[Godstud]

"Reasons" for a person revoking consent, or not giving it, are irrelevant.

For example, if a prostitute has had sex with a client two times before, and then she's willing to again, but he doesn't have any money and he has sex with her despite her objections, the authorities are unlikely to treat that like a normal rape. (If you're in a conservative area)

Without her explicit consent, it IS rape. How thick are you, that cannot grasp this most simple concept???

If she consents to sex, on the basis that he is giving her money, then that is still explicit consent. If he does NOT have money and she does NOT consent, then that is rape and should be regarded as such in ANY area where rape is a crime. The concept of a "conservative area" is just dumb fuckery, and irrelevant.

You seem to be defending the most horrendous of sexual violence towards women. Do you also feel the same way about Age of Consent laws? Or is that an inconvenience to you, as well???

[Puffer Fish]

"Reasons" for a person revoking consent, or not giving it, are irrelevant.

I very much disagree with this claim.

In fact, I don't even know how you can logically try to argue that.

Maybe you have a very black and white mentality and are unable to use some critical thinking. Thinking is easier with sweeping generalisations, isn't it?

[Godstud]

It's simple, but you simply don't like the answer I give you because you are advocating marital rape.

If someone says, "No.", the reasoning for saying it isn't important, or relevant. What happens after that is what is. The laws are quite specific on this. Explicit consent is required.

You are incapable of critical thinking on this topic as your hate of women and pro-rape bias make it nigh impossible for you to even make a cogent argument.

Rape is black or white. It either happens, or it doesn't. It's like murder. It either happened, or it didn't. I can't see how this escapes you.

[Puffer Fish]

If someone says, "No.", the reasoning for saying it isn't important, or relevant. What happens after that is what is.

Like if the woman continues to live with him and sleep in the same bed?

[Puffer Fish]

Rape is black or white. It either happens, or it doesn't. It's like murder. It either happened, or it didn't. I can't see how this escapes you.

I'll have to completely disagree with you.

In the case of a murder, the issue over whether the person died may be black and white, but whether it was a "murder" may not always be.
For example, there could be arguments over the level of directness of the cause, or there could be elements of self-defense that, in some people's minds, might not totally justify the use of force.

In an alleged "rape", there can be all sorts of grey zones. I think we've discussed this before. Some are much more "obvious" and worse than others. Some forms of "rape" border on not being rape.

A husband having sex with his wife even though she said she didn't want it is obviously not the same sort of rape that a woman getting assaulted in a dark alley is. That should be OBVIOUS, but maybe it is not obvious to you.

If someone says, "No.", the reasoning for saying it isn't important, or relevant.

The reasoning is relevant because it reveals the extent to which the woman got violated.

If she had already agreed to sexual intercourse with that same man the previous night, then she is less violated if it happens again. I didn't say she was not violated, I said she is much less violated. This should be obvious. Why should I have to explain this?

When that person is her long-term boyfriend, or especially her husband, the issue becomes not just did she not want it, but how much she did not want it. This would be evidenced by fighting and screams, what level of force did the man use against her, if any, etc.

Explicit consent is required.

I think if a woman is in a sexual relationship, to some extent consent has already been given. If a woman wants to dramatically change the status, she needs to do something proactive to withdraw that consent.

Moral issues (doing the right thing) is not the same thing as legal issues. Just because the man did the wrong thing does not automatically mean the law should get involved.
The woman should be very proactive in withdrawing her consent if she wants the law to get involved. This could involve kicking the man off her with force, screaming for help if people can hear her, and most of all not continuing to live together with that man if she does not want to have sex with him again. Especially not continuing to sleep in the same bed.
Yes, there are some feminists these days who complain of "rape" from their partner but can't seem to find a reason not to keep sleeping with him in his bed. In my opinion, their claims of repeated "rape" are ridiculous.

[Puffer Fish]

Without her explicit consent, it IS rape. How thick are you, that cannot grasp this most simple concept???

You obviously have a different conception of what rape is.

When you say "rape", you are talking about something different from what other people are talking about when that word is used.

Yes, we agree that consent is an issue, but you are talking about explicit consent to individual instances of sex, whereas I am talking about more of a blanket consent to sex, which continues over a period of time.

We both agree that if a man has sex with a woman and never had any consent from her whatsoever in any form to have sex with her, that that is rape. So she DOES have to consent at some point to sex for it not to be rape. We both agree on that.


By the way, you want to talk about a grey zone related to this? I posted that story about a woman who met up with a man on a phone app for having quick meetup sex. The woman let the man come into her apartment, and then into her bedroom. In the bedroom, she said no, but it was not a forceful no, and the man interpreted that no in a way that maybe she would still let him have sex with her in a different way (licking). She did not say no again, and the entire time the woman's mother was in the next room and heard nothing. Furthermore, it was evidenced to the man that the only reason the woman had said no was because at some point she found out he had a cab waiting outside, which implied he only wanted to have quick sex and then get out of there.

The woman's actions in this story were, even though she did technically say no, not really the most clear. Not really clear enough to be claiming rape after the fact, in my personal opinion.

But in the insane social-political climate of Australia, the man was convicted.
(The first jury was unable to reach an agreement on a verdict, so there had to be a retrial)

[Godstud]

Yes, we agree that consent is an issue, but you are talking about explicit consent to individual instances of sex, whereas I am talking about more of a blanket consent to sex, which continues over a period of time.

There is no "blanket consent" when it comes to sex. That's BS that you are pushing because you are a rape advocate!

You can disagree with me, but you are wrong according to the law, and conventional morality.

A woman might continue to stay with their spouse/partner even after a rape for a number of reasons including fear, embarrassment, etc.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/eight-reason ... ationships

If she had already agreed to sexual intercourse with that same man the previous night, then she is less violated if it happens again.

No. If you consent on one night, it does not mean you consent at any other time. That's fucking rapist mentality you are pushing because you advocate spousal rape.

If a woman says, "Yes" to sex and then the next night chooses, "No.", that is not validation to rape her. Violence or screaming to prevent a rape should not be necessary to make it a "rape". Only in your eyes, you woman-hating POS.

We are not discussing "alleged" rape, but rape itself.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

If you are arguing that rape by a husband or other family member is not rape, note that the majority of rape is from someone the victim knows well.

[Puffer Fish]

If you are arguing that rape by a husband or other family member is not rape, note that the majority of rape is from someone the victim knows well.

If the person who has sex with her is someone other than her husband, that is very very different from if it is her husband.

That other person (or especially family member) should not be having sex with her.

[Godstud]

If the person who has sex with her is someone other than her husband, that is very very different from if it is her husband.

NO! It. Is. Not. If the sex is non-consensual then it is rape, regardless of whether it's a spouse, a relative, lover, or a stranger!

That other person (or especially family member) should not be having sex with her.

If it's not consensual then NO ONE should be having sex with that person.

Why are you such a pro-rape advocate???? It's fucked up!

[Puffer Fish]

No. If you consent on one night, it does not mean you consent at any other time. That's fucking rapist mentality you are pushing because you advocate spousal rape.

It is some level of consent.

Now, am I saying that just because a woman agrees to have sex with a man (once) that is a free ticket for that man to keep having sex with her again even if she doesn't want it? Of course not.
But we can start moving into some more grey territory when it is her long-term boyfriend, life partner, or above all, more than any of the others, her husband.

She has - she is - consenting to sex with him. Maybe not to that specific occasion or instance of sex. But in a more general sense, over time.

A woman saying "I consent to you on Monday and Wednesday, but not Tuesday" is very different from a woman who says "I don't consent to you at all, ever."

Yes, consent was violated. But it is not as if there is NO consent whatsoever, in any level, that exists.

[Godstud]

It is some level of consent.

As you have been told a fucking thousand times... Explicit consent is required, not "some level of consent". Fuck off with your rapey BS.

If you are using "implied consent", well that's something else, entirely. Even so, if a person says "No.", "Stop", "I'd rather not." etc., then implied consent in a relationship is gone.

Now, am I saying that just because a woman agrees to have sex with a man (once) that is a free ticket for that man to keep having sex with her again even if she doesn't want it? Of course not.

Yes, that is the implication you constantly make, and argue in favour of. Why are you lying about it now?

But we can start moving into some more grey territory when it is her long-term boyfriend, life partner, or above all, more than any of the others, her husband.

Consent is not a "grey territory". It is simply "Yes" or "No". You either consent to sex, or you do not. It matters not what their relationship is.


Why are you such a rape advocate?

[Puffer Fish]

As you have been told a fucking thousand times... Explicit consent is required, not "some level of consent". Fuck off with your rapey BS.

If there is "some level of consent", it may very likely be less than rape.

[Puffer Fish]

Consent is not a "grey territory". It is simply "Yes" or "No". You either consent to sex, or you do not.

She said "I do."

[Puffer Fish]

Yes, that is the implication you constantly make, and argue in favour of. Why are you lying about it now?

Having sex once with a man is different from having had sex with him hundreds of times. You really believe one more is going to be all that terrible?

(assuming there was no infidelity, which is another topic)

(And yes, even if he rapes her, it does make it somewhat a little bit less bad if she already agreed to have sex with him once before)

[Godstud]

Having sex once with a man is different from having had sex with him hundreds of times. You really believe one more is going to be all that terrible?

The quality of the sex is irrelevant. The fact that the person doesn't want to have sex, IS relevant.

If there is "some level of consent", it may very likely be less than rape.

NO. Sex without explicit consent is rape. If the rape is "implied" through a relationship, then it can be revoked as simply as saying, "No.".

She said "I do."

That is not consent to sex. That is consent to marriage, you mental midget.

(And yes, even if he rapes her, it does make it somewhat a little bit less bad if she already agreed to have sex with him once before)

NO. It's rape. There is no "levels" of rape. If someone had sex with someone previously and they were not raped, it does not matter if they get raped later.

How fucking dense are you and why are you advocating rape all the fucking time?

[Puffer Fish]

The quality of the sex is irrelevant. The fact that the person doesn't want to have sex, IS relevant.

The issue of WHO is having sex with her is relevant. The question of whether she WANTED to have sex with that person before, on multiple occasions, in the recent past.

[Godstud]

It does not matter if you had sex 10 times before and she said, "Yes" on all those occasions. It matters that you raped her, because she said, "No."(removing her consent), on the 11th time, and you did it anyways, as a fucking piece of shit rapist.

If I have sex with my wife and she says "No.", then it's rape if I continue, even though we've been married 10 years.


Why are you advocating rape? Answer the fucking question.

[Puffer Fish]

Why are you advocating rape?

That's a circular argument, since I'm arguing that it's not rape.

Or that it should not be legally treated as one. (In which case I have already explained the reasons to you)

[Puffer Fish]

It does not matter if you had sex 10 times before and she said, "Yes" on all those occasions.

How could you believe that doesn't matter at all?

You believe if her boyfriend (she's been sexually active with) rapes her, that is "just as bad" as if some stranger rapes her (who she never expressed any desire to have sex with, nor had any experience of sex with prior)?

Maybe what you are really claiming is that you think it's still rape, not that it's truly "equally as bad".