I didn't defend myself, mostly because I was still in shock that I could even be capable of such a thing. I saw that she was upset and decided that whatever I did, I wasn't going to leave her like this. I knew I screwed something up, but I also knew that I had no intention of hurting her, so I stayed and listened, desperately trying to demonstrate that I wasn't the guy she thought I was.

Rape is big. It is in many ways worse than murder because it is something a good person just does not ever do, ever (even a good person might murder in passion or betrayal). Every good person (man or woman) knows this. Which is probably why people who want validation for their victim status reach so easily for this horror as their own—and thus dilute the meaning for those who are actual victims of actual rape (and force people to use the disgusting phrase "actual rape" while they're at it).

I also think he's a guy who's come down with some sort of mind virus -- one which I suspect is a mating strategy (so-called "male feminists" really just seeing it as a crafty way to get pussy without being alpha).

Sorry for the double 'describe.'

> This is the reaction of
> a wish, a caricature.

Yeah, kinda—

Actually, I assume we decided to have sex because clothes were coming off and body parts were being pushed together, but there was never any words exchanged....

He has "assumptions" about the things they've "decided." Clothes "come off" without effort or excitement. Body "parts" are "pushed together" by forces undescribed.

She might well be a frosty nimbus, blown through the ether by the idiocies of contemporary feminism and lefty timidity; but he doesn't seem like a thoughtful & conscious man, either. (Hence my admiration for Amy's wisecrack about getting laid without masculine bearing.) They don't seem to have any warmth to share.

"Actually," he says, as if we were being welcomed into intimate truth.

I didn't say no. I broke up with him. He went out of town for three months to work shortly thereafter. He came back and wanted to visit. I invited him into my home. He didn't try to talk. He kept trying to kiss me. I told him to stop. He didn't, so I asked him to leave.

He started to leave. He was out the door, walking away. I sai, "Don't be mad." He turned at ran towards me. He shut the door. I tried to lock it. He wrestled it open and put his foot in the door so I couldn't get it closed again. He pushed his way in.

We were at a standoff. I looked at my keys on the table. Could I grab them and get away? Would it escalate things? I took his lead. When I saw the direction it was going, I gave him a handjob to try to appease him. He was strong. He did not look particularly big. He was only about my height, but he outweighed me by 35 lbs and ran and lifted weights. He was an amateur bodybuilder. I wasn't going to test him physically.

After he came, he took a fingerffull of semen and in a split second fingered me. I had my clothes on but I was just wearing gym shorts and panties.

I turned up pregnant. It was odd. I knew it immediately.

No, i didn't say no. Once he entered my home, I never said no. I even offered to do things for him.

Perhaps it was understood when I asked him to leave and struggled with all my might at the door but I never said no.

PS. I always wonder what this story sounds links coming from his point of view.

Hmm. So he's a musician. I know from my time in a (not successful) band that there is a certain subculture of groupies out there who are under the very mistaken impression that all musicians are fabulously wealthy. Not discounting Crid's point, but I think there's a good chance that there were unspoken motivations on both sides.

I too am sick of women who want all of the rights and privileges of adulthood, but also want to disown responsibility for their own actions. I disagreed with the second-wave feminists on a lot of things, but one thing I always respected them for was that most of them walked the walk; when they suffered career or personal setbacks, they took their lumps rather than whining for someone to come fix it for them. Third-wave feminism is spiraling down the drain now as its leaders openly embrace terrorists, but it's embedded in the larger Millennial culture in which parents and schools crank out children who lack the basic skills of adulthood. If you're one of them and you can attach yourself to a narrative of victimhood, that's a lot easier than having to enroll for a term in the school of hard knocks.

This is not a rape story. It is a consent story.

Did this guy have consent or not ?

Women today have the affirmative duty to say "No" to sexual activity they do not want. Most men will stop when they hear that word. They might try bargaining to change her mind. But a continuing "No" will stop the activity. To disregard an assertion of "No" makes the activity rape.

So, no, the woman in the story was not raped.

And Jacob is right -- a man who's in this situation is not going to sit down for a good feminist cry with the woman. If this even happened.

And thanks, Crid.

So...a woman who says she's raped, just sits around and talks for hours and hours. There's never any police report? (Not that one was called for, since he did nothing wrong in how he had sex with her.)

Someone's bumping you repeatedly in a line or on a train, you ask them to stop, right? And a woman has a guy doing all sorts of stuff to her body and she just lies there and thinks of...I dunno...bell hooks?

You lost me at "The Good Men Project". My impression is that they're male feminists and their mission is to shame men into behaving like white knights for the damsels in distress.

Nick asks:

Did this guy have consent or not ?

I'll answer with a question: Did this woman have consent or not? Why is she the victim, and not the other way around?

Oh, right, men are knuckle dragging rape machines. Forgot about that.

I think it's especially cowardly of Booda and TGMP to populate their article with a stock photo of some tatted dude, thus labelling that guy a rapist.

And the guy in the stock photo? The photo is captioned, "Mid adult man taking a break, leaning on football goal".

I'm not sure about the ethics of using stock photography in articles like these.

Maybe consent of the two subjects they will be called rapist and rape victim were also needed.

Yeah . . . I looked at a few other articles on The Good Men Project and I am not impressed. Classic third wave feminism stuff. And like others I doubt the events in this story even happened.

As for why the girl isn't a rapist all I can say is, thank god for double standards. Without them some people would have no standards at all.

Consent huh? Did she ask for his consent to take him to her house?

That's kidnapping

This is the part that gets me:

"...so I stayed and listened, desperately trying to demonstrate that I wasn't the guy she thought I was. Six hours later..., she seemed to be at peace with everything."

After one hour of her lecturing me, I would be saying, "Do me a favor, call the cops and have them arrest me." I would rather have that happen than sit there and be verbally assaulted for an unknown amount of time, especially if I'm tired and want to get some sleep. (Although I would try to call a lawyer friend in hopes that he beats the cops to the crime scene.)

Assuming the facts asserted in this story are all true and he's not leaving out, e.g., his using some kind of force or coercion, then yes, the woman absolutely should have said no or tried to shove him off if she had no reason to believe he'd harm her if she did so.

But that said, I find it interesting that he describes the sex entirely in terms of him taking actions or it simply happening as though a child were taking two dolls and making them hump. Nowhere is there a mention of her participating in any way whatsoever -- touching him, kissing him back, removing an article of clothing herself. Does he normally have sex with blow-up dolls and corpses?

I have to think if she had shown any sort of enthusiasm or active participation, he'd mention it as part of his evidence for believing the encounter was consensual. If she'd removed her own bra, unzipped his pants, stroked any part of him, moaned... but it sound like she just stayed completely still as he "leaned in for a kiss", "put [his] hands on her breasts," and "reached down her pants". Clothes "were coming off", "body parts were pushed together."

It's not "we were making out, she touched my penis and wriggled out of her pants" etc. It is described entirely either in terms of his own actions or in the third person, as though neither of them is making anything happen.

I find that fascinating and more than a bit suspect.

Is this usual for him when he has sex? Me, I'd think it would at the very least raise questions about the enthusiasm level of the other participant, particularly if this is a first encounter.

Again, yes, I agree a woman should speak up and say "no" if she doesn't want sex. Assuming this woman had no reason to be afraid of the consequences, it was strange that she didn't do so.

But I also think his description of this encounter seems way off. And all we have is his account, which is not exactly disinterested.

I call bullshit. This isn't the reaction of a human. This is the reaction of a wish, a caricature. This is a "feminist" trying to write a pattern story for men to follow.... ~ Jacob at July 18, 2017 10:43 PM

This.

And sticking around after she says "you raped me" might make it easier for the police to scoop you up after she calls them.

The whole narrative of "rape culture" seems to be a group effort to de-legitimize men. The people who failed with "if women ruled the world, there would be no more war" seem to be now trying to marginalize men.

He has "assumptions" about the things they've "decided." Clothes "come off" without effort or excitement. Body "parts" are "pushed together" by forces undescribed. ~ Crid at July 19, 2017 12:03 AM

Theodore Dalrymple, in his book, Life at the Bottom writes about being a psychiatrist in a prison in England. None of the inmates were guilty. The crimes committed were the fault of unseen forces. A man convicted of stabbing another in an argument told Dalrymple, "the knife just went in," as if it had a mind of its own or were pushed by an unseen force into the victim.

These are people who live in squalor not because they failed to improve their lots in life by delaying gratification, but because of those unseen forces that randomly stab their friends and neighbors with knives handily supplied by themselves.

This person is a bystander in his own life. He's lucky he didn't bring a knife and the "forces undescribed" that took his clothes off and pushed him into her didn't also push the knife into her.

So to sum it up:

If we assume he left out nothing in his story, this isn't rape. But he either usually has sex with corpses and/or is phenomenally bad in bed and so expects nothing in the way of response from his partners.

If we assume he just chose to leave out her nonverbal response or actions before or during sex, it's not rape; he's just a shitty storyteller who doesn't think to include the details that would best exonerate him.

There's a third and fourth possibility -- that he left out details that wouldn't make him look sympathetic, or he invented the story.

Reading the story, I lean towards it being (3) and (4). Like I said, it reads "off" to me. But theoretically, if it is (1) or (2), I'll agree it's not rape.

Oh, I'm totally up for "This is an invented pattern story used to demonstrate how men should ask permission before every move and only verbal assent is acceptable or otherwise it's rape."

(I'm team "there are other ways to express assent than verbal," for the record. Though none of those ways are apparent in this guy's particular story.)

Claiming one has a lack of agency is a hip excuse for not countering the forces of evil (ie, patriarchy, capitalism). Somehow, it is claimed, the patriarchy stole this agency thingy out of certain people's pockets or purses in a sneaky way, so that they don't have it any more. Then, under conditions where people normally speak up or take action, they simply say they have no agency, and are therefore a victim when clearly they should have done something. A girl in bed in the guy's dorm with roommate across the room? She lacked agency to call for help. Minorities encountering wood paneling at a college? The paneling took their agency. It is magic!! Like voodoo but without the dolls.

Another thing about this story: women keep inviting basicly strangers to their homes and starting to make out with them, even taking their own clothes off. Or getting blind drunk on a date, again with almost a stranger. Does that sound like a safe/smart thing to do? Just because feminists say you have a right to say no does not mean you should set yourself up in a bad situation.

> Just because feminists say you
> have a right to say no does
> not mean you should set
> yourself up in a bad
> situation.

You're not wrong, but I've been reading that rhetoric at least since Paglia and probably long before. The women & girls who could best benefit from taking your thoughts to heart simply cannot read those words or hear them spoken. On the page and screen they see white space; in the air they hear distant bird chirps. They are unworldy, and believe themselves to be mechanistically conversant with all human motives and behaviors.

Little-old-you (and -me) will not humble them. And when fate (or men) bring them low, they'll demand support of government, not humility from themselves.

It's irresponsible to fail to consider (and discuss with your daughters) the dangers of putting yourself in a potentially bad situation.
A woman still doesn't deserve to get raped, of course. But that doesn't make it any smarter to put yourself in a vulnerable position.

However, the fact that the woman has put herself in such a position in this (FAKE!) pattern story is part of what makes it so ideal for its purpose. Too ideal. (FAKE!)

Hmm several have pointed out how passive she was written in the sex and lead up to sex. That's nothing, compared to how passive she's written after. In 6 hours she apparently said only 3 words. While he listened, went shopping, smoked, and showed he wasn't a rapist (how?? I'll go with interpretive dance, would be as successful as any other way)

Full disclosure:
I used to read GMP regularly. It was started by a couple of guys, but they've been run off by women who are now in charge.
They published four pieces of my fiction and a number of articles.
But in the last year, my editor has not responded and my comments are banned.
They are frequently going on about toxic masculinity, third wave feminism, full SJW radical/progressive.
And rape is more common than sneezing.
Women must be victims since victims have moral authority which allows one to demand things of society.
The usual.

Example: I did a piece on the guys who took down the gunman on the Thalys train. I said that, irrespective of their military trainning, ninety percent of what they were to have them do whaat they did was being normal American boys.

THe subhead was, "Are we forcing our boys into the man box?"

So you can see their viewpoint. The Booda article is right in tune with their new appearance.

>Hmm several have pointed out how
>passive she was written in the sex
>and lead up to sex. That's nothing,
>compared to how passive she's written
>after. In 6 hours she apparently said
>only 3 words. While he listened, went
>shopping, smoked, and showed he wasn't
>a rapist (how?? I'll go with interpretive
>dance, would be as successful as any other way)
-- Joe j at July 19, 2017 2:44 PM

Inflatable rubber women are often the quiet type.

Just because feminists say you have a right to say no does not mean you should set yourself up in a bad situation.

cc at July 19, 2017 12:27 PM
_______________________________________

True enough, but in the same vein, just because the laws regarding statutory rape can vary wildly in different states, that's not a legal excuse for a boy or a man to be unaware of the exact laws in his state - or to have sex with underage strangers. I.e., it's not an excuse for HIM to risk breaking the law. I dare anyone to argue "those laws are all unfair and must be changed now" to a crowd of fathers of underage girls.

Not to mention that if a teenage boy thinks unwanted sex is a myth and so the laws can't be taken seriously, and he can't believe that his girlfriend doesn't want sex with him even after a year, that's HIS problem, so if he's angry about it, he should not "set himself up" in a situation where his anger could get out of control.

(Of course, regarding the teaching that unwanted sex is real, it doesn't help when even men don't have that much sympathy for male victims of female rapists.)

Btw, Gail, like your comments.

If a man has sex with women, he should be aware that women don't always express lack of consent verbally. Perhaps noticing subtle signs of non-consent so as to avoid rape charges should be a skill boys are taught. Much like girls are taught so many ways of avoiding rape. These skills for women are so ingrained, that they're turned into accusations if she neglects them and is raped. Maybe rather than blaming women for not communicating in mens' preferred manner, we ought to ask guys like this why they didn't notice non-verbal signs of lacking consent.

> non-verbal signs of lacking consent

such as resembling a corpse, for instance.

Allison, Gail, lenona

Fuck all of you

Fact, nearly 50% of all sexual assaults are COMMITTED BY WOMEN, and while we are at it so is nearly 70% of all domestic violence

I notice none of you ladies are ever on the 'teach women not to rape' bandwagon

Heres a thought, either women are mens equals are not.

Pick one. If you are equal open your mouths and say no when the occasion arises, even if it means you get your ass beaten

If not say so, and men will keep you cloistered and safe and your fathers will sell you off to your husbands and you wont have to worry about the violent men because you wont be allowed to met any of them without your owners consent

> Fact, nearly 50% of all sexual
> assaults are COMMITTED BY WOMEN,
> and while we are at it so is nearly
> 70% of all domestic violence
-- lujlp at July 19, 2017 8:32 PM

Got some cites for that, sporto? From a reliable source?

And huh, if you actually bothered to read what I said instead of what you imagine I might have said, I opined that the woman should say "no" in this scenario, and that if the scenario is as stated, it wasn't rape. (I just thought the whole damn thing sounds like a fake story, which it does.) And I also said that it's irresponsible not to teach your daughter to avoid unsafe situations.

Also, no one keeps me "cloistered and safe", nor did I ever ask them to. I take care of myself.

I cordially return the "fuck you," though.

Whatsamatter, sunshine -- are all the women you sleep with like inflated rubber dolls, and this story hits too close to home?

Moreover, assuming your statistics are accurate and from a reliable source --

what the fuck do they have to do with this column, which is about whether a woman who acquiesced in sex without objection was raped?

And really -- you don't think that it makes a difference in terms of intimidation when we're talking a 6'3" 220 pound man vs a 5'2" woman? She's got no business being afraid if she wants to be equal?

So if some tough ass huge dude with a switchblade demands your wallet and you give it to him without a word or a fight, does that mean you were willing to give him your wallet? Fuck you, you can't go pressing charges. Hey, if you're equal, why didn't you say "no"?

Here, this guy doesn't describe any intimidation (though we only have his story). He describes a woman lying there like a corpse. Yes, he should have said no if this story were real (which it isn't), but it's rather odd he didn't notice her utter lack of enthusiasm.

Also curious --

do your studies about domestic violence and assault indicate who suffers the greater number and degree of injuries?

Like, are we talking a slap in the face that inflicts not even a mark as equivalent to a punch in the face that breaks teeth? Neither of those things is OK, regardless of who inflicts them. But they're not exactly equal.

If you're counting any form of physical aggression, regardless of how much damage is inflicted, I don't find your stats all that hard to swallow.

I'm a petite woman. Unless I'm armed and he's not, I'm going to find it awfully hard to overpower or seriously injure pretty much any guy. I might be able to slap him, but if he's inclined, he can bash in my teeth.

I'd still say "no" unless he were threatening me with injury if I fought. I wouldn't be frightened merely because my perfectly nice date happens to be large and tries to kiss me (which is the scenario that is allegedly happening in this post, which is why, if it's true, it isn't rape). But if some big stranger overpowers me and forcibly manhandles me, I'm in a lot more danger than he'd be in the reverse situation. It's ridiculous not to recognize that.

Blow me you sexist piece of crap.

Ever notice every time any male challenges you your first resort is to question/insult their sexual prowess and insinuate they arent man enough to please a woman, keep a woman, do anything other than assault an unwilling woman.

Given this is your first impulse I think it says far more about you and your attitude towards men then anyone else ever could.

Whatsamatter sweetheart? Cant, I dont know, use anything beyond third grade school yard insults?

As for sources try the CDC.

And really, a knife? You are going to suggest being held up with a weapon is analogues to inviting a guy back to your place and not saying no over the course of at least a half hour?

Its patently obvious that this is a fake story. Think about it logically (if that isnt to patriarchal for you) she could not be bothered to say a single word at any moment during the entire act. But she could call him a rapist to his face once he finished and then then spend the next several hours berating him on the finer aspects of consent?

What I WOULD find hard to swallow -- and I'd have to see an actual peer reviewed study to believe it -- is that women inflict more INJURY in domestic violence situations. That they initiate more fights, I find potentially believable. But I really have to doubt they inflict more physical damage.

And those sexual assaults -- again I want to know how that's defined and the details of the study. And are we talking purely about sexual assaults committed against male victims? Or are talking about all victims?

If you're saying that 50% of all sexual assaults involve a woman physically forcing or intimidating a man into sexual intercourse against his will, I want to see a peer reviewed study saying that before I'll believe it. Not a Men's Rights Magazine article talking about a study -- a peer-reviewed study done by real researchers.

Lujlp, you started by saying "Fuck you", twisting my statements, and accusing me of shit I didn't say. Which, of course, is what you usually do.

I leave my statements and yours to speak for themselves.

He's just being mean because I got angry with him yesterday for making a good joke.

such as resembling a corpse, for instance. ~ Gail at July 19, 2017 8:25 PM

Sorry, Gail, but lying there passively is not a strategy to avoid being raped or date-raped or engaging in sex you don't want to have.

Passive responses do not clearly communicate. Yes, you may be overwhelmed by the other person or fearful of his reaction, but lying there like a "corpse" is not making clear your desire not to engage in said act.

If the dentist says she's going to drill your tooth, unless you don't want her to, and you sit there passively, she's going ahead and drilling. By not resisting or speaking up, you consented.

An old Italian proverb says "he who is silent consents."

And you can argue that you did not consent, that in fact you resisted by lying there "resembling a corpse" all you want, but by then you've already been raped. The time to make clear that you do not want to engage in sexual activity is beforehand, not afterward.

Active dissent, not passive.

Feminists have long argued that women speak in a passive voice and that it is incumbent upon men to learn to hear communication in the passive voice. And that the law must be changed so the passive voice prevails.

Which is nuts since we live in an active voice world. Instead, feminists need to be urging women to take active control over their lives, to speak up, to act. Some have, but not enough.

Gail Evans does just that in her book, "Play Like A Man, Win Like A Woman. Don't wait for a raise or a promotion, ask for one. Don't assume you have a deal with a client, get a signature.

No, lying there like a corpse is not dissent. But if you have a bad guy out to rape you, it might save you from being hurt, as compared to fighting.

Here in our (FAKE!) scenario, of course, we don't have a bad guy out to rape. Which is why, as I've said -- what, four times now? Five? -- this wasn't rape and she should have spoken up.

But, taking rape aside, what kind of clod is oblivious to the fact his date is lying there like a corpse as he touches her, pulls her clothes off, etc.? I think I'd notice, and take it as a sign that maybe they weren't all that into to me or enjoying themselves. At getting very least, it would be a turnoff.

Similarly, if I were having dinner with someone who never talked, smiled or reacted, I'd notice and think something is wrong.

Doesn't make it rape. It does make it clueless, and indicates the guy isn't much of a lover if it escapes his notice.

First of all, women do need to make their desires clear. On the other hand, most men can kill women with their bare hands while the reverse is not true.

Some men are aggressive sexually. Often men do not read social signals as well as women. Some people think of the autistic (the old Asperger diagnosis) brain as being hyper-masculine. This means that pretty decent men miss signals that scream non-consent to women. Women need to know this so they can make themselves perfectly clear.

Secondly, while the best scenario is to escape unscathed without being raped, the next best scenario is to be uninjured. Escaping with your life is sometimes a win.

No, Lujlp, I'm not woman enough to take an ass-whupping if I can avoid it.

If a stranger tries to abduct you, fight like hell to keep from being moved to another place even if it puts your life at risk. Your odds are still better than being taken to a second location. I guess you can say no. I might not be thinking about that while I am fighting for my life. I don't think that my little "no" is going to help with someone willing to physically overpower me. Once moved to another location, I might even try to cajole or charm this type of man. It doesn't mean that I truly consensented.

If you are already alone, use your wits. If you are basically with a blockhead who may not be reading your signals, say no. Connect the dots for him. Be clear. If he has done something that makes you fear for your life, I think that it is perfectly okay to focus on survival rather than rape avoidance.

In the scenario, I'm not reading a lot of fear. A fearful woman wouldn't have said "You raped me" unless she was in a safe place. If she was still alone this is not making a lot of sense.

Men are much stronger compared to women than many people realize. I was in good shape but I was quickly overtaken one time by an overage sized man. He just picked me up with one hand and carried me up some stairs while hitting me in the face with the open palm of his non-dominate hand which broke my nose. I actually saw stars when he hit me on the head with an open palm. I can't imagine the damage that he could have done if he had used a closed fist of his dominant hand and the full forward momentum of a punch.

I agree, Jan -- in this (FAKE!) scenario, the fact that the (MADE-UP!) woman says "you raped me" is another indication that she (IF SHE EXISTED) wasn't afraid of him and thus there was no reason for her not speaking up to say "no" the night before.

But if you WERE trapped alone with someone scary who is bent on raping you, acquiescence, not fighting, might well be your best survival strategy.

Jen, not Jan. Damn it, where's the auto-correct?

"The women & girls who could best benefit from taking your thoughts to heart simply cannot read those words or hear them spoken. On the page and screen they see white space; in the air they hear distant bird chirps. They are unworldy, and believe themselves to be mechanistically conversant with all human motives and behaviors.

Little-old-you (and -me) will not humble them. And when fate (or men) bring them low, they'll demand support of government, not humility from themselves."

One example appears above. Also, agreement.

Gail, I think my taking exception to your remarks on his failing to read her passivity is based on the impression that you're putting the onus on him to notice she's lying there like a bump on a log and to correctly interpret what that means, whereas I'm putting the onus on her to speak up if she does not want to have sex.

She's leaving the decision on whether they have sex to his ability to read and abide by her passive communication, which, if he fails at it, she's having sex. If she speaks up, she might actually be raped (this was not rape), but she might also walk away unscathed. After all, he didn't pull a weapon or loom over her in an indication of his intention to go through with the act despite any protestations or reluctance she might evince.

On another note, we've all heard tales (both in media and in life) of men complaining that their partner (wife, girlfriend, etc.) is an inactive participant in their sexual activities, perhaps some here have experienced that themselves. Are we to conclude, based on the perspective advanced by the woman in the attached article, that those men are rapists?

First off, if you don't want to have sex with your date, don't invite him/her home or go home with him/her. Or if you do, make it clear that you only want the date to go on longer (or need a couch to crash on) without sex. Without that explicit denial, going home together is planning for sex. You can change your mind, but you have to _say_ no; don't expect your date to read that just from your imitation of a blow-up doll.

In terms of whether this particular (FAKE!) scenario is rape, the onus is on her to speak up and say no. Absolutely.

We agree there.

But in terms of being a decent lover, some onus is surely on him to notice that she is completely non-responsive. Again, I give my dinner companion comparison. If your dinner companion just sits there like a corpse, and doesn't smile, talk, or eat, wouldn't a reasonable person notice? If they don't, it doesn't make them criminally liable, of course, but it doesn't exactly make them a good friend or an observant human being.

If this is your date whom you don't know well, don't you consider "hmm, maybe she's not having a great time?" If it's your wife or girlfriend, don't you start to wonder if something has gone wrong with the relationship or with her?

It doesn't make it rape, but it does make it clueless.

And I TOTALLY disagree that asking your date up for coffee is consenting to sex.

It may just mean you're having a great conversation and the restaurant is closing. Sure, it MIGHT mean she's open to more, and I don't blame a guy for trying, but it absolutely isn't an agreement to have sex.

I invite friends, some of them male, up for a nightcap all the time. Am I propositioning them? No.

Also, just so you know, if you drop her off and ask to use her bathroom, the fact she says yes doesn't mean she wants sex.

I AGREE a woman has an onus to say no (unless she's in a dangerous situation where no might result in worse than rape). But this "she let me into her apartment, so she wants me in her vagina" -- no.

Sometimes a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee.

(I repeat, for the tenth time, this particu k ar (IMAGINARY!) woman should have said no, and this particular (FAKE!) scenario, as stated, wasn't rape.)

I agree with Gail for the most part. An invitation to ones home is not an invitation into bed.

When I was a teenager my mom said that I shouldn't keep letting a man take me out to dinner without reciprocating with a home-cooked meal so that I'm not taking advantage of him. Was this just a ploy to get grandbabies?

There was a reason for old-fashioned courtship. If women are afraid of men and say yes (or say nothing) just because the man is bigger--and this is probably true quite often--then traditional courtship helps solve the problem: go to the girl's house, sit on the porch and talk, go to a movie, go to a church picnic. The scenario here was the girl was very forward at an earlier point in time and then invited the guy up to her apartment--why would he not assume yes? And this scenario happens constantly: the girl is in the boy's dorm room or apartment or he is in hers (and in either dorm you could scream for help). There is no excuse for getting in these situations.

As to the passivity question: some women are ambivalent about sex or not very responsive or think it is bad to show interest, and this can go on throughout a marriage. Expecting men to read minds on this is completely impossible. It is even doubly impossible when they are drunk.
While Gail invites men up for a nitecap, I still don't think that is a great idea. The typical male reaction to being invited up at 11pm is that sex is at least a possibility. If you just want coffee go to Starbucks.

I come from Jen's background -- reciprocating with a home-cooked meal was proper, and definitely not an invite to sex.

Taking aside whether having sex with an immobile, unresponsive woman is rape (we have all agreed this particular situation isn't rape), I would think it would be... Unfun. A downer. Something that would make me ponder, were I caressing a male partner and getting no reaction at all, "is it him or is it me? Either way, no fun."

Hi lujip, I was only trying to be helpful and suggest some ways men can modify their behavior to avoid rape accusations. It sounds like a real problem, I'd think men would want to avoid putting themselves in this dangerous situation. What's got you so worked up?

(again) taking the issue of rape aside --

On the one hand, you're making the assumption that a woman agreeing to enter an apartment with a man on a first date actively wants sex. Indeed, she wants it enough to have it with a man she barely knows.

Yet at the same time, when she lies there like a corpse, you assume she's "ambivalent about sex" or "not very responsive".

Newsfash -- women who actively want sex enough to have one night stands usually show some enthusiasm.

And bad news, guys -- if a woman is really enjoying it, she'll usually show some sign of it. It's hard to lie still and stare at the ceiling impassively when you're aroused or having an orgasm.

It's quite possible, of course, that she is submitting to sex she doesn't enjoy in order to get something from the man. Money. A relationship. Kompromat. That being the case, her mere impassivity isn't evidence of rape. We've agreed -- this wasn't rape.

But it's pretty good evidence she isn't enjoying sex. Either she doesn't like sex, or she doesn't like it with you.

Either way, it doesn't sound like much fun to me.

It may just mean you're having a great conversation and the restaurant is closing. Sure, it MIGHT mean she's open to more, and I don't blame a guy for trying, but it absolutely isn't an agreement to have sex.

Sometimes a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee.

Gail at July 20, 2017 9:00 AM

No argument there.

If she invites him up for coffee or a drink, both parties are, or should be, recognizing that the evening is continuing and something more could happen, but not by default agreeing that it will.

What's got you so worked up?

I dont know, maybe its the fact that 100% of the conversation about rape is always about how all men are filthy felons forcing themselves on poor women too afraid to say a single word even though over 45% of all sexual assaults are committed by women?

Could be that this story is so demonstrably false yet rather than have a reasonable conversation about sex it immediately devolved into "men need to be be better" regardless of the fact that AGAIN half of all sexual assaults are committed by women.

And think about this, when you factor in male on male prison sexual assault, out here in the the land of the free that probably means more women assault men then men assault women.

And yet the constant drum beat is that men, all men, are the problem.

I wonder f that wouldnt piss you off Allison.

>If she invites him up for coffee
>or a drink, both parties are,
>or should be, recognizing that
>the evening is continuing and
>something more could happen,
>but not by default agreeing
>that it will.

-- Conan the Grammarian at July 20, 2017 11:15 AM

Completely agree.

I'd also agree that a woman would be wise to think carefully about whom she invites up for coffee. If she has any reservation about him or his conduct, she'd be wise to avoid putting herself in such a situation. That's just plain common sense.

And further, I agree she has a responsibility to speak up and say no if he initiates sex and she doesn't want it.

(I would give an exception only if he gives her good reason to believe she'll end up in the hospital if she says no -- e.g., he grabs her by the throat, hurls her violently on the floor, rips her shirt off, and says " I'm going to f*ck you, bitch.". I tend to think her "no, thank you" would be lost upon such a man, and fighting could land her in the hospital or worse, especially if he's much larger or stronger, which he likely is. So, as with the thug in an alley demanding your wallet, acquiescing in that scenario is not consent -- it's potentially saving your life. But I hastened to say, we don't have that in our (fake, theoretical) scenario.

Time on women and domestic violence:

Excerpts (emphases mine):

Research showing that women are often aggressors in domestic violence has been causing controversy for almost 40 years, ever since the 1975 National Family Violence Survey by sociologists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire found that women were just as likely as men to report hitting a spouse and men were just as likely as women to report getting hit. The researchers initially assumed that, at least in cases of mutual violence, the women were defending themselves or retaliating. But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.

Critics have argued that the survey format used in most family violence studies, the Conflict Tactics Scale, is flawed and likely to miss some of the worst assaults on women—especially post-separation attacks. Yet two major studies using a different methodology—the 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey published last February—have also found that some 40% of those reporting serious partner violence in the past year are men. (Both studies show a much larger gender gap in lifetime reports of partner violence; one possible explanation for this discrepancy is that men may be more likely to let such experiences fade from memory over time since they have less cultural support for seeing themselves as victims, particularly of female violence.)

Violence by women causes less harm due to obvious differences in size and strength, but it is by no means harmless. Women may use weapons, from knives to household objects—including highly dangerous ones such as boiling water—to neutralize their disadvantage, and men may be held back by cultural prohibitions on using force toward a woman even in self-defense. In his 2010 review, Straus concludes that in various studies, men account for 12% to 40% of those injured in heterosexual couple violence. Men also make up about 30% of intimate homicide victims—not counting cases in which women kill in self-defense. And women are at least as likely as men to kill their children—more so if one counts killings of newborns—and account for more than half of child maltreatment perpetrators.

Sounds like you want to discuss a different topic than the one in the post.

This is the weirdest comment thread. The article is about how men can avoid rape accusations by paying more attention to the women they're sleeping with. Amy thinks it means women should use the verbal words, so guys won't have to pay so much attention. The comments are about incredibly violent rape, guys being raped by women, domestic terrorism, prison rape, domestic violence broken out by gender, and god knows what else, I couldn't get through all of it. Ya'll have some issues.

Thanks for the stats, Conan. So basically, the theory I posited above is correct -- that women are just as likely to initiate some kind of domestic violence, but more likely to end up seriously injured or dead as the result of domestic violence.

I would think as a general thing, if a woman has no weapon or defense training, the average man could subdue an average woman pretty easily, while the reverse is not true. And, sans weapon or training, the woman will likely suffer more damage in either process.

I've play wrestled with a couple if boyfriends. They could pin me pretty easily, even when I was trying with all my strength. One kept it up too long and it was actually scary. I had to beg him to stop.

That's not to minimize a man who has an abusive partner, especially one who resorts to weapons. She's horrible, he doesn't deserve it, and there's no excuse. It's just to say if a woman and man are alone and no weapons are handy, she's nearly always more vulnerable than he is.

> Ya'll have some issues.

-- Allison at July 20, 2017 12:36 PM

Allow me to explain.

Some fine, interesting, thoughtful, and amusing people comment here, and I drop in from time to time to see what they're saying, as well as what Amy is saying. But there are also some card-carrying members of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club. Amy's "women need to take responsibility and not be eggshells" stance (which, overall, I agree with) brings them out in full force, at which point a comment thread about pretty much anything degenerates into how eeevil the Eeevil Females are, historically abusing the Poor Abused Downtrodden Saintly Men.

If you dare take any line positing that, e.g., perhaps in some situations fault might lie on both sides, and you happen to be female, you are an evil whore bitch who hates men, and yet, at the same time,you are a pathetic snowflake demanding their protection.

All clear?

> Sounds like you want to discuss
> a different topic than the one
> in the post.

Sounds like you want to tell people where the boundaries of their discussions lie.

Thassa no-no, Sugahmuffin

You never call me "Sugahmuffin," Crid.

I mean, that's your prerogative, and I understand that. I'm just saying it hurts.

In your case, explicit verbal permission will be required before cheesey diminutives are deployed.

A highly commendable practice, Crid, reflecting your wisdom and discretion.

I hereby provide explicit verbal permission for you to call me "Sugahmuffin."

Lujlp, you may continue to call me a "sexist piece of crap." I shall not, however, blow you.

> Got some cites for that, sporto?

And listen, dood, while you're digging through the files anyway....

You know, in retrospect, it probably would have been more polite if I'd obtained explicit verbal permission to call Lujlp "sporto."

If a stranger tries to abduct you, fight like hell to keep from being moved to another place even if it puts your life at risk. Your odds are still better than being taken to a second location.
-Jen
___________________________________________

Absolutely! There's a big difference between fighting off a would-be rapist and fighting off a kidnapper. That is, everyone says that with the former, there's no one right approach, since one could get killed, but with the latter, many cops will tell you never to go with the kidnapper, even if he's armed. If he kills you for running, fighting or refusing to move, he was going to kill you anyway. Plus, once he does kidnap you, you're a witness to a felony.

Gail, yeah, I have seen these guys on other comment threads. They twist every conversation into an anti-feminist diatribe.

This article, Allison and Gail, are about AGENCY.

That if you want to be 'strong independent women', you need to OWN your agency.

And that means entering into conflict by having to say 'NO!' once in a while. Not pouting. Not body language. Not focusing your chi into crystals. DIRECT conversation.

This isn't about love making skills. This isn't about awareness or lack of awareness. It is responsibility to avoid critically bad situations...for both parties.

And what were the first comments out of your fingers? "The guys should mind read my body language or it is rape."

You walked back on that...sort of. But that attitude is more common than men are comfortable with. In fact, it is POLICY in some colleges.

Which is absolutely insane. A woman bites her lip and puts on a pouty face. Is she hurting and wishing this was over? Is she trying to stifle her cries of passion? Or are those chimichangas trying to escape out her back door and she's trying to not ruin the mood?

A woman lying there without response to sexual intercourse. Is she a prude? Is she having a lousy time? Is she Irish? All are possible and not mutually exclusive.

FAR too much likely failure. But by pushing this on men, women can avoid conflict and see a RAPE ACCUSATION is a acceptable price for a woman to avoid saying "No!"

Let me give you a bit of body language which adequately explains my feelings on this as policy.

(Turns back, bends over, drops trouser and drawers)

Are there any questions?

Just to make clear.

We started teaching boys 'no means no'.

There has been a recorded 50% drop in rapes in the last 20 years when we added that bit of clarity to sexual congress.

Now some women want to remove that bit of clarity and responsibility to the detriment of men.

No thanks.

The article, Fido, is about how me. Can avoid rape accusations. We womwn already know how to avoid rape, Lord knows, we've heard all the strategies.

See, Allison, you can spot out the members of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club by their complete failure to distinguish between individual women or hear their actual words. Hence, Lujlp and FIDO will assign you responsibility for not only everything I say (and vice-versa), but also any strawman arguments the imaginary Eevil Female in their heads might come up with.

Hence FIDO's:

>And what were the first comments out of
>your fingers? "The guys should mind
>read my body language or it is rape."

...addressed equally to you and to me. For the record, I, at least, said nothing of the kind. But, see, it doesn't matter. We aren't individual people to them. We are fungible blow-up dolls.

Oh, and they seem to be reeeeeaaaaly reeeeeaaaaly hyper-sensitive about their skills in the sack, by the way, since they take any suggestion that any guy, anywhere, might not be all that clueful in the dating department as a direct insult to their own ability to maintain an erection.

Anyway. FYI. It's kind of a waste of time to try to earnestly engage in rational debate with Lujlp or FIDO on issues relating to women. (Also on issues relating to Trump, but that's another story.)

https://youtu.be/wBIC8JTQMMQ

> There has been a recorded 50%
> drop in rapes in the last 20
> years when we added that bit
> of clarity to sexual congress.

Sight unseen, I'd bet the clearer reading of any citation could present here would go 'There's been a 50% drop in reported rapes.'

And the social scientists worth their salt are circumspect about ascribing effects to causes, because who knows. Specifically—

> We started teaching boys
> 'no means no'.

Whaddya mean "we"? Not all of us are so presumptuous, or desperate for admiration, that we imagine ourselves creditable for bringing morality to half of civilization. Cosh once mocked the "precious, dire hipster silliness about how Elvis Presley invented fucking."

Review also Gail's data points, and Ecclesiastes 1:9... It's tough out there for boys & girls, and always has been.

Darth Aggie and Richard Aubrey are spot on about The Good Men Project. For some reason I'm on their email list; once in awhile I'll open their message and click over to an article. Invariably it's cringeworthy.

"The article, Fido, is about how me. Can avoid rape accusations."

Assuming you ment men, no it isn't. It is more about how rape accusations can't be avoided if you ever interact with a woman.

"Maybe rather than blaming women for not communicating in mens' preferred manner, we ought to ask guys like this why they didn't notice non-verbal signs of lacking consent."

That line alone is enough to enrage people. If you want to communicate something it is your responsibility to make sure the message got across. Men aren't psychic. They can't just know what happened in your head. It flat doesn't work that way. In addition it is clear that he didn't rape her in this entirely made up scenario. So in addition this is a false accusation. She may as well have called him a murderer.

http://thedevilspanties.com/archives/11970

Ok, Gail and Allison, got it. Any critic of feminism is a he-man woman-hater. And the same goes for those who posit that men have their own set of injustices to deal with, I suppose.

Does that include our flame-haired hostess, as well?

Really, now. Can you be surprised that the feminist chickens are coming home to roost for women? And it's just beginning ...

Okay. Gail is a troll. Got it.

There are was a case which I have on my computer but don't have here.

A man had sex with a girl. She texted her friends she was having sex with him. His ROOMMATE was sleeping on the bed above them. Yes she knew. Yes she didn't care.

How much clearer consent is there?

Until Mom found her texts and a very Gail-like professor came onto the scene.

Suddenly, months later, he was told to report to defend himself. No, he doesn't get to hear charges. No, he doesn't get a lawyer. No, he can't present evidence. Prove your innocence, miscreant rapist scum!

This 'body language/affirmative consent' hooey has been already castigated as a civil rights violation by the Harvard Law Review.

Colleges are losing many millions of dollars in reparations as a result of these civil rights violations. Including Mattress Girls Facebook BFF. As they are in my cited case.

Gentlemen, we seem to have left the job half done if Allison and Gail are any indication. It was insufficient to simply teach most of our sons that 'no means no'. We need to teach our daughters' to actually be responsible enough to SAY 'no'. That they actually have a responsibility in that whole 'intercourse' thing.

Regarding stats.

I have a scale. It is probably not perfect. So I am not sure what my 'real' weight is. But since it's error is consistent, I have a pretty fair idea what my weight trend is.

UCR stats are flawed stats, but they are the most accurate and least politicized that we have. Certainly more accurate than RAINN which is pushing an agenda and has every incentive to maximize the size of the problem.

Let us posit, to further argument, that RAINN'a questionable ratio is in fact true. For every reported rape, there are 19 unreported ones.

That means that it is very likely an accurate indicator of basic rape trends IF the percentage of reporting vs non-reporting women remains constant. And why would it change?

So if we have a drop by half in reported cases, just basic common sense suggests there is very likely close to a 50% drop in unreported rapes.

In fact, with rape awareness becoming a huge social meme the last few decades, the percentage of women reporting has very likely INCREASED! They are more believed and better treated when they report. Which means that rape has likely dropped even more.

Instead, we have Crid somehow inferring that the reverse is true: that in an age where girls are always believed, often coddled and even celebrated (Mattress Girl, Jackie, the Duke Stripper) , that more women are NOT reporting rapes.

Assertion is not evidence. I have numbers which strongly suggest one thing and a pretty persuasive hypothesis that the opposite of 'fewer reports but more rapes' is happening.

I won't directly ascribe all of this change to 'no means no' but it is a suitable stand in for the awareness of a sea change In society and the law.

I will let the audience decide which is more likely.

Demonstrating contempt for uber-emotional strawman arguments and ridiculing your attempts to put words in my mouth that I never said (indeed here, I've said pretty much the opposite) doesn't make me a troll.

It makes me...

...actually, I think it makes me Crid.

Let's recap, shall we?

I said, clearly and repeatedly, at keast half a dozen times, that this scenario wasn't rape and that the woman should have said no.

As a side issue, I noted that it sounded like a fake story. I also noted that if it were true and he wasn't leaving anything out, the man, though not a rapist, was pretty damn unobservant for failing to notice that the woman apparently was utterly unresponsive and simply laid there like a corpse the whole time. Finally, I put forward a very different scenario that might, in my opinion, justify a woman fearing for her safety if she did say no, noting at the same time that it was not this particular scenario.

As far as I can tell, my position is pretty much the same as Conan's on the material points at issue here. He hasn't weighed in on whether the guy was observant, I'll grant you. That's my little extra feminine touch.

But FIDO and Lujlp nonetheless jump in with "you sexist bitch! you want to jail men as rapists for not being mind-readers! Blow me!" (Yes! That's totally conflating what FIDO and Lujlp said! And adding the word bitch for good measure! Which is EXACTLY what they both did to me and Allison!)

It's hard not to mock that, I'm afraid. Also, I seize upon any excuse to post Our Gang links.

I also must note that Lujlp and FIDO use this particular tactic -- conflating posters, putting words in their mouths, using strawman arguments, making wholly unjustified assumptions about them -- in virtually every thread that touches upon women. Hence why I've dubbed them the He-Man Woman-Haters Club.

They do pretty much the same thing when anything touches on Trump -- e.g., they don't argue with your actual criticisms so much as they scream you're a mad-dog libtard who just can't stand that Hillary won and wants to tear up the Constitution and turn the U.S. of A into Soviet Russia. (Ironic, since it's actually Trump who wants to do that, but never mind.) Assertions that you are a libertarian, supported Johnson, and think Gorsuch was a great choice for the Supreme Court will get you nowhere. Nope -- despising Trump = libtard who is out to strip God-fearing Americans of their property and use it fund an army of flying monkeys to tear down our Republic.

I ask you, what is a girl to do?

I have seen these guys on other comment threads. They twist every conversation into an anti-feminist diatribe. -Allison

So criticizing the actions of any individual women is anti feminist Allison?

I also must note that Lujlp and FIDO use this particular tactic -- conflating posters, putting words in their mouths, using strawman arguments, making wholly unjustified assumptions about them -- in virtually every thread that touches upon women. Hence why I've dubbed them the He-Man Woman-Haters Club. . . .

I ask you, what is a girl to do? - Gail at July 21, 2017 12:59 PM

------------------------------------

Before I answer that let me show you this

Does he normally have sex with blow-up dolls and corpses? -Gail at July 19, 2017 11:33 AM

But he either usually has sex with corpses -Gail at July 19, 2017 11:57 AM

such as resembling a corpse, for instance. -Gail at July 19, 2017 8:25 PM

He describes a woman lying there like a corpse. -Gail at July 19, 2017 9:15 PM

But, taking rape aside, what kind of clod is oblivious to the fact his date is lying there like a corpse -Gail at July 20, 2017 6:10 AM

Yet at the same time, when she lies there like a corpse, -Gail at July 20, 2017 10:34 AM

woman apparently was utterly unresponsive and simply laid there like a corpse the whole time. -Gail at July 21, 2017 12:25 PM

------------------------------------

So, what's a girl to do? (to avoid being attacked by 'women haters' I presume?)

Maybe not continually suggest men are rapists so eager for sex they are basically willing to fuck dead bodies, or close approximations thereof, especially based on such an obviously fake story? Very much especially based on a story you claim to also believe is false?

Or are you really so delusional that a couple of people, who happen to be men, finding you 'men will rape corpses' meme disgusting and calling you out on it as an individual on is proof that lots of men hate lots of women for 'no reason'?

To quote Ed Stark: Anything you hear in front of a 'but' is bullshit.

So let me look at what Gail had to say behind her 'But'. I am being a touch choosy simply to get to the key statements.

"I find it interesting that he describes the sex entirely in terms of him taking actions or it simply happening as though a child were taking two dolls and making them hump. Nowhere is there a mention of her participating in any way whatsoever

I have to think if she had shown any sort of enthusiasm or active participation, he'd mention it as part of his evidence for believing the encounter was consensual.
.
.
.
I find that fascinating and more than a bit suspect."

These are the facts you laid out:

-She didn't say no (but you implied some king of fear stopping her saying so)

-he had no evidence of enthusiasm or consent.

Which, for those used to passive aggressive assertions, implies strongly you believe he is a rapist.

But let me allow you to clarify. Do you believe he is a rapist or not?

Please be clear with a yes or no answer. Body language doesn't work well over the internet.

While we are here:

Do you support affirmative consent laws?

Is consent implied without a no or is a man legally obligated to get a 'yes' first?

If a man tries to warm up a girl from a 'no' to a 'yes' (as many girls assert that they need to 'get into the mood'), is that rape or seduction? Just to cut off your wiggle room, no force is enacted besides pressing a few kisses. No 'being held down'.

Do you believe a woman has the right to retroactively withdraw consent and it should be legally enforceable? We are talking about events where there was enthusiasm before hand and not 'scared silent'.

Here are my stances:

The only person who knows if a woman is against sex is the woman.

The only person who knows if a woman changes her mind is the woman.

The only body language which works 100% of the time is to expel air, move one's tongue and say 'No'. If you want to include more body language, a sharp shove can be added. Since the man a) wants a second chance and b) doesn't want to go to jail, for something like 93% of men, that is enough to stop him from pressing for sex. The other 7% account for a rather large number of rapes.

'NO' clarifies quite a few POV misunderstandings regarding sex. It lacks ambiguity EASILY lost with body language based consent.

If a woman wants sex, she is equally capable of saying 'yes'. Maybe SHE needs to be a hell of a lot clearer in what she wants from her BF.

I oppose Affirmative Consent laws. 'No means no' is perfectly adequate. It does not cover women paralyzed with fear, but nothing is perfect and I do not see pre-criminalizing men as an answer to this rather rare phenomena.

So which ones do you disagree with me about, Gail?

None of those comment either of you quote were made in the context of whether this was rape.

The corpse ones were all in connection with my observations that the story sounded fake and if it was true and accurately presented, the guy was amazingly obtuse for not noticing her utter lack of movement, BUT --

I still said (several times) this scenario was not rape, and that she should have said no.

I'm on record elsewhere on this blog (from a couple of years ago when I dropped in more regularly) as not favoring affirmative consent laws and stated that I myself would rather not be verbally asked before every move but instead just want a guy to take my "no" seriously and stop if I ask. And in this thread, I noted that a woman could say "yes" with actions as well as words. I actually find the whole "ask before every move thing a turn-off, for the record. If she kisses you back, helps remove clothing, caresses you, etc., etc. -- that's yes.

I stand by all of that.

But I also stand by my statements that a good and considerate lover will notice if his partner is completely nonresponsive, and see if he can't do more to please her. The same is true if you reverse the sexes, by the way. Good lovers care if their partner is happy. Only lousy lovers don't. But the standard applies either way.

This guy, unless he left it out, didn't notice her immobility. I didn't think he would leave it out if she were sighing and screaming in rapture, because his whole point was that he thought it was consensual, and that would be strong evidence. But I didn't say that made it rape. I just said it made him oblivious.

I also noted, and only because Lujlp went all over the top saying a woman should say no even if she'll get the shit kicked out of her, that in fact a real fear of death or injury would be the one instance where despite a woman not saying no, it still might be rape. I.e., if he's clearly demonstrated he's a thug who will knock out her teeth if she says no, her failure to say no doesn't imply consent. It implies terror. I also said that was NOT the case here. In fact, the proof is her accusation the next morning. They're still alone, and she is plainly not afraid. Therefore, it was on her to say no.

That's of course IF the entire scenario isn't invented, and I am pretty certain it was.

Since we're clearing things up, I should also note that I think Allison made a valid point when she noted that a lover who paid attention to whether his partner was enjoying herself might reap an extra benefit -- he'd reduce the chances of misunderstandings like this (FAKE!) scenario. Win/win, as far as I can see. Sex is more fun if you please your partner, and you'd be sure she was in fact into it. Doesn't mean you're a rapist if you don't, but you'll probably see more action if you give a crap if your partner is happy. This guy didn't do that. Sure, she didn't either. But I already said, it's not rape and she should have said no. She paid the price -- she had sex she didn't want and was unhappy. He didn't get charged with rape. If it weren't fake, it would be sad.

All clear now?

That's actually pretty much all in my posts above, if you read them in context instead of cherry pick them for phrases showing what a SJW bitch I am.

> Let us posit, to further
> argument, that

Wimmin's be totally intimids-adated by that lawyerly talk, because it makes the insides of they heads itch all up 'n down the middle.

> I have numbers which strongly
> suggest one thing and a pretty
> persuasive hypothesis that the
> opposite of 'fewer reports but
> more rapes' is happening.

You got no numbers. You've got resentments, and they don't persuade. Lootsip never got back to us with his cites, either.

Compelling new motto:

🡆 "To Further Argument!!!" 🡆

Crid, Lujlp and FIDO are being all mean to me. While I try to drum up some fake legal charges so I can toss them into prison, can I hide behind you? I'm all a-sceered and incapable of taking care of myself.

P.S.-- I give you explicit verbal permission to call me "L'il Snowflake" if you want.

P.P.S. -- also, Crid? Can you use your manliness to make FIDO stop coming down all legal-like with me? It's so intimidating I can hardly type up all these harassment and hostile blogging environment charges I'm inventing to persecute him.

Do you think maybe he's raping me with his posts? I'll throw it in just in case.

> use your manliness to make
> FIDO stop

Oh, that is so typical. Now you come cryin'.

Listen, little missy, masculinity isn't some trivial plaything, okay??!? It's important and loud and perfectly sturdy, so you must never make fun of it or reflect on its ironies or challenge it in any way. It's not some toy for you and you gal friends to manipulate for your own sinister amusement.



Unless you can get away with it, and you think it would be neat.

Crid: color my face red. Of course writing a phrase improperly TOTALLY destroys any credibility Inhave and isn't a fallacy at all.

Gail: exactly how long have I been posting here? Hint: it's likely not a year and if incorrect, not much more.

Further I RARELY stray to the blog comments so this stuff 'everyone knows'...they don't. NOW I know what your stances are and where we agree.

I am sure the snark was an entertaining bonus, but please, don't trouble yourself on my account.

These are REAL policies destroying young men's lives, and even without Affirmative Consent, just an accusation from a woman like in this story could ruin the life of someone like my son. As Crystal Magnum, Jackie and Mattress Girl have shown us, the truth in these assertions can be less than 100%.

I am glad you find my concern amusing. Got any sons? I am going with 'no' on that.

Now I will leave this thread so I can leave my wife unsatisfied once again.

> As Crystal Magnum, Jackie and
> Mattress Girl have shown us,
> the truth in these assertions
> can be less than 100%.

These are big figures in your life! And as the escapades of Casper the Friendly Ghost have shown us, a friendly smile, girlish voice and helpful demeanor do absolutely nothing to lessen the calamity when your translucent, incorporeal form terrifies a young family at the beach picnic. Or whatever.

So, therefore, I think you should be as distressed about these matters as you possibly can. On blogs and throughout your life. Think of your son, because the stakes couldn't be higher. Mattress girl, got it? Boo! 100%!

i found a darling tiny flag character, the windy racetrack kind, to add to the breezy new motto:

🏁

🡆 "To Further Argument!!!"™ 🡆

I mean, if you tell us that your son is at risk for a bad encounter with such people, I think we should totally believe you.

To be fair, FIDO has himself just experienced a bad encounter with me. This ordeal may have led him to overestimate the odds of his son having a bad encounter with Mattress Girl, given that she and I are essentially fungible.

" a good and considerate lover will notice if his partner is completely nonresponsive, and see if he can't do more to please her."

Some lovers are insensitive or suck.

This does not make them rapists.

It makes them people you shouldn't give a second chance.

Well, we started with mind reading on rape but someone decided to transition it into mind reading in love making ability.

If I walked into a fancy restaurant, told the waiter to surprise me, and held him liable for the quality of my dining experience purely based on my enthusiasm levels, I would get the dining experience I deserve. (Granted, the waiter might be more attentive to the non-verbal signals since you are paying him. Nothing like professional PAID services)

By the same token, if your ability to communicate what you want sexually is based on pouting, you get the sexual experience you deserve.

Since every woman has a different 'operating system' for her libido, it would not be amiss to maybe have a 'help' menu handy.

To wit, if all you get are lousy lovers, maybe what you are doing in the communication department isn't working.

Because just like a man can't read your mind about consent, he is no more likely to mind read about your toe fetish.

Your sex life is your responsibility.

Yes. I said now a good dozen times it doesn't make him a rapist.

If it were not a completely fake story. Which it is.

Looking at it as a real story and imagining it actually happening, it falls apart like wet toilet paper.

But I suppose, absurd as it is, it has accomplished its appointed task -- validating the pro-explicit-verbal-consent-only gang at the other site and stirring up the people with Mattress Girl phobia at this one.

Heavens, what a tedious one-night-stand it would be if it were real.

A night of sex in which only one partner is sentient, followed by a morning after consisting of six hours of recriminations, followed by a Morality Parable for the audience.

I can't work up any sympathy for either of these puppets.

I never get to "OMG, he was in danger of rape charges!" because I can't get past his description of the sex and for one minute believe he's describing a real event. Sure, some women are frigid or unenthusiastic. Bad sex happens. But his way of describing it screams "I made this story up for a feminist magazine to show how woke I am!"

Hence my failure to join the outrage train. I'll nod to the "yes, this hypothetical situation is not rape," but I find it impossible not to snark at the story itself.

If I walked into a fancy restaurant,
told the waiter to surprise me, and
held him liable for the quality of my
dining experience purely based on my
enthusiasm levels, I would get the dining
experience I deserve. (Granted, the waiter
might be more attentive to the non-verbal
signals since you are paying him. Nothing
like professional PAID services)

-- FIDO

(Must. Stop. Snarking. Buuuuuutttt...)

I gotta point out, this is a lousy analogy for your point.

If you went into a fancy restaurant, and they failed to bring you menus or fill your waterglasses and never brought your appetizers, you'd promptly fire off a nasty review on Yelp and tell all your friends.

And their reaction would not be "it's totally your own fault for being a non-assertive diner!" but rather, "That's ridiculous! What a terrible restaurant. I'll never eat there."

Also, restaurants, even non-fancy ones, generally pester you for affirmative responses. "Is everything OK? Can I get you anything else?"

It still doesn't make our imaginary guy a rapist, of course. He's not. (See how I set thatvoff so you wouldn't miss it?)

But if we take rape out of the equation for just a moment (what's the harm? it's all fake hypotheticals anyway) and just discuss the love-making experience, both parties have responsibilities to make the experience worthwhile for each other and to notice if the other party is very obviously lying there like a corpse.

If she faked an orgasm or enthusiasm, of course, then it is completely her fault. It would certainly be unreasonable to expect him to know it was fake. If such a detail were included in this story, I'd be more inclined to believe it were true.

And if I believed it were true, I'd join you all in Camp Outrage.

Aaaannnd --

As to why I jumped to "he's a lousy lover (were the story true)" rather than assuming she's a one-off non-responsive partner -- that's because our Fake Feminist Hero (1) apparently didn't even notice she was completely non-responsive (which strongly indicates this is normal for him), and (2) he nonetheless assumed not just that she consented, but also "assumed she was enjoying it" and it never once occurred to him that she wasn't having a splendid time. The only way you'd assume that from a non-responsive partner is either if you had very little sexual experience (and didn't watch porn), or else this was just the way sex usually is for you -- a non-responsive woman.

I don't so much fault him for assuming consent as for assuming "enjoyment."

So. That's why I assumed he's not a good lover in general. IF the story were true. Which it isn't.

Which still doesn't make him a rapist.

And she should have said no.

As far as the honesty of the story is concerned, I don't know, and I don't care overly much. But I suppose 'fake story' sorts out a lot of the strange elements.

When I read 'Body parts were rubbed against each other and clothes were shed', and you add his total surprise at the accusation at the end of the story, I got the opposite impression: that her actions during the night caused him a total feeling of reversal and betrayal.

That is MY biased reading of the scene on my first read.

Additionally, the writer, whomever she is, is writing in a specific style and clearly does not want to dwell on the sexual elements, which is not the core of the story anyway. So poor writing, editorial choices, or stylistic elements are easily just as credible a reason that parts are missing which you think are so darned necessary to exonerate him. His 'lover quality' isn't germane to the story.

This interpretation of 'lack of enthusiasm' is a personal artifact, not a 'truth written in stone'.

**


My analogy wasn't perfect. Your rebuttal to my so so analogy is spot on. If you want something from your partner ASK for it. In ENGLISH, not in interpretive dance or any other crappy communication technique.

This whole 'body language' thing is just as much a responsibility dodge as a woman not saying 'no' when she doesn't want sex: blaming someone else for your own sexual life. HE should ask and HE should see your enthusiasm levels and HE should do this and HE should do that.

How about, I don't know, YOU take some G-- D--- initiative? Just a thought. Might save some time. Might make your experience a whole lot better.

I have seen women order food in a restaurant and give PUNCTILIOUS instructions on the ingredients, sides, levels of preparedness, which items should come first, which beverages should come with which courses etc.

But somehow, when it comes to SEX, it's 'whatever you want to try but you better knock my socks off!'?

Yeah...that's fair.

Again, it will be completely cool with all of us if you wait for social boundaries to be perfectly "fair" before you go out and try to live your sex life.

Sit there, wait, and don't move until it's "fair."

Okay.

But Crid! Now NOBODY is moving.

Anyway. You want to know what's kind of amusing about this latest turn our little conversation has taken? Probably not, but I can't sleep, and it just right now occurred to me, so'll tell you anyway.

FIDO et al. don't think a guy should have to talk before or during sex. Inquiring "hey, you wanna do this sex thing?" or "say, this move here, are you digging it? Because you seem kind of corpse-like?" Nope, that's right out -- it's ENTIRELY too much damn talking to expect. Unromantic, amirite?

But FIDO wants the women to chat up a storm -- not just voicing the simple "no" if applicable (which I'm 100% on board with, as I've said), but also detailing up her sexual requests like a diner order. ("I'll have some penetration with a side of cunnilingus, please, and go easy on the nipples. No, not like that. Here, I have some power point slides. Let me show you."

Now, see, I'm pretty good with having pretty much all of this done by both parties without words, both parties being sensitive, attentive, and responsive to each other, and only speaking up when something really calls for it -- which, yes, includes saying "no" to sex, but, IMO, also includes saying "honey? You still alive? You haven't moved in an hour." That seems "fair" to me. And more romantic. But it does require both parties to be attuned to their partners' reactions or lack thereof.

By the way, fun point I missed before -- our Fake Feminist Hero specifically notes that the sex didn't take long. Tee hee. He says this like it's a good thing.

On the flip side of this, I'm a gay man who has on numerous occasions encountered straight women storming into gay bars, demanding that I dance with them, or watched them getting overly handsy with myself and other guys and thinking it was hilarious and/or welcome (needless to say we're not amused). On those occasions, I've been very clear that I wasn't the hired entertainment and firmly asked that they stop touching me or to move back because they were too much in my space. Those requests were met with shocked looks (What? You weren't waiting for us to treat you like fabulous accessories???) or to be completely ignored. The last time this happened, the woman's guy friend had to literally yell at her to back off as she refused to acknowledge that I was speaking directly to her.
To be clear, I'm not even remotely suggesting this was on the level of a rape or putting this kind of rude behavior on all women. But I do think the obligation of respecting boundaries works both ways, and the response to this kind of thing tends to be, "Now you know how WE feel!" Ok, so knowing it's wrong, why would you behave just as badly, particularly to a group that's obviously never done that to you? Just putting that out there as I'm curious for people's take.

JTNY, I'm with you that those women are being terribly rude.

No one of either sex should be physically grabbing at strangers in bars. That should require express permission, IMO.

Ditto on strangers touching pregnant women's bellies.

Rude huh? Guy touches a woman who doenst say no, after inviting him back to her house, he is a rapist

Women who continue to sexually assault men who tell them no, who were never invited in - and thats just rude?

Odd

It is indeed odd that your reading comprehension and reasoning skills are so very poor.

Go back and tell me who in this thread said the guy in our Morality Play was a rapist. I'll wait.

Also -- grabbing someone's arm (or some other nonsexual part) and trying to convince them to dance (not force or intimidate them to have sexual relations) is very rude. It could, depending on the situation -- e.g., it was extreme or the perp would not desist -- amount to harassment or even assault. That's true whatever the sex of the victim and perp.

But it's not sexual assault. See, e.g., https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-assault/

A different story, of course, if they're grabbing their victim's ass, private parts, or breast, grinding up against them sexually against their will, etc. But that's not the impression I'm getting from JTNY's post. He can clarify if that's what he meant.

discussion of "assault" vs "forcible touching" should you require one.

http://newyorkcriminallawyersblog.com/2013/02/the-difference-between-assault-and-forcible-touching-in-ny.html

notice the reference to "sexual or other intimate parts." notice too that the purpose must be either to gratify sexual desire or degrade the victim.

Not what JTNY described. What he described is simply extremely rude and obnoxious.

> FIDO et al. don't think a
> guy should have to talk
> before or during sex.

"Et al" duzzeneven wanna communicate:

> Guy touches a woman who doenst
> say no, after inviting him back
> to her house, he is a rapist

They want the silences to align such that everyone gets laid. This strikes me as interpersonally-avoidant.

Let's imagine that people talked to each other and were nice.

> Let's imagine that people talked to each other and were nice.

That might work on paper, Crid. But in practice, it would inevitably mean less time spent engaging in actual coitus. Not to mention fewer hours available to rage on blogs about the opposite sex's incomprehensible and unreasonable behavior.

No. Let us continue to maul one another in sullen silence.

> Let us continue to maul one
> another in sullen silence.

One of those occasions where only sarcasm —whatever its misdirections— can describe the texture of an argument.

Loo's facetiousness was inadvertently blunt.

That's a just a great line: "Sullen," in younger hearts, is "the strong, silent type" only without the strength. Even children recognize courage, and it's absence.

Its.

Sorry, I feel bad... These comments are written from a weird time zone, with strange customs and inverted causality and you can't buy drinks on Sunday. They elected Trump. Everybody's obese and they talk funny. It's a little disorienting.