I must be the only person on here who’s never wanted to live in Manhattan.
Mr Ogny
mrogny
Obviously you’re not married.
That doesn’t rime. Also, I’m not sure it’s rape if they’re dead. It’s necrophelia, but not rape.
While that’s true, most people understand that “Yes, I’ll suck your dick if you don’t shoot me with that gun” isn’t really a yes. That’s not what we need to focus on.
Sex should absolutely be enthusiastic, but it’s not automatically rape just because that enthusiasm is absent. Maybe your partner really wants to and you don’t ultimately mind performing for him or her. Maybe you’re doing it because you really want someone to like you and you think sex is a way to achieve that goal.…
Have you been in a 10 plus year relationship? Had kids? This is simply not reflective of real life where sometimes you do things for the benefit of your partner. It's not always about you
Sorry, feminazi but you don’t get to define consent after the fact based on feelings and female logic.
What’s next a signed legal documet stating you meant to have sex at this moment? Some people will never be happy, and will never accept that men deserve certain protections against being called a rapist, espesically in public settings. Misunderstandings can happen and not be criminal.
“Yes means yes” is a much better notion than “no means no”. But neither solves the problem that sexual assault victims typically face: It’s difficult to prove what you did or did not say.
Enthusiastic? So if someone agrees to have sex, but isn’t completely enthusiastic about the idea, that would be rape? That’s clearly an untenable standard. Sometimes sex is bad, awkward, or boring, but that doesn’t automatically make it rape.
Hey, I’m no angel, either. And that’s why I can look back and realize that the best way to avoid issues is to not create them. Getting fucked up is fun but you likely WILL do something stupid to yourself or someone else at least once.
What exactly are you trying to say here? That there’s essentially no such thing as consent?
I'm sure that in the next 10-20 years we'll see a SCOTUS case that will likely deal with these issues. Like you said, either intoxication removes consent/responsibility or it doesn't. You can't reasonably argue that a woman who is smashed drunk can't consent or isn't responsible for her actions, and then turn around…
I read that same article, and seriously fuck that woman. If both participants are equally intoxicated, then they either both raped eachother, or nobody raped anybody. You can’t just selectively apply the law like that.
I remember reading a Slate article, I think by Amanda Hess, about a tricky case where essentially both parties (one man and one woman) were equally intoxicated, both verbally consented to sex, both engaged in acts that (sober) would realistically be read as non-verbal indications of consent, and both participated…
At the risk of touching the third rail here, can we agree that two things can simultaneously be true?
Realistically, there is always going to be at least a few rapists. Some rape undoubtedly occurs due to poor understanding of consent, but some of it is just straight up, unfettered misogyny. For rapists that fall into that category, its all about show their victim that they're in charge, and I'm willing to bet they…
Why, its almost like consent is this fairly nebulous thing that is highly dependent on things like context in which it is asked for and/or given and the relationship you have with the person(s) you're seeking consent from!
So, in other words, consent is whatever the female says it is. Now or later. Got it.