Feminists invent ''sex consent kit''
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Paraphilos
But it isn't a modern trend; 98% of men don't face any repercussions for their actions. I agree that it's bad that a falsely accused man could have his reputation unfairly tarnished but seeing how rare it is to be falsely accused coupled with the fact that, as evidenced by this thread, people are more likely to sympathise with men there isn't much reason to believe that that is the most pressing issue.
In a world where the onus of consent is placed upon the man and not the accuser; in a world where a male student can be removed from a campus because a female student thinks he looks like her attacker; in a world where men are assumed to be guilty when accusations are made... I would suggest the trend is quite clear.
I have to confess, I am not interested in how rare it is. It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. The only groups who oppose this approach are authoritarians and feminists. Although that isn't much of a distinction as the most vocal feminists now-a-days tend to be authoritarians with victim complexes.
It is a far cry from the old days of feminism.
Original post by Paraphilos
But it isn't a modern trend; 98% of men don't face any repercussions for their actions. I agree that it's bad that a falsely accused man could have his reputation unfairly tarnished but seeing how rare it is to be falsely accused coupled with the fact that, as evidenced by this thread, people are more likely to sympathise with men there isn't much reason to believe that that is the most pressing issue.
The fact though is that we have no real idea of what the number of false accusations is. The number of PROVEN false accusations is, admittedly very low, but then again so is the number of PROVEN rapes. Would it not be reasonable to think that in the same way that the number of convictions for rape accounts for a tiny percentage of the number of rapes that happen, that the number of convictions for false accusations is itself a small fraction of the total number of false accusations.
My desire (and I'd hop/believe the desire of most people in this thread who are discussing the issue of false accusations) is simply to see justice done whilst having those principles vital to it being done fairly upheld, that is the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof being upon the prosecution amongst others.
The problem with rape is that it's inherently a very difficult crime to successfully prosecute, precisely because most rape does occur between people who know each other, and because there is often a distinct lack of collaborating evidence for the case of the prosecution. The result being that you are not able to prove that the accused is guilty in most cases and it would abhorrent to treat him as though he were (BECAUSE you can't prove that he is). This is one of the heartbreaking things with rape in that in order for justice to be applied fairly and dare I say justly many guilty people are going to have to go free, and be treat as though they were innocent.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
The implication that I may be raping a woman if I don't subscribe to any of these extremist feminist ideas is actually something that I as a man find incredibly offensive.
Plenty of people have an incomplete or inaccurate conception of consent. The rapes that occur due to dodgy ground caused by this (and also those caused by dodgy ground caused by unpleasant attitudes towards women) rather than straight-up pinning someone down and forcing them are often perpetrated by men who genuinely would not consider themselves to be raping the person. Being affronted by the thought doesn't solve the problem. That is of course not to suggest that you might be unwittingly raping people. Just that being offended by measures that seek to solve the problem (as misguided as the one discussed on this thread unfortunately is) is not particularly helpful, and says nothing about whether you actually have a safe and healthy attitude towards consent. All it says is that you dislike the idea of being called a rapist. Which is... normal. Even for rapists.
If the item in the OP was simply an attempt to raise awareness and spark discussion about issues of consent, then I can't hate it too much. It is irritating that it misses the ball so badly on the issue of ongoing consent, and thereby almost risks making the situation worse by allowing people to think that once consent has been given, it cannot be withdrawn. But I don't think we can ever risk talking about these issues too much. The more the better.
Original post by Ronove
Plenty of people have an incomplete or inaccurate conception of consent. The rapes that occur due to dodgy ground caused by this (and also those caused by dodgy ground caused by unpleasant attitudes towards women) rather than straight-up pinning someone down and forcing them are often perpetrated by men who genuinely would not consider themselves to be raping the person. Being affronted by the thought doesn't solve the problem. That is of course not to suggest that you might be unwittingly raping people. Just that being offended by measures that seek to solve the problem (as misguided as the one discussed on this thread unfortunately is) is not particularly helpful, and says nothing about whether you actually have a safe and healthy attitude towards consent. All it says is that you dislike the idea of being called a rapist. Which is... normal. Even for rapists.
If the item in the OP was simply an attempt to raise awareness and spark discussion about issues of consent, then I can't hate it too much. It is irritating that it misses the ball so badly on the issue of ongoing consent, and thereby almost risks making the situation worse by allowing people to think that once consent has been given, it cannot be withdrawn. But I don't think we can ever risk talking about these issues too much. The more the better.
If the item in the OP was simply an attempt to raise awareness and spark discussion about issues of consent, then I can't hate it too much. It is irritating that it misses the ball so badly on the issue of ongoing consent, and thereby almost risks making the situation worse by allowing people to think that once consent has been given, it cannot be withdrawn. But I don't think we can ever risk talking about these issues too much. The more the better.
But what happened to common sense..
If i kiss a girl and she kisses me back and is wet and moaning during sex then even without asking (i don't think i've ever verbally confirmed consent), it's not rape.
If she says stop or it hurts or no, that's when you question.
Original post by Rakas21
But what happened to common sense..
If i kiss a girl and she kisses me back and is wet and moaning during sex then even without asking (i don't think i've ever verbally confirmed consent), it's not rape.
If she says stop or it hurts or no, that's when you question.
If i kiss a girl and she kisses me back and is wet and moaning during sex then even without asking (i don't think i've ever verbally confirmed consent), it's not rape.
If she says stop or it hurts or no, that's when you question.
I'm afraid I can't agree.
It would seem very unlikely that she didn't give her ongoing consent in that situation, but her having kissed you at the start, and her being wet and moaning while you have sex with her, are not guarantees that she actually wants you to be continuing at that point. She doesn't need to have told you stop, or no, or that it hurts.
This isn't a problem that is necessarily particularly easy to solve, but it's important to realise that what you described is not necessarily 'not rape'. I can imagine it would be incredibly unlikely that you would ever be convicted of rape in that situation should she later point out that she no longer consented at some point after returning your kiss, but that's a separate issue.
Original post by Ronove
I'm afraid I can't agree.
It would seem very unlikely that she didn't give her ongoing consent in that situation, but her having kissed you at the start, and her being wet and moaning while you have sex with her, are not guarantees that she actually wants you to be continuing at that point. She doesn't need to have told you stop, or no, or that it hurts.
This isn't a problem that is necessarily particularly easy to solve, but it's important to realise that what you described is not necessarily 'not rape'. I can imagine it would be incredibly unlikely that you would ever be convicted of rape in that situation should she later point out that she no longer consented at some point after returning your kiss, but that's a separate issue.
It would seem very unlikely that she didn't give her ongoing consent in that situation, but her having kissed you at the start, and her being wet and moaning while you have sex with her, are not guarantees that she actually wants you to be continuing at that point. She doesn't need to have told you stop, or no, or that it hurts.
This isn't a problem that is necessarily particularly easy to solve, but it's important to realise that what you described is not necessarily 'not rape'. I can imagine it would be incredibly unlikely that you would ever be convicted of rape in that situation should she later point out that she no longer consented at some point after returning your kiss, but that's a separate issue.
So the only sign of ongoing consent is for her to repeatedly say 'I consent'? The simple fact is when people are going to have sex it's not realistic that a man would say 'are you sure about this? Tell me if you change your mind at any point' before having sex. The current law is so stupid that, in theory, most men who have had sex could be liable for rape
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ronove
I'm afraid I can't agree.
It would seem very unlikely that she didn't give her ongoing consent in that situation, but her having kissed you at the start, and her being wet and moaning while you have sex with her, are not guarantees that she actually wants you to be continuing at that point. She doesn't need to have told you stop, or no, or that it hurts.
This isn't a problem that is necessarily particularly easy to solve, but it's important to realise that what you described is not necessarily 'not rape'. I can imagine it would be incredibly unlikely that you would ever be convicted of rape in that situation should she later point out that she no longer consented at some point after returning your kiss, but that's a separate issue.
It would seem very unlikely that she didn't give her ongoing consent in that situation, but her having kissed you at the start, and her being wet and moaning while you have sex with her, are not guarantees that she actually wants you to be continuing at that point. She doesn't need to have told you stop, or no, or that it hurts.
This isn't a problem that is necessarily particularly easy to solve, but it's important to realise that what you described is not necessarily 'not rape'. I can imagine it would be incredibly unlikely that you would ever be convicted of rape in that situation should she later point out that she no longer consented at some point after returning your kiss, but that's a separate issue.
Is the sex scene in Titanic rape? She looks terrified like a deer in the headlights and she certainly isn't showing any ''enthusiastic consent'' , yet he still doesn't stop.
Original post by Wade-
So the only sign of ongoing consent is for her to repeatedly say 'I consent'?
No. That is what we call a strawman.
Most sex where both partners seem enthusiastic is probably consensual. But the way he described it was not enough for him to declare it to be 'not rape' the way he did. He did not describe ongoing enthusiasm and engagement from the woman - he seemed to describe some amount of initial reciprocation of activity, and then simply 'moaning and being wet'. These are not the only possible signs, and they are not necessarily signs that would be absent in rape.
The simple fact is when people are going to have sex it's not realistic that a man would say 'are you sure about this? Tell me if you change your mind at any point' before having sex. The current law is so stupid that, in theory, most men who have had sex could be liable for rape
While I have not suggested that a man has to do that, I don't see why it isn't realistic. All it shows is consideration.
Original post by Anunaki
Is the sex scene in Titanic rape? She looks terrified like a deer in the headlights and she certainly isn't showing any ''enthusiastic consent'' , yet he still doesn't stop.
I don't recall a sex scene in Titanic beyond the steamy carriage thing, and I'm not remotely interested in subjecting myself to a youtube clip of that dreadful film...
Original post by Ronove
I don't recall a sex scene in Titanic beyond the steamy carriage thing, and I'm not remotely interested in subjecting myself to a youtube clip of that dreadful film...
I don't recall a sex scene in Titanic beyond the steamy carriage thing, and I'm not remotely interested in subjecting myself to a youtube clip of that dreadful film...
So is any man who has had sex with a woman where she didn't seem over the top enthusiastic or gave verbal consent a rapist?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Anunaki
So is any man who has had sex with a woman where she didn't seem over the top enthusiastic or gave verbal consent a rapist?
I suspect you might need to rephrase your question. Unless you're asking whether you're a rapist if a woman gives verbal consent. To which I would ask when did the woman give verbal consent and what did it consist of, anyway.
Original post by Ronove
I suspect you might need to rephrase your question. Unless you're asking whether you're a rapist if a woman gives verbal consent. To which I would ask when did the woman give verbal consent and what did it consist of, anyway.
I am asking what if the sex happened without any verbal communication or overly-enthusiastic behaviour on the part of the woman. Both just go along with it, the woman doesn't protest or looks amazingly thrilled either. Is the man a rapist in this case?
Original post by Anunaki
I am asking what if the sex happened without any verbal communication or overly-enthusiastic behaviour on the part of the woman. Both just go along with it, the woman doesn't protest or looks amazingly thrilled either. Is the man a rapist in this case?
Lol, 95% of husbands in the world are screwed if that's the case.
Original post by Anunaki
I am asking what if the sex happened without any verbal communication or overly-enthusiastic behaviour on the part of the woman. Both just go along with it, the woman doesn't protest or looks amazingly thrilled either. Is the man a rapist in this case?
If the woman 'doesn't look amazingly thrilled' and the man just keeps going anyway, I would ask what the **** he's thinking. In that situation there is no excuse for not checking she's OK and wants to continue. It's not difficult. It is difficult if all you care about is having sex and you don't care to risk the woman saying that actually, she'd rather stop, because she's not really enjoying herself.
Original post by Ronove
I suspect you might need to rephrase your question. Unless you're asking whether you're a rapist if a woman gives verbal consent. To which I would ask when did the woman give verbal consent and what did it consist of, anyway.
What ff your wife says 'You know sometime I wish you would just **** me out of the blue instead of asking me all the time'
What are you supposed to do then?
Original post by Viva Emptiness
Lol, 95% of husbands in the world are screwed if that's the case.
Their wives, too.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
What ff your wife says 'You know sometime I wish you would just **** me out of the blue instead of asking me all the time'What are you supposed to do then?
Original post by Teaddict
I have to confess, I am not interested in how rare it is. It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. The only groups who oppose this approach are authoritarians and feminists. Although that isn't much of a distinction as the most vocal feminists now-a-days tend to be authoritarians with victim complexes.
This -- the scattergun approach to justice is repulsive, and comes back to the basic problem of many on the left: that they see groups instead of individuals, and thus end up abandoning the idea of justice in individual cases. In this case we're seeing a women-vs-men approach.
The idea that raising conviction rates is such a desirable end as to justify the incidental ostracism and imprisonment of innocents ought to be regarded as obscene by anyone who cares at all about the proper administration of justice.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Ronove
If the woman 'doesn't look amazingly thrilled' and the man just keeps going anyway, I would ask what the **** he's thinking. In that situation there is no excuse for not checking she's OK and wants to continue. It's not difficult. It is difficult if all you care about is having sex and you don't care to risk the woman saying that actually, she'd rather stop, because she's not really enjoying herself.
Because many men either don't give a **** if she is enjoying herself or can't read body language. Should they go to jail for that?
Original post by Viva Emptiness
Lol, 95% of husbands in the world are screwed if that's the case.
Right. Looks like feminists expect every real life shag too look like a scene from ''Sex and the city'' where the woman is having 18 consecutive orgasms and can be heard across 3 New York boroughs. Otherwise it's do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go directly to jail.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
This -- the scattergun approach to justice is repulsive, and comes back to the basic problem of many on the left: that they see groups instead of individuals, and thus end up abandoning the idea of justice in individual cases. In this case we're seeing a women-vs-men approach.
The idea that raising conviction rates is such a desirable end as to justify the incidental ostracism and imprisonment of innocents ought to be regarded as obscene by anyone who cares at all about the proper administration of justice.
This -- the scattergun approach to justice is repulsive, and comes back to the basic problem of many on the left: that they see groups instead of individuals, and thus end up abandoning the idea of justice in individual cases. In this case we're seeing a women-vs-men approach.
The idea that raising conviction rates is such a desirable end as to justify the incidental ostracism and imprisonment of innocents ought to be regarded as obscene by anyone who cares at all about the proper administration of justice.
It;s a problem with many on the right as well.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
It;s a problem with many on the right as well.
I might regret this, but: for example, in relation to what?
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I might regret this, but: for example, in relation to what?
Immigrants on benefits, not working, everyone on benefits is workshy. There are many steroptypes and narratives the right use very effectively.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Immigrants on benefits, not working, everyone on benefits is workshy. There are many steroptypes and narratives the right use very effectively.
I won't argue the point on stereotyping. There are people on all sides who are guilty of that. That's a different point. You're talking about assessment of people belonging to certain groups. I'm talking about seeing various matters as being basically about groups.
An example would be the enforcement of positive discrimination by way of quotas. Whilst what I would see as important would be the opportunities available to individuals, and that individuals are judged properly as against each other (e.g. particular man A vs particular woman B), someone on the left of politics would be at least more likely to see the matter in terms of the substantive success of the concerned groups overall (i.e., to follow on with my example, men vs women).
You may not take that as a criticism, but I've noticed that that sort of reasoning underlies a lot of my personal disagreements with the ideas of those who would consider themselves as being on the left of politics.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
