Yeah, there are quite a few here who only think male priviledge exists. I've actually been surprised, given this is generally a pretty liberal group, at how much racism is expressed here (but not from anyone that would own it, or even realizes they're being racist).

That's good! Seems to me as long as there's some kind of mutual understanding, that's what matters. But that's what I was getting at re: control. If there is mutual understanding and you've had these conversations, you have as much control as he does. Most importantly, he can't control your answer to him.

Yeah, if I were asked that during an interview, it would tell me that the orgnaization had issues with their own management.

Why would you ask that question? I've never been asked something like that, and I would be very skeptical of any organization asking it.

I don't get it. What contorl don't you have in this situation?

You seem to be defining sexual enlightenment as "woman saying what she wants." How is that not just as one-sided as all the songs by guys saying what they want?

Welll...then I'm just not getting married.

Had to be done.

Another promotion: Thug Notes. A pretty brilliant you tube version of Cliffs Notes that actually gives a decent synopsis and analysis of classic literature, but "thugishly" (and not in a shameless white appropriation way).

Staring this wasn't enough, that was damned funny.

I don't know why you're taking this personally. I would have made the same comment to anyone saying what you did, it's got nothing to do with you.

Well, it seems the actual rate based on a variety of studies is somewhere between 2%-8%, but clearly it's something difficult to get clarity on. You're only citing the rate on the lowest end. And the piece I linked to discusses plenty of the variables that are hard to account for.

What???? No, it doesn't do that at all. If it did it would be unconstitutional and those opposing it would have one of the most valid reasons there is to do so: protecting the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The false rape accusation issue certainly isn't a reason to oppoose this law.

Huh? I don't know if we're reading the same law. It's actually pretty vague on what exactly would be considered consent, intentionally allowing for all of the different ways consent may be shown. That includes touching each other's junk to show the other person you're okay with what they're doing/going further.

And to be clear I wouldn't have not implemented this policy, I just think that this doesn't even begin to go far enough. We need to entirely overhaul how we approach this subject, not just apply patch-fixes to a broken system.

Thanks you to this x1000.

Guy seeks consent, gets called an unsexy dork.

How can you complain on one hand about guys treating women like sex objects and assuming they can "take" sex from women, and then complain on the other hand when they communicate and try to make sure you're okay with what they're doing?

No expert on this, but it seems to me wqat this absolutely addresses is the C-Lo Green scenario. You can't have sex with someone who is incapacitated in someway and claim it wasn't rape because he/she didn't say no.