I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't done something stupid like this at least once in her life (myself included).

The difference is we don't look for some "word" for it and try to insinuate it's "sorta kinda like rape" while simultaneously trying to insist that we'd never REALLY call it rape (which is really where she wants to go with that).

The difference is also that the smart ones among us chalk it up to experience, and adjust our behavior accordingly.

As Amy said, it's called being a grownup.

Oooh, oooh! I know a word for this experience! It's one that has fallen out of favor over the years, but getting plastered, then having sex with someone you weren't really that into rather than saying no and feeling bad and squicky about it later?

That's called shame.

Lest anyone think I'm judging, I'm looking back at my own history and experience, and I can apply the term to at least a few of them. You grow up, you grow wiser, and you stop doing things you'll feel ashamed of later.

Exactly, Daghain.

And perfect, Celeste.

Been there. Adjusted accordingly.

But what had happened the night prior was not consensual sex, and I didn't like it.

The way I see it, there are three broad categories:

At one end of the the spectrum, there's nonconsensual sex. This is where one person makes it clear, through words and/or actions, that they don't want to have sex with the other person.

At the other end, there's sex where the consent is explicit. It's "affirmative-consensual" sex, e.g. "I really want you to fuck me."

In the middle, the broad middle, is sex where the consent is implicit. There's no "I really want you to fuck me." but there's also no "I don't want to do this." This is the kind of sex the writer had. It wasn't "affirmative-consensual" sex but that doesn't mean it wasn't consensual (as the writer claims.)

Well, gentlemen, there it is... the thought process that will get you accused of rape in a few months. Because by then, that illdefined feeling will have hardened into determination that it was your fault.

Beware. Don't have drunk sex with women, and be careful generally, with women, esp at Uni.

You might do ok... or have your life trashed. See: mattress girl.
It's a CF, and noone is having fun.

and noone is having fun.

Based on his smile in many of these photos, I agree.

Fortunately I'm psychic so this whole "he didn't read my mind so he's a rapist" thing doesn't apply to me.

The rest of you guys are in big, big trouble.

The way I see it, there are three broad categories:

Wrong, there are two categories

1. The guy stops every five seconds to get consent even when he is not the initiator, gets it until they are finished, and the woman never changes her mind before she dies

2. Rape.

It doenst matter if she said yes at the time if she changes her mind later, it doesnt matter if you were passed out and she molested your unconscious body, it doesnt matter if it never happened an you have date and time stamped video footage that you were one hundred miles away when she said it happened.

Everything is rape

Wrong, there are two categories

I should've added that I realize the "Yes means Yes" movement feels there is no middle category of implied consent, that if consent isn't explicitly stated through words, it's nonconsensual. The writer appears to belong to this camp since she claims that because she didn't give her explicit consent, what she had was nonconsensual sex.

Somewhat-related question I hope someone can answer for me. And, no, I'm not arguing her situation was rape (unless he was a mind-reader) and I'm not arguing anything really. Just curious ...

Is it normal for a guy to continue when it seems the girl isn't super into it? It sounds like she was just lying there like a log and giving him awkward stares and not moving. I was discussing this with a male friend the other day and he was talking about a random hookup he'd just had. He told me: "She just didn't seem excited. She wasn't in the moment and she was barely moving. Wasn't making a sound or kissing me back. I got the condom on and she was just LYING there looking at me like she'd rather be doing something else. That was a huge boner killer. Like, I could go jerk off in the other room and it would be more fun. So I told her let's just go to sleep."

It's been a long time since I was out there having the sex with multiple partners. But I also remember not being super into it once and the guy going, "You must be tired. Just go to sleep." I told him, "No no it's fine.." and he got annoyed ad responded, "What the fuck??? I don't fuck bow-up dolls! Do you think I'm fucking pathetic?"

I'm a straight woman so I wouldn't know -- but are enough women so passive and boring during sex that it's hard to tell if they're into it?

Good question, sofar. For me, a woman doesn't have to be "super into it" for it to be a turn-on, but she does have to be into it -- or appear to be into it -- to some degree. I can't recall ever being with a woman who just laid there looking bored. If that had ever happened, I wouldn't have wanted to continue. I was never into sex just to get myself off.

I'm sure some guys will continue fucking a woman no matter how disinterested she seems but I'd think the percentage of guys who are like this would be fairly small.

"but are enough women so passive and boring during sex that it's hard to tell if they're into it?" sofar

Well, dunno how many points of data you will get... but I can add a few points of data that say passive? yes.

Not a cassanova or anything, but it meant that the first really enthusiastic girl was a revalation.

OTOH, drunksex I'd think would become a bit drowsy and relaxed for both?

Also, NOT having sex is rape

http://www.examiner.com/article/university-of-michigan-says-that-withholding-sex-is-sexual-violence

I hate this woman and all like her. Because women are adults and can make decisions about their own bodies if it's abortion, but not if it's sex. Riiiight.

Stupid cunt.

"Is it normal for a guy to continue when it seems the girl isn't super into it? It sounds like she was just lying there like a log and giving him awkward stares and not moving."

Sofar, a few things to consider.
Men, even under the best circumstances aren't the best at reading subtle signals.
Low lights make it tough to tell awkward stare from loving glance.
Add in alcohol, to dull her giving signals and his reading of them.
First times with someone new are often a bit nervous, awkward, or clumsy.
Men tend to assume that if she isn't into it she will actually say so and if not then is ok. Kind of like the reaction when eating a meal, you can say yum a lot or give compliments to say it's great or send it back if it's wrong/horrible, but does no comment = hated it or that it's just another burger.

"but are enough women so passive and boring during sex that it's hard to tell if they're into it?" It varies person to person but there is some truth in that.

I remember one lady with whom I did stop because she seemed to not be moving. She laughed it off because she had been wondering how to tell me she was rather into bondage and to her 'normal sex' was her not being able to move much.

As to the whole rape-ish thing.
Him staying the night when he didn't really want to isn't imprisonment-ish.
spending a weekend moving someones furniture when you really didn't want to isn't slavery-ish.
And giving money to some charity or homeless guy because you felt guilty isn't theft -ish.
People can say no, sure feelings may get hurt but it is your choice, and no one is forcing you.
That is the difference between each of these things, no force.

I feel like this is very generational. 20 years ago when I was in my early 20s, the word rape would never even come to our thoughts! It would just be, ugh, that was stupid. Never doing that again...I have definitely had sex at least 3 times when I wasn't into it, but was hoping to be or felt obligated (we were dating a while and thought I Owed him) or maybe it would jump start feeling more than friends with a great guy I was dating a while who was really into me. Nope. However it was my choice.

I also had good friends who saved me from myself when I was drunk. They walked me to my apt and put me to bed and even if I wanted to stay and they never left me at a place by myself even when I insisted.

I really don't understand what is going on out there. Especially when these young women don't seem to respect themselves. Perhaps this coincides with hook up culture that also didn't exists 20 years ago (am I right? I really don't think we slept around like they do today). It's so weird. So casual about sex and no responsibility.

Meh.

Yes...some women are bad at sex.

There was a girl I was with once, she was super into it but due to other obligations, we simply didn't even have a few minutes, so we said we'd pick up where we left off later in the week.

Well, she showed up at my place as planned...

Then she became a blow up doll.

She was a striking, beautiful woman.

But it was quickly obvious that she thought her part in sex was to have open legs and to lie down.

Whether it was inexperience, or past bad experience, I do not know, I did learn later through one of our mutual friends that she'd fallen in love with me.

So there was no question of willingness or consent.

But...some women just are not good at sex, they don't know it is really OK or even encouraged to be active, engaging, go wild, claw, scratch, bite, and so on.

That said...look bad sex to a guy is sex he misses out on, anything else begins at good and only gets better.

If we could look into the head of the man she was with, he probably just thought she was one of those women who didn't know what she was doing.

Question for her: If this wasn't "consensual" then what the fuck were you doing in BED with him?

I'd call her a fuckwit; but she isn't even that smart.

Not to be all 1950-ish in here, but they could consider, you know, NOT having sex. Yeah, yeah, I'm an old fuddy-duddy. A 30-something fuddy-duddy.

The thing is, IF somebody feels this sort of way, there is ONE sure-fire way to prevent this problem. It's to NOT go hooking up. At all. Ever. It is to date and be quite clear in your own mind that your panties are staying ON and the guy is not sleeping over - and you aren't sleeping over either. Also, probably worth mentioning to the guy. What about things like oral, etc. Decide before hand what your boundaries are and stick to them.

I suppose it is still possible for armed thugs to have their way with you, but we are talking about dating and all.

All the quotes she had, it's like they are complete morons. Nobody is making them have sex with anyone. ANYONE. They can choose to do so or not. Just because it's 2015 doesn't mean you have to "put out" even if it's "expected."

One other thought, "And that's very hard to explain to a man who is just as drunk as you are." I'd like to know if she blames him for being drunk, the drunkenness on her inability to explain, or even considers that maybe if you don't want to sleep with somebody, you might not want to get drunk with them in a place with a bed (and if they drove back after getting drunk, don't get me started).

So if I have sex with a woman who later thinks she shouldn't have I am guilty of sexual assault. But, if I don't want to have sex with her I am also guilty of sexual assault.

The new standard of guilt is "Dating while male."

there is ONE sure-fire way to prevent this problem. It's to NOT go hooking up.

Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team. Not only did none of them have sex, one of the accused wasnt even in town and had a bank video proving it.
Didnt matter.

Not having sex is not defense to rape allegations.

Besides, these days NOT having sex is also sexual assault.

Just because it's 2015 doesn't mean you have to "put out" even if it's "expected."

Posted by: Shannon at August 16, 2015 5:45 AM
_________________________________

Exactly.

I wish that other woman, who said

"and sometimes you have to have sex with boys you don't want to have sex with"

had made herself clearer. What's THAT supposed to mean?

I REALLY don't understand, especially, the "rule" of sex on the third date. Why should anyone be under pressure to do that - either by one's date or by society? STDs are as bad as ever, including those that are incurable and/or subtle (one source says that 90% of herpes cases never get diagnosed). Shouldn't that be enough of a reason to postpone sex indefinitely without ANY explanations? To put it another way, no, it's not fair to assume that anyone who doesn't have sex with you on the third date must be gay/straight, asexual, a control freak, or mercenary - and therefore has to be dumped ASAP. (If you want to take turns paying for dates, SAY so!)

And, as I've mentioned, there are even risks in getting drunk in straight, single-sex gatherings that I would never consider worthwhile - namely, the fear of blurting out confidential information that could get back to the worst person.

are enough women so passive and boring during sex that it's hard to tell if they're into it? - sofar

Yes...there is a lot of variance from one individual to the next. On a dating blog I used to read they called it "dead fish" - the girl just lies there like a dead fish. The conclusion on that site was it tended to be religious and hot women. From personal experience it does seem like the hotter the girl the more likely she is a dead fish but not that strong of a trend. A dated a women for awhile who loved giving me oral - constantly the best I have ever had - but when it came time for vaginal she went pretty much dead fish (she would have a relaxed look on her face and would offer a little verbal encouragement). After some time she told she didn't get much out of it - it was kinda nice and she didn't mind it but she didn't get much sensation out of it - she preferred a back rub.

I can think of two others where it seemed like they were shot with a tranquilizer as the clothes came off.

The 'girls' are not the problem. The problem is that the colleges have decided that the 'girls' are right no matter what the 'girls' say.

I mean how can you charge a guy w/rape if he passes out while the girl initiates and finishes giving him a blow instead of, you know, running for the hills from her'rapist'. (Never mind that she hooked up w/another guy later that night.)

The adults in the room need to sue sue sue until the colleges decide that they need to fight back on gov't rules that make no sense. Money is the only thing they are responding to.

Thanks to all the men who responded to my question!

In a word ... yikes. Had no idea there were so many dead fish out there. Also, good points on drunkenness and darkness -- hard to read signals in that situation.

Also, Joe j, I think you're right. Most guys (including the ones I know) would just expect the woman to say, "Hey I'm not into it." That's a basic and fair assumption to have of adults and it shocks me how many women would just "lie there and get it over with." I understand if they feel in danger -- but that's not the situation we're talking about here.

Sofar, To be fair there are plenty of men who are bad at sex too. We don't have a class in school on sex techniques.

To add one more: I've experienced the dead fish too. There was a girl I dated for about two months before we had sex the first time. She seemed to be really into it, until P went into V -- then it was like a switch got turned off. Absoultely nothing. We did it three or four times over the next few weeks. Same result every time. I could not get out of her whether she liked it or not, or what would make it better for her. She just didn't participate at all. It was so disappointing that after about the fourth time, I broke it off with her.

As Swiss says, at least among younger women, more are dead fish to one extent or the other, than not. And as he said, when you finally meet one who is enthusiastic, it's a revelation: "Oh, so this is what it's all about!"

Kind of unrelated, but I was thinking that this whole "affirmative consent" thing could apply to other things.

I was at the gym doing a set of dumbbell bench presses. I had just agonizingly squeezed out my fifth rep, and knew I could not do another one. Good set, I thought. So, I gradually lowered the weights, preparing to set them down.

Then some total stranger came up behind me, placed his hands under my elbows, and started saying, "You got it! You got it! I'm with you!"

What he was planning to do was to help me lift the weights again. This is known as "forced reps." It's when you can't do any more but someone assists you squeaking out another one or two reps.

I don't actually believe in doing forced reps. I believe in working till failure. When you can't do any more on your own, you are done.

And I thought I had just completed a pretty good set, and I resented this unsolicited "assistance" that this well-meaning but intrusive guy was going to provide.

But instead of making an issue, I decided to go ahead and squeeze out two more, just to avoid making this guy look like an asshole (which he is -- a well-intentioned asshole, but still an asshole).

Now, according to the law, even though I didn't want his help, I gave implied consent because I didn't say no. (Under the circumstances, verbal communication would be a bit strained.)

But let's apply the rules of affirmative consent to this scenario. Since I didn't like it and didn't ask for it, I could have this guy charged with battery.

But I don't cry that I'm a victim. Since the incident, I decided that if total strangers were going to take it upon themselves to interfere with my workouts, then I was going to state my preference. "No!"

(Cousin Dave, you once said you worked out, too. Do you ever have total strangers come up and try to get you to do forced reps as you're completing a set?)

And to add to what Patrick says - I said yes to a cookout last weekend that I really didn't WANT to go to but my friend's going through a break up and just moved to her own place and I wanted to support her. Can I say she forced me to go just because I didn't speak up with a "Can't I already have plans, maybe next time!"

I REALLY don't understand, especially, the "rule" of sex on the third date. Why should anyone be under pressure to do that - either by one's date or by society?

Lenona, my understanding has always been that the "third date rule" doesn't mean that you have to sex on (or soon after) the third date. My understanding has been that it means that three dates is the minimum number of dates before it's OK to have sex.

Cousin Dave: "until P went into V"

If P goes into V where P represents P+condom, then there is no remainder. But if P goes into V where P is just P -- and there is an O by the M -- then there is a remainder of C.

Had no idea there were so many dead fish out there.

Sofar, above I wrote: "I can't recall ever being with a woman who just laid there looking bored." I should have added that I have been with women who I didn't find particularly sexy or exciting in bed, but they -- in their own way -- were into it. They certainly weren't "dead fish."

Sofar, To be fair there are plenty of men who are bad at sex too.

That's true Ben, but we guys -- straight guys -- can't really be "dead fish." We can't just lie there looking bored while a woman rides us like a rodeo cowgirl. We have to be turned on to have sex (sex as in fucking.) A woman doesn't.

Esther, under the circumstances and the rules of affirmative consent, you should have this person charged with kidnapping.

my understanding has always been that the "third date rule" doesn't mean that you have to sex on (or soon after) the third date. My understanding has been that it means that three dates is the minimum number of dates before it's OK to have sex.

Posted by: JD at August 17, 2015 10:25 PM
___________________________________

Maybe, but I never heard that. (Do you mean for him or for her?) It would make some sense if it weren't for the fact that even in the 1980s, when AIDS hysteria was everywhere, a woman's having sex on the first date with a man wasn't all that unusual. So now that condoms are supposed to be de rigueur anyway, women are likely to be under pressure that way. (Not that condoms can always protect against herpes - IF they protect against it at all.)

Did a quick search and found this (the advice columnist is a man):

http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/sex/is-sex-on-the-third-date-the-new-normal/

"Evan, to say I’m frustrated with dating right now is an understatement! During the past six months, almost EVERY man I’ve gone out with expects sex by the third date. Seriously! It doesn’t matter if it’s a man I’ve met on an online dating site or if it’s a blind date through a friend. And the ones that don’t expect sex just kind of fade away. I’ve asked these men WHY they expect sex by the third date. Their response is that they have heard that if they don’t get it by the third date, the woman isn’t into them. Of course, I’m not sleeping with them… and they fall off the face of the earth.

"I’m so fed up with this! I’m 45 now and I never experienced this type of scenario until just this year. Is this all there is now? Now that I’m older, is this all I can expect from a man at this stage of my life?" –Patti

(His response is quite good, I suppose, but it would help if he'd expanded on these points):

"...your job is to a) figure out if your man is interested in you or interested in sex, and b) figure out how to make it fun for him to slow down. Sex isn’t all or nothing and as long as you can take him around the bases slowly, you can buy yourself enough time to figure out if you want to be exclusive with each other. Play it right and he’ll stick around..."

There are 265 responses.

I have to say that Miss Manners, in 1985, didn't exactly anticipate the type of male misunderstanding that Patti described - she said:

"A lady does not give reasons for not being accessible to a particular gentleman. She doesn`t explain why she won`t go out with him, she doesn't explain why she won`t marry him and she doesn't explain why she won`t do anything in between.

"The very notion that every lady would yield, if she didn`t have a compelling reason not to, is insulting. However, the rule against explaining is not made for the convenience of ladies so much as it is for the protection of gentlemen. They may think they want to hear why a particular lady is turning them down, but they are mighty unhappy
when they do."

Or, to look at it another way, premarital sex is NOT the same as casual sex, something that most women stop enjoying upon reaching 40 or so. Therefore, no man should be surprised to find that women over that age want a level of commitment that might be higher than what he
wants.

But to get back to what I was saying...while women shouldn't have to explain themselves, nowadays, if they don't at least drop strong hints as to why they don't like the idea of sex on the third date (or sex that requires STD protection at all, e.g., sex when you're not practically engaged already), a man could easily get the wrong message, as Patti described. MM, by contrast, seemed to suggest that any sensible man (back then) knew that a woman who keeps seeing a man but doesn't have sex MUST be trying to get him to propose.

"Do you ever have total strangers come up and try to get you to do forced reps as you're completing a set?"

I ran into that a little bit back in my younger days. Where I work out now is a gym on the military base where I work, and everyone there is scrupulously polite to each other.

There was a girl I dated for about two months before we had sex the first time. She seemed to be really into it, until P went into V -- then it was like a switch got turned off. Absoultely nothing. We did it three or four times over the next few weeks. Same result every time. I could not get out of her whether she liked it or not, or what would make it better for her. She just didn't participate at all. It was so disappointing that after about the fourth time, I broke it off with her.

$20 bucks says she told herself and her friends you were just after sex and dumped her once you got it