|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @03:21AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"Suddenly she froze up and told me "no", like she was just after some free drinks and attention or something. I carried on despite her, and while she was telling me "no", it was obvious that she wanted it."
How was it obvious that she wanted you?
Why did you carry on after she said, "No?"
These questions will undoubtable come up in court and I suspect you had better have some really great answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @03:56AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it rape if you have an orgasm with the woman on top and then she won't get off, but continues to have intercourse?
I suppose she would argue that, "He had an erection the whole time he said 'No'," or "I thought he was telling me to have an orgasm when he was telling me to get off."
Looking back on some of my past sexual encounters, I always thought I was just being a gentleman when I would keep on going to please a woman, when actually my heart wasn't in it. Now with the help of the feminist perspective I see that I was being cruely used when I was coerced into going on. I therefore, was "raped" on a number of occassions.
Of course if I had orgasmed 1st and stopped, then the domestic violence movement would probably have determined that I had committed some cruel form of sexual abuse to a woman, and thereby, domestic violence. Does the domestic violence movement recognize a form of sexual abuse called "prick teasing?" I bet not.
I think we have some major problems with current legal definitions of human sexuality and until things are cleared up I think that all men would be wise to have fantasy sex with themselves rather than risk involvement with something as dangerous as any woman.
You can call it a male marriage strike if you like, or even a male sex revolt, but if any woman were to ask me what I thought of the whole sexual satisfaction situation between the sexes, I would simply reply, "Go F--k yourself. If your not pleased with the results I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding some new way to blame even that female frustration on men."
This is what comes of having only Women's Commissions in our society, where women only establish what is the norm in a number of areas of human behavior and thereby, what is policy and law.
SOCIETAL POLICIES WITHOUT A MEN'S COMMISSION ARE SOCIETAL POISON.
The truth is, in the Feminazi Western World, men don't count when it comes to equal justice under the law.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @07:43AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Suddenly she froze up and told me "no", like she was just after some free drinks and attention or something. I carried on despite her, and while she was telling me "no", it was obvious that she wanted it."
Sorry mate I'd convict you on that alone. What kind of idiot would keep on going. You should have climbed off and sent her on her way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry mate I'd convict you on that alone.
I would not. Sounds more like a sexual power game she's playing here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have had more then 1 women tell me "no" and I did just that and each and every time I tried to stop (because she said "no") she held me or pulled me back. Women need to get learn to only say "no" when they REALLY meen "no". However in these days (even though I won't date) I would certainly stop instantly and I would not even consider even at her will .. .continuing. I would ask her to leave and never allow contact again with her or her fantasies!!!
I do have a question though. . . after the sex. . .what was her demiener. . .how did she act? Did she sleep over? Was she angry or fearful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @11:49AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Even if it is a "no" the woman doesn't really mean and it's part of her "playing hard to get" or wanting to be "taken" I wouldn't go along with it.
The only line between a woman playing these games (and is thus happy that you continued and "took" her), and a woman who regretting the sex later remembers her initial "no" and claims rape--is in her head. It is even possible that she did mean no but didn't go on to make an outcry when he continued.
The OP didn't say how he "knew she wanted it" so it is impossible to judge, with the information given, whether she responded positively afterward engaging in sex with mutual enthusiasm (which is why he knew she wanted it) or whether she was simply passive and so he took this to mean she "wanted it."
I do think it is a woman's responsibility not to play these games and also to make it clear that it wasn't a game-playing "no" by continued resistance if the man continues after her initial no, so that the situation is made clear--but the very fact that some women play these games while others might go passive after being ignored (and thus have sex against their will) is precisely *why* you don't continue. Even when she doesn't seem to be seriously refusing you--for example, a woman could say "no" while saying "yes" with her body language (moan out "no" while pulling you toward her)--end up having sex she was very satisfied with, only to regret it the next day and cry rape. The court would only care about the words. "No means no."
This is why to both avoid actually becoming a rapist AND to avoid being falsely accused of being one, you need to take all "nos" seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @12:56PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
The controversy about consent is interesting with regard to the dilemma it presents for any man who's trying to figure out what currently constitutes "safe" sex; however, in most states the law allows a woman thirty days AFTER an intimate sexual act to decide whether it was consensual or forced (rape).
This means that a woman has the legal power to retroactively rescind her prior "consent" based on subjective memory and capricious emotions, without regard for the man's actual conduct.
Wendy McElroy has argued persuasively that the law needs to develop a new category for the act of continuing sexual intercourse when previously granted consent is withdrawn by either party.
Absent such a legal distinction, the act of rape is trivialized and generalized to such an extent that any sexual interaction involving ambiguous communication may be seen as criminal assualt.
Perhaps that is what the radical feminists who have captured our legal system had in mind all along?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is exactly what they had in mind.
My general rule is, don't shnog anyone met at a bar. Meet several times first, then go at it when you're both sober. While it can't protect you from a woman's false accusations, it reduces the chances. Also, with regard to "the 'no' game" as it's called, to avoid bizarre female retroactive judgments, best advice is to ask her straight out "are you 'playing no' or do you mean 'no'?" when she starts with this. If she's sane and just indulging a ravishment fetish, she'll tell you. If not, she'll say nothing. If she says nothing, my advice: stop.
You shouldn't have to deal with this sort of sh!t, but alas, in feminazi-land as we are in, you do.
But in any case, never forget a woman can always decide to accuse you of rape at any time and largely get away with it. You don't even have had to have sex with her and it'll still phuck up your life.
Best advice if you are accused of *any* crime is to keep your mouth shut until you talk to a *good* lawyer. The biggest mistake any suspect in any case can make is yammering to the cops. They are not out to help you, but convict you-- whether you're guilty or not is irrelevant-- they and the district attorneys get scored based on the number of people (ie, men) they put away, not the amt. of justice they help create.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If she froze up and told you no, you should have bailed. Told her to get out. Even if she acts like she was just playing, you should have told her to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @10:06AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry fella, she said "no". Even if her body said "yes" her lips said "no" and that is all that matters in court. Soon as she said no you should have said get your clothes on and i'll call you a cab.
Simple rules to live by:
1. Don't buy strange women drinks else risk being accused of slipping them a date-rape drug. (I think there would be far fewer instances of this if women opened their damn wallets and purchased their own alcholic beverages instead of leeching off strange men... oh well)
2. Never take a strange woman home - Especially if they have been drinking. When the morning comes and you both have regrets it's her version of things that will be believed. Besides that, it's just lowly behaviour. I'm not a prude but I don't do one-night stands. I have more respect for myself than to open myself up to the possibility of STD's and false accusations for the opportunity to be some ho's one-nighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"2. Never take a strange woman home - Especially if they have been drinking. When the morning comes and you both have regrets it's her version of things that will be believed. Besides that, it's just lowly behaviour. I'm not a prude but I don't do one-night stands. I have more respect for myself than to open myself up to the possibility of STD's and false accusations for the opportunity to be some ho's one-nighter. "
One night stands, one weekend stands, or marital rape. It doesn't seem to matter how long you know the chick. Though you are accurate on the SDT account.
As far as it being her version and her version alone being believed? No longer. If you are an employer and know a guy falsely accused, don't hold it against him. It's time men started walking with respect and their head held high.
Good rule is to stay away from these bipolar chicks. I hope this guy brings up her mental health and if she's on any drugs.
But all and all one night stands are risky.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @04:38PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"As far as it being her version and her version alone being believed? No longer. If you are an employer and know a guy falsely accused, don't hold it against him. It's time men started walking with respect and their head held high."
So many men have been scammed in so many ways by the feminazi's agenda that most men in society have truly become aware of their modus operandi.
One of the feminist's biggest joys is to shame and humiliate a man. It really makes them feel empowered and that they have control, and let's face it, the feminist agenda is really all about power and control.
I agree with Dan, hold your head high. I wouldn't give these harpies from hell the satisfaction of seeing me down, but I would refuse to serve on a jury, when called to serve and consider it an honor to shun those halls of perverse injustice against men.
One judge told me it was my duty to serve on a jury. My reply to that is, My duty to serve on a jury is fully abrogated for all time, when my constitutional rights are violated "just because I'm a man," by a totally sexist legal system.
I know not what course other men may take, but as for me I will not have my constitutional rights violated be some black robed pimp of tyrannical justice and then believe his fool lecture about the nobility of his systematic criminal endeavors supporting the corrupt feminist agenda.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(This is an article I've been working on last night. I'll post it here because I think it's relevent.)
Our classic definition of rape has been stretched somewhat over the years. It's direct connection to the American Communist Party in their efforts of creating a class war within the sexes could conspire the belief that rape is of little issue to these people, other than the ability to vehicle them to their destination of political reformation.
The private issue of rape is the main theme amongst their processes. The personal is political. Constantly belting out that women are afraid to speak up on the matter but that our society is a "Rape Culture".
What is the term? Profetic design? Prophesy fullfilling? Something like that. Where their activism leads them right into the clutches of what they feared or complained the most about.
Well what if it was by design? I mean, what if they really did want a 'Rape Culture'?
We could argue that feminists themselves and the women who work to end rape are really trying to end rape. In their minds I believe that's what they believe. But in fact all their efforts are going towards insuring a culture of rape.
Rape has almost no meaning. Its definition is becoming so far spread that all acts of sex consensual or not is rape.
Homosexuals can argue that people are born gay. Sure, and maybe it's true. One thing they can't argue is that they were born with reproductive parts built right in. We are all hardwired to reproduce, hardware and all.
The mind has extremely unique features for us getting around obsticles of life. The fantasy realm is a major illusion to ignoring our reality when our reality is to harsh to consider.
The Soviets were big investors of time on learning response conditioning of the human mind and physiology. No doubt sex was a major interest to them.
If we can't get sex what do we do? We fantasize about sex. If it is culturally immorall to have sex we make up fantasies where the sex was forced on us, or happened in such a way as to absolve us from guilt or shame.
Can you imagine that Rape Centers and Sexual Assault Centers are actually trying to create a society of Rape? I believe this is the case.
Their neurotical beliefs in sex has created an hysteria of belief and outcry, an industry in consolement and counciling. A marxist design of "Whose at fault and why". Meaning 'men and maleness'.
But what will really happen? Eventually enough people will see the hysteria for what it really is. Bullshit. Even if the activists (feminists) won't let go of their psychopolitical training the culture will expand in to exactly what they claim. A rape culture. Which is why they claim it is one in the first place, that's what they really want, that's what they are really trained to achieve. They believe it is in the here and now and go about fullfilling the prophesy, to actually make it the 'here and now'.
Why?
Quite simple really. Communists hate private relationships. Hence the 'Personal is the Political' slogans. They would rather have everyone copulating with evreyone even if it's a forced basis than they would have a dynamic relationship between two people as a recognized pair.
This coincides with the "Hook up culture" and the decreased marriage in our countries. We are designed for sex and reproduction, and just as the book 'Spreading Misandry' insists, our culture will become a 'So be it' attitude. Meaning 'All men are rapists, then so be it, that's what they are so that's what they'll be'. Respect for women will be none existant. A man sees a woman in the park and desires her, he has her, it's that simple. This will be so common, in their desired "Rape Culture", that prosecuting will actually be rediculous. And who would believe her? It will also not be the parties concern.
As long as abortion is prevelent population can be controlled. So the reproduction of sex will still be irrelevant to the communists.
They want a rape culture because it destroys the institution of marriage. Sex is free, personal relationships are none existant. A woman if you will , will no longer be private property of a man, she will be a communal property of the whole.
All of society may not think like this yet, but, the foundations of these Rape centers and sexual assault centers is rooted in communist pathological thinking. The repititious nature of their activism is to create the exact environment they claim to fear the most, to justify their existance (and actually quite ironically to dispell them from existance).
Feminists are actually glorified at the higher rates of rape stats, reason being, they are achieving their primary goal. Even if it's unknown to them.
For a parallel look read 'Brainwashing in Red China' by Hunter. For an interesting overview of the tactics of the communist party.
by Dan Lynch.
All permission to recirculate is given, so long as credit is given to author.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @04:43PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"What is the term? Profetic design? Prophesy fullfilling?"
Self-fulfilling prophecy, If you say it as the truth, and promote it as the truth, and believe it as the truth, it will happen/come true.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, thank you. For some reason that phrase always escapes me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With my activist hat on, my question is this:
Is consent to have sexual intercourse a binding contract?
In my humble opinion once a woman and man have agreed to have sexual intercourse there is a contract in place.
That question aside:
There is now and always has been great danger in sleeping with women you do not know. It is the underlying danger that makes the venture so enticing.
A woman once disclosed to me that she had been raped. Her story was that on the night in question they were sleeping together and suddenly he just slipped it into her.
She believes that she was raped. She may have called out in her sleep for sex, or pulled him to her in her sleep believing that she was with someone else. This woman is also hearing voices and believes she has a homing device in her teeth.
When you are alone with a woman you are legally responsible for the actions of “all” of your appendages- fists, feet mouth and penis.
Her consent to oral sex is not consent to sexual intercourse.
Her consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to sodomy.
Her consent to sodomy is not consent to spanky spanky.
If she is on medication and she is also drinking alcohol you are likely to wake up to a very different woman than the one you went to bed with.
Out there it is very much a case of “buyers beware”.
My problem with the laws regarding women changing their minds is after they have facetiously consented and their midstream-recant is malicious, kinky or unclear.
Seduction plus alcohol is a recipe for disaster.
Seduction is and always has been a dirty business.
Seduction has always been seen as a lesser kind of rape, called despoilment.
The gentleman in question is lucky the girl wasn’t also under age.
He is fortunate that there were no others waiting at her place to beat and rob him.
His predicament is not new. In the past her brothers or cousins would have looked after things.
Kobe Bryant is in the very same predicament.
The sad fact is, if you are only interested in sexual intercourse, then you are safer to hire the services of a prostitute.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The sad fact is, if you are only interested in sexual intercourse, then you are safer to hire the services of a prostitute. "
Is not paying someone for sex a contract, that can also be broken? Prostitutes do charge people with rape here and there, theoretically, nothing is safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No it is not rape if she doesn't get paid.
It is only rape if force is used without her consent.
When one determines that their vagina is a commercial property then any breach of a current conract is a matter of civil law.
What I think will happen, depends on the country you live in and the state of SameSex marriage therein.
I Canada if SameSex marriage is approved, in principle and under any name, then men and women will be free to negotiate domesticlone contracts that are "cultural abstractions" of the domestic relationship.
Men will form clubs and hire "domestics" to clean their apartments and engage in spousal activites during such time as the domestic resides at a club member's residence on cleaning day. Benefits will be paid by the men and all expenses attributed to the contract will be paid by the club.
Or, they will simply be called part-time spouses.
There is no legal secular way to stop such a thing, once SameSex marriage is legal.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know that you sound like Ann Coulter?
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 08, @07:11AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Can you tell me how exactly same sex marriage is related to part-time spouses or the legalization of prostitution? I've sent your comment to a number of friends and none of us have been able to figure it out.
- Andrew (in Ontario too)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First and foremost how does one prove they are homosexual? Because they say so?
NOT good enough.
Why is that not good enough?
Because, then bisexuals need not prove anything more than homosexuals have to prove.
If homosexuals are given the right to marry, then the definition of marriage changes. Once the definition of marriage can be changed by a small minority, then any other small minority can appeal to the courts, as another small minority, that wants to be included in the definition of marriage. By virtue of our acquiescence to one minority, it becomes a secular issue of minority rights - just look at the ever widening definition of dicrimination.
Why should homosexuals be the only group that gets this privilege? What about bisexuals? What do homosexuals plan to tell bisexuals about marriage? Are homosexuals going to turn around and deny bisexuals (a potentially much larger portion of the population than homosexuals) the very same rights that they fought so hard to win for themselves?
Should homosexuals try to deny bisexuals access to secular marriage they would simply be hunted down - ever heard of pogroms?
The court will be unable to find any jurisprudence to refer to and will be forced to rule in their favour.
You tell me, just how the secular courts can deny any group or collective the rights they give to homosexuals? Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they can’t. And it is this very same Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the homosexuals are using to gain access to marriage.
Bisexuals will find strong allies in many religions and secular groups that advocate for polygamy.
Once polygamy is established as a “secular” form of marriage, because there is no longer any fundamental meaningful definition of marriage, then by simple comparison a single spouse becomes a part-time spouse because she/he can’t possibly provide the kind of spousal relationship or spousal contribution that several spouses can provide.
Once these groups are granted rights to marry, then how does one, in a secular amoral society, tell two siblings who love each other just as much as any two homosexuals can, that they cannot be married but two men or two women can be?
You can’t.
Why?
Because the inclusion of homosexuals into the marriage domain is a change of kind, not a change of degree. Once you change the fundamental relationship in marriage the fundamental nature of marriage disappears. Once there is no fundamental kind of marriage then any group can claim marriage rights.
As far as prostitution is concerned, it would be safer cleaner and more orderly to have five or six men "marry" one woman.
She is looked after, she gets spousal support and she provides domestic services for the men that she has "married".
Either you have morality or you don't.
With no ultimate moral bottom line, there is no objective or logical/legal way to stop the casscade of changes that will follow.
If or when this whole mess gets too much for the population at large they will want change and politicians will look for someone to blame, and without any fundamental moral bottom line, what chance is there that people won't once again declare open season on hunting down members of the very group that started to whole thing off - homosexuals.
respectfully,
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would not have mattered if she had said "no" or not, she could've said "gee, I should go home now" or "oh, I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow" or nothing. If she decided the next day "gosh, that was pretty lousy sex in my opinion. in fact, I think I was raped" [which she did] likely as not she could present her case that her body language, which only she and the fellow saw, OBVIOUSLY meant she wanted to stop. No one can prove or disprove that it did. And she'd probably win, or at least be able to mount a similar civil suit and clear him of a couple of thousand, if not million, pounds.
men are meant to be mind-readers, you see, if a woman stops giving continual consent, men are supposed to immediately cease and desist
The way we treat rape cases is a sham, "she said" is given such higher preference than "he said" to the point of no physical evidence is required. Which is moronic at least and at worst, destructive to society. We can't consider rape a serious offense while requiring so little evidence. Either it becomes the trifling offense today's women seem to make it out to be OR we require much stricter evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds contradictory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @09:55PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
She said "no", you "went on despite her". In what way is this not rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If she grabs your cock or pulls you into her while saying "no", is this not hypocritical?
Which is it? No or yes? Why does one over ride the other? Why does one make a man a criminal and the other not absolve him?
Some women can use the word "no" as a token phrase, still wanting sex, but having that conveinant ace in the whole that allows them later to recind their own adult duties of owning up to their choices.
She had sex because she wanted to have sex. She half assed said no because she can use it later to resolve herself from guilt later.
Sometimes known as having your cake and eating too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 08, @12:28AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"Some women can use the word "no" as a token phrase, still wanting sex,"
If she grabs your penis and guides it in, all the while saying no, would it be entrapement on her part if she later claimed rape, because she said, "No?"
If you set a trap on Saturday night for a burglar who consistently robs you on Saturday night, that's entrapment and you can be prosecuted for that. Are judges so stupid that they can't see when women are playing - entraping a man so they can later rake him over the coals in a civil suit?
Does anyone have a program for this tagedy? I'm having trouble following the logical flow of events? No serious actors need apply for this script, only pimp judges, spread legged bank robbers and the customary feminist lawyers and other bit-part players. I can't help but feel that the only real human involved in all of this is the customary male, sacrificial lamb.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 08, @09:23AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what to do if she says "no", but her body language says "yes":
Stop instantly when she says "no", get up and get dressed, and tell the game-player to go home. You also risk a rape charge this way, because pissed-off women have been known to make rape accusations, but your conscience is completely clear. If you have a hidden videotape of the incident all the better - if she accuses you of rape, present the tape to prosecutors, get your charges dismissed, and then sue her. Follow up over the years if you get a judgment against her, have her wages garnished, attach assets in her bank account and pursue the matter until every penny of the judgment is paid. Maybe she will hesitate the next time she feels like having some fun and laying false rape charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if you had sex at her house? What if the prosicution decides to twist your story into a perverted act meant to foster you money?
Meaning you were luring women into your house to rape them then film it. A lot of things can go bad with this. I'm still for it though, I just know how scummy prosicutors work. A lie can become the truth if they want it to.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I carried on despite her, and while she was telling me "no", it was obvious that she wanted it."
You carried on *despite* her continuing to tell you no? This is rape, you are a rapist. The equivalent sexes reversed situation would be that she had taken out a big dildo, tried to put it up your butt, you had said no, and she had continued. Not a pretty thought is it.
I have a hard time believing anyone still thinks this way. False accusations are one thing, but this sort of situation is really clearcut. In fact, I'm having a hard time believing (and yes I'm fairly paranoid) that this post isn't a feminist troll posted to discredit this site...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 09, @05:11PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"In fact, I'm having a hard time believing (and yes I'm fairly paranoid) that this post isn't a feminist troll posted to discredit this site... "
Quite possible. I didn't think ,myself, that the post was appropriate for this site.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
