for the sole intention of having sex with them against their will isn't rape? If it's not than what the fuck is? Should the rapist have to introduce himself and say "Look out, I'm going to rape you now". Un fucking believable. There is no way you are serious right now. I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

[Nadkor]

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.

Except that that's not what he said at all

What he said is that "sexual acts should be considered consensual unless one partner directly & verbally objects to said sexual act."

That's simply legally true

In which jurisdiction?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

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

I wonder if he has ever heard of spouses raping spouses. It happens.

A marriage license isn't a free pass, pass GO, collect 200 dollars for sex. You always ask.

[Free Council Communes]

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.

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.

[Wamitoria]

I have no idea how your story is relevant. Are you suggesting that you raped your ex, and now feel depressed about it?

No, I am not. What I am saying is it is just plain offensive to suggest that women don't lead men on.

What the fuck are you talking about?

In no way is that a thing at all.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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, 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.

[Kaelmlant]

I agree, singling out men in the article both lets female rapists completely off the hook, and makes it very easy to be discriminatory and insulting, something which the author took no steps to avoid.

Maybe the author only wanted to address male-on-female rape and the social and cultural intricacies surrounding it, something of which she was the victim.
On that basis, her touching the subject of female-on-male rape is unnecessary. It was obviously not rape in general what was on her mind and, really, arguing from her silence on female-on-male rape is pretty dishonest. By that logic, I could argue that some random victim of female-on-male rape talking only about female-on-male rape is discriminatory of male-on-female rape.

Not quite, but if they then posted an article questioning whether it's possible to educate women not to rape, it would be a step too far and should be challenged.

Insulting the group that they intend to persuade and change is completely counterproductive, and completely undermines the intended impact.

It is not particularly insulting when statistics insulting show a critical situation regarding male-on-female rape, especially social attitudes towards some forms of male-on-female rape.
I myself am not offended, because I can see that her arguments, while inflammatory at first glance, are not entirely without merit in reality.

It may not be insulting to you, but from the responses of a lot of people on this forum, and from comments on the article's web site, it should be apparent that a lot of people were insulted. The result is that the people opposed to the article is not composed solely of rapists, but also by a significant number of people who do not object to the idea presented, but instead by the manner in which it was presented. I completely agree that there needs to be more thorough education about sexual autonomy, but it's just not acceptable in my opinion to blame an entire gender for something that only a small minority actually do.

In some ways, I actually do question whether the article was meant to have a positive impact, or whether it was intended primarily to grasp readers and lead anyone disagreeing with the tone to be labelled a rapist sympathiser.

In some ways, I find that sort of speculation on your part useless and unnecessary.

Then you may ignore it. I was suggesting that in the process of generating readers by vilifying males (which draws in both support and opposition because it is naturally very divisive), "people offended by the article" and "rapists" have become merged together in the eyes of a lot of people defending the article. I think that demonstrates a lack of tact in approaching the issue on the part of the article's author.

If this was an earnest attempt at opening discussion about education to prevent rape, it has failed spectacularly to generate support.

After reading through this thread for the past couple of hours, I think you are either shamelessly lying, or you haven't payed attention.

I should clarify. It has generated a lot of support, but it has also generated a lot of unnecessary opposition, which undermines what support it does generate.

Just as a closer, I do not at all disagree with the concept of better education about sexual autonomy to prevent rape, but I do have issues with the neutrality of the article, and I think it is unnecessarily inflammatory, and possibly deliberately so. I don't think the author needed to "shake the beehive" to get their point across, because there does not need to be a "men versus women" mentality when the education affects everyone.

[Liriena]

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. 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!

[Individuality-ness]

You are in a good community then Nana.

Yes, I am.

It doesn't tolerate that kind of bullshit.

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

[Freelanderness]

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.

We're fascists for demanding you don't get to rape people?

Then I'm a fascist and I'm goddamn proud of it.

This is going to be part of my signature from now on.

[EnragedMaldivians]

The very idea that a woman can "lead a man on" through her behaviour, dress, or actions. If she consents to a blowjob, she's not consenting to anything else.

Actually a women can lead a man on, it has happened to me. I thought she loved me but she was just using me; I has led to me attempting to commit suicide twice and I have developed depression. So yes, that does happen, a lot. I'm not suggesting that those women deserve to be raped, but it isn't rape unless consent was clearly withdrawn.

I hope you realise one day, preferrably soon, what a disgusting thing to say that is.

[Liriena]

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.

Stop shouting at the mirror, kiddo.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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 at any point, during intercourse, the partner wants to stop and the other ignores her/his wishes, yes, it can be rape. Even if consent was given at first.

[New Edom]

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.

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".

[Wamitoria]

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!

Ugh. May I just say that, on behalf of the majority of my sex, we're not all like that.