Dr. Ruth: being naked with a man is like playing in traffic.

Started by Valigarmander, June 10, 2015, 05:16:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

aitm

Quote from: TomFoolery on June 13, 2015, 10:58:22 AM
So you would really suggest that a man hitting a woman for talking back to him would be an appropriate response
Your comprehension shows you're a retard or a moron. If you can't comprehend the sentence, don't bother replying, you opened your mouth and removed all doubt. (its an old saying you should probably look up but I doubt you could understand it)
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Solitary

Wow! Just wow, does anyone here think for a second that what was common, and still is, means that men here accept that kind of rhetoric just because we brought it up showing why it happens to women that go so far to be naked in bed, or even start having intercourse and say stop? Once a man ejaculates it is a little late to say stop and then call it rape. Once a woman starts having sex with intercourse, sodomy, or cunnilingus and says stop it isn't rape by any definition. A man should stop of course, but to call it rape that can put a man in jail is crazy.   
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: aitm on June 13, 2015, 01:11:48 PM
so, we should charge the guy who fucked a gal consensually for 10 minutes and charge him with rape for the 10 seconds after she said no, with the same crime as the guy who tackles a woman, punches her in the face and rapes her in an ally?
I think I am beginning to understand why you fail to see the problem.

Don't put words in my mouth, aitm. I don't much appreciate that.
Maybe i'm mistaken, but nothing i said came close to having that as an appropriate response.

But let me try to give you my view on The matter, since you brought it up. Is a murder as bad when comited without prior intent as bad as a some serial killer who planned out his kill in advance? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think prior intent makes something worse. Same for rape. But at The end of The day there is still a crime. Still a victim. And there has still been a violation of someones rights. If you want there to be a different degree of punishment: you can definitely make a case for that, go ahead. But if someone wants their sexual partner to stop and that partner doesnt, after being made clear The partner wants him/her to stop; yes that becomes rape.

Quote from: aitm on June 13, 2015, 01:23:58 PM
I want to get back to this. Seriously, I think this has more interesting points.
If a women invites a man to her house, invites him to bed, guides his penis into her vagina…and openly admits this in court…and then changes her mind and they guy continued for another 20 seconds…how much of "rape" is there? Is this a percentage problem? Is she guilty of being an accomplice to the crime?
Is The Guy clear she wants him to stop these 20 seconds? If yes, The 20 seconds are 100% rape. Trying to make an equation out of how many seconds were consensual and how manynot is missing The point utterly. There is no percentage problem.

This all being said, good luck getting a punishment for this hypothetical crime. How would you prove it? (Another reason why indeed it is best to know in as soon as possible advance if you are going to want to keep having sex or not.) But At no point in time does consent stop mattering.

Quote
Back then there was consent….back then she helped perpetuate the crime…she is an accomplice to a rape that she facilitated, a condition that did not exist without her involvement.
ac·com·plice
əˈkämpləs/
noun
a person who helps another commit a crime.
synonyms:   partner in crime, associate, accessory, abettor, confederate, collaborator, fellow conspirator, co-conspirator; More
Sex with consent is not a crime. Ergo, via your own definition, no accomplice. When consent stops, The situation changes. Do you not agree?

Quote
I find this rather interesting. Now see if you can put yourself in the mans position of being charged with the capital crime of rape when 95% of the act was consensual.
Terrified of going to jail and walking around with The label of sex offender for The rest of my life . That was easy.

Your turn; put yourself in The position of a man who has been having consensual sex for ten minutes. You're plowing into this girl and have a good vibe going. Suddenly she Asks you to stop. You think you misheard. Bewildered, you ask 'what'. She repeats herself, pleading this time, begging even. There is no possible mistake; she wants you to stop. Would you not stop? Are you telling me it is okay to keep plowing in this situation? What kind of deviant do you have to be to even concider keep doing this to this begging, Crying woman beneath you?
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

aitm

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 13, 2015, 02:53:37 PM
Is a murder as bad when comited without prior intent as bad as a some serial killer who planned out his kill in advance?
Excellant point! Does a man have prior intent to rape when a woman tells him she wants to fuck him? Helps him shove his dick in her? Where is the intent? Is this really "ejaculatory rape"? What do you think the punishment for that would be?



QuoteThis all being said, good luck getting a punishment for this hypothetical crime. How would you prove it?

Exactly! This is why society does not normally toss a man in prison for rape when a gal objects to "finishing" what she started.
QuoteBut At no point in time does consent stop mattering.
And I continue to agree with that as I have all along, however, expecting someone to stop because you think they should is a mighty dangerous supposition don't you think?

QuoteWhen consent stops, The situation changes. Do you not agree?
Of course, but is the getaway driver of a robbery as guilty of murder when he changes his mind after someone is killed and leaves? Yes, he helped facilitate the crime. So did she.

QuoteYour turn; put yourself in The position of a man who has been having consensual sex for ten minutes. You're plowing into this girl and have a good vibe going. Suddenly she Asks you to stop. You think you misheard. You ask 'what'. She repeats herself, pleading this time, begging even. There is no possible mistake; she wants you to stop. Would you not stop?
I would stop of course, as I have said one should do the entire course of this thread. However as this has never happened to me or perhaps you or perhaps anybody in this forum it becomes wishful speculation. Sure I think I would stop, but as I have never experienced that situation I cannot say I could, but most certainly we hope any man would.

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Solitary

I will always say stop first in any liaison, now since it is such a great way to frustrate horny women and charge them with rape if they don't listen. Has this ever happened?
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

aitm

Quote from: Solitary on June 13, 2015, 05:29:45 PM
I will always say stop first in any liaison, now since it is such a great way to frustrate horny women and charge them with rape if they don't listen. Has this ever happened?
You know Sol, sometimes I get the very real feeling that we are arguing with people whose closest experience to a pussy is smelling their sisters underwear. They have no idea of what the grasp of the real scent can do to a man. No idea! And they blame us of course when they shasay that sweet thing in our face….dangle it, entice it, grab our cock and shove it in and do that dirty dance of the sheet…and suggest we can and should stop at their very word.

Well of course we should!

( I had to separate that line because a certain retarded fucktard can't comprehend whole sentences yet)

I have no argument with that.

Other than of course, I have never been asked to and don't really know if I can. But hey! Plenty of men here implied they have done it dozens of times so it must be possible. Therefore I will not instruct my granddaughter to ignore the traffic!

YOU HAVE A PEDESTRIAN LANE. THEY MUST STOP FOR YOU. GO AHEAD CROSS THE ROAD!

THERE IS A LAW AGAINST ASSAULT! GO AHEAD, TELL THE FUCKER TO GO FUCK HIMSELF YOU IGNORANT MOTHER FUCKING NIGGER! NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO YOU, ITS AGAINST THE LAW!!!

GO AHEAD, STICK THE GUYS DICK IN YOUR SNATCH, WIGGLE AROUND FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, WAIT UNTIL HE IS ABOUT TO COME THEN SCREAM TO STOP..DON'T WORRY HE WILL, IT'S THE FUCKING LAW!!!!

Yeah.. and we are called ignorant.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Shiranu

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: aitm on June 13, 2015, 03:32:46 PM
Excellant point! Does a man have prior intent to rape when a woman tells him she wants to fuck him? Helps him shove his dick in her? Where is the intent? Is this really "ejaculatory rape"? What do you think the punishment for that would be?
I'm not saying that person had prior intent. I'm saying he didn't. However, this, as you agree further down your post, does not excuse that person from not stopping when asked to stop and knows (s)he's been asked to stop. Meaning it's still a bad thing; still rape and should still idealy be punished.
As to the actual punishment; I won't presume to judge; as I am no judge. Also I have never heard of the term 'ejaculatory rape' and can't seem to find a definition for it online. For punishment: I don't know what it would be. I could partake in a conversation about what it should be. But decisions to laws of punishments and to find someone guilty are usually, I find, better left in multiple pairs of hands than one.
But I get the impression, and mind you this is just my impression, that what you seem to say in this and previous postss boils down to: it would be rediculous to put a case like this before court. You wouldn't be able to defend it, let alone prove it. My point is only that not stopping when asked to stop is rape and therefore a bad thing that 'should be' punished, regardless of wether it actually will be or not.

Quote
Exactly! This is why society does not normally toss a man in prison for rape when a gal objects to "finishing" what she started. And I continue to agree with that as I have all along, however, expecting someone to stop because you think they should is a mighty dangerous supposition don't you think?
Evidence is important and necessary in any case. (Innocent until proven guilty.) You won't hear me state otherwise. However, what I'm getting at is that a person that, borrowing your vocabulary, 'forces the gal to finish what she started when she doesn't want to' deserves punishment. And if the evidence is there, the perp should get punished.

Dangerous supposition? It's more 'dangerous' the later in the process. No doubt. However; doesn't shift the blame one bit. Because a realization that this is not something that person wants can always come later in the process. I hope my metaphore bellow helps show that.

Quote
Of course, but is the getaway driver of a robbery as guilty of murder when he changes his mind after someone is killed and leaves? Yes, he helped facilitate the crime. So did she.
You start off with a crime in your metaphore, making it, I personally suspect, intentionally difficult to say the getawaydriver isn't guilty of something. I'd like to offer a different, and I humbly think better, one.
Let's forget about 'crime' for a second. But let's keep the car.

Jack has a car and is driving down a long road. He has to go miles and miles to visit someone a few cities over. Jack is lonely, dying for some company. The music in the radio, though sometimes uplifting, just isn't giving him enough social interaction. Lo and behold, he sees a hitchhiker. Thinking it over, as the opportunity for some interaction approaches, he decides to take a chance and pulls the car over to the side of the road. Gleefully the hitchiker runs over and introduces himself; Mark. Mark seems like an okay chap and is even headed in the same direction. Jack offers to give Mark a ride and invites him into his car. Things start of well, the first few miles. It's pleasant; Mark compliments Jack's choice in music; the enterior of his car, his outfit. Swell, Jack thinks, I really hit the jackpot with this. But then Mark starts saying some unpleasant things. Not necessarily aimed at Jack, mind you. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Mark sees an immigrant on the side of the road and starts saying how immigrants are ruining this country. Jack, however, doesn't agree. He voices this, but Mark doesn't let up. He becomes increasingly racist and bigotted in his remarks to a point that Jack finds himself infuriated with Mark. He asks Mark, be it politely or not politely, to can it and that he doesn' want that kind of talk in his car, but yet Mark continues. Eventually Jack pulls the car over and tells Mark to leave. Mark refuses, saying Jack offered to give the entire ride and that he wants the entire ride.
Is Jack entitled to put Mark out of his car? I think yes, and I think most people, including yourself, I gather from your notes further down your  reply, would agree. Would the situation be reversed, by the way, and the hitchhiker wishes to leave the vehicle and Jack refuses to let him go; Jack would be in the wrong. Even though both consented, at the start, to share the ride, moment one of them finds it too unpleasant to keep on driving and travelling together; the other is obliged to accept the demand for their separation. No matter how much one party finds it to be a dick-move. Would it have been less awkward if Jack had concidered this outcome before inviting Mark into his car? Sure. But this in no way excuses Mark from not leaving the car at the demand of it's owner. This much to metaphore consent and how it changes.

Now to introduce 'crime' and 'associates' to try to show why your view on them is odd to me.
Let's say that at this point Mark becomes hostile. We could take this hypothetical situation into the direction of fysical violence or doing damage to the car to build a metaphore to how violent rape can be, but let's not here. Let's state that Mark, angered by the fact that he's being asked to get out (and perhaps doesn't understand why he's being asked) tries to take the wheel and manages to put his foot on the accelerator; making the car go further down the road. At this point Mark is doing something very illegal. Does this make Jack an associate to Mark's crime? He let him into the car, but didn't know it would turn out this way; with Mark refusing to get out of the car and forcing Jack to drive further down the road. Can we hold Jack accountable for this 'half-carjack'? (Or whatever you would call it?) Sure, one can make the case that Jack should've known better than to pick up a stranger and give him a ride. One might say 'that's just begging for trouble'. But do we blame Jack? I hope we wouldn't. Do we think Jack is an associate to Mark's misdeed? I don't.  And I don't think many would. Do we see Jack, who doesn't want Mark in his car anymore and who's lost control over his car and is in a terrified position, as someone who instigated or helped facilitate a crime? Personally I don't understand how you could.


Quote
I would stop of course, as I have said one should do the entire course of this thread. However as this has never happened to me or perhaps you or perhaps anybody in this forum it becomes wishful speculation. Sure I think I would stop, but as I have never experienced that situation I cannot say I could, but most certainly we hope any man would.
I too have stated earlier in this thread that I'd like to think I would, but perhaps that it is easy for me to say; never having been in the situation (and hopefully never being). Because, like you seem to agree, it'd be wrong to continue. That's basically all I've been saying. Personal accountability is important, I agree, but there's always at least two in a consensual sexual relationship. And anyone can try and argue that it's up to your own personal accountability that you should be certain that you want sex before crossing some threshold. But this being a 'relationship' implies the other(s) too has or have accountability and responsibility. And not stopping when someon wants you to stop is failing that accountability and betraying that responsibility.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

aitm

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 13, 2015, 07:43:12 PM
Meaning it's still a bad thing; still rape and should still idealy be punished.
I agree, but the term of this is where we are getting sticky. I suggest to a degree that holding one 100% responsible for a "crime" that is only 10% their fault is non-justifiable.


QuoteAs to the actual punishment; I won't presume to judge; as I am no judge.
oh my friend, we all are judges. This is the whole of the jurisprudence system


QuoteDangerous supposition? It's more 'dangerous' the later in the process. No doubt. However; doesn't shift the blame one bit.
Does it? Does running wildly though a crosswalk in traffic with a baby carriage excuse the driver who does not see her? No. Does it grant her immunity? Does the imprisonment of the driver justify the death she subjected her child to by believing the law protected her assumptions?



QuoteNow to introduce 'crime' and 'associates' to try to show why your view on them is odd to me.
Let's say that at this point Mark becomes hostile. We could take this hypothetical situation into the direction of fysical violence or doing damage to the car to build a metaphore to how violent rape can be, but let's not here. Let's state that Mark, angered by the fact that he's being asked to get out (and perhaps doesn't understand why he's being asked) tries to take the wheel and manages to put his foot on the accelerator; making the car go further down the road. At this point Mark is doing something very illegal. Does this make Jack an associate to Mark's crime? He let him into the car, but didn't know it would turn out this way; with Mark refusing to get out of the car and forcing Jack to drive further down the road. Can we hold Jack accountable for this 'half-carjack'? (Or whatever you would call it?) Sure, one can make the case that Jack should've known better than to pick up a stranger and give him a ride. One might say 'that's just begging for trouble'. But do we blame Jack? I hope we wouldn't. Do we think Jack is an associate to Mark's misdeed? I don't.  And I don't think many would. Do we see Jack, who doesn't want Mark in his car anymore and who's lost control over his car and is in a terrified position, as someone who instigated or helped facilitate a crime? Personally I don't understand how you could.
I must admit this is a wonderful analogy if it was appropriate. Really it is a great argument if was reasonably similar to sexual encounters. I argued your point of prior intent of a rapist. If the car-jacker had prior intent then obviously no we can't blame the poor driver, like wise we can't blame a poor women who stumbles into a man intent on raping her, which so far has not been any part of the argument. Next comes, when consent stops the situation changes, and I agree, but you are suggesting that at one second a mutual act is not a crime at all and in the nanosecond later a crime has been committed simply because of a moral change of attitude and indeed this is not even a moral change of attitude as it may be a frivolous one. And by frivolous I very mean that you think we can now imprison a man because a woman perhaps thinks jesus doesn't want her to have sex and at that moment decides to ask a man to stop.

QuoteBut this being a 'relationship' implies the other(s) too has or have accountability and responsibility. And not stopping when someon wants you to stop is failing that accountability and betraying that responsibility.

I agree and likewise would suggest that accepting ones accountability and responsibility is to acknowledge ones role in the whole of a situation where you may have purposefully misled a person into a situation that you now demand they extract you from.

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

AllPurposeAtheist

I'm sorry Spanky, but I have to live my own life. ..
https://youtu.be/MxIiJC9nDdQ

Sorry folks, but I can no longer take this thread as serious as it once was. .
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

aitm

C'mon APA it's starting to get fun. Hell I even got Shir getting all pissed off.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

drunkenshoe

#86
Mr.Obvious

You realise that you are just telling me -Also Hijiri I guess- that

'I am not like this, I wasn't raised like this, personally I don't know this and that you have said AND we know and teach that rape is wrong and that should be enough.' Really? So we teach people rape is wrong, so that should be enough? How on earth I didn't think of this?! You are brilliant. (Sarcasm)

QuoteBut saying we live in a rape culture that promotes and encourages rape doesn't help one bit.

And why is that? Because I am not being politically correct and pointing my finger at a certain culture defined by a certain gender and his culture, which is male? Are you offended? Disturbed? Felt uncomfortable? Aw.

You should read about that 'rape culture' I am talking about and learn why is it called a rape 'culture'. And why it is important to stop talking with a politically correct language about this issue.  You have some -politely put- naive notions on the issue that teaching rape is wrong, that everyone knows rape is wrong somehow should make a difference. You know that we also teach people stealing, killing are wrong, right? That doesn't change things one bit.

You also have the general western convictions that where you live, as a culture rape is held with a different view. No, it is not sweety, like many other issues. The sooner you get rid of that delusion, the better is for you. Rape is the same everywhere in the world. 

You, most men in this forum, almost all men in the thread, most men in the world are OFFENDED by this issue being defined by male culture. That's the problem. Also the main problem lies BEHIND that rape culture. Heterosexual male ego society builds in men from childhood. You refuse to step out of it, get your heads out of your asses, stop being offended and say 'yes something is wrong with how boys are raised up, how we are conditioned to see the heterosexual male sexuality, there is an accepted entitlement of het male sexuality that comes with ugly consequences, that should change'. Do you have any idea how that would make men's sex lives easier oo?

None of you are that stupid. You are perfectly aware what is going on. You choose to be blind and willfully ignorant about this, because it is disturbing and offensive to you. You instantly turn in to whining babies or get agressive to support your football team. Well tough, it is not going anywhere. It's real.

And I am sick of this thread, talking to a bunch of men children who is reacting like somebody made a caricature of their muhammeds. You need to grow up.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Shiranu on June 13, 2015, 07:37:06 PM
...what the fuck?

Well, it is not just with talking to religious people you feel like playing chess with the pigeons. Tiring isn't it? Feeling embarrassed on behalf of other people when they cannot even begin to see what is actually going on, worse, refusing to see just to support their team.

Still my favourite ground for this bullshit is nationalism more than gender issues. Oh sorry, patriotism. It's like walking through pigeon lofts in a churchyard. :lol:


"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

aitm

LOL…..oh my….this has indeed been funny. Thanks Dr. Ruth for the good stuff. Of all the regular posters in this thread I am positive of only 4 actually having had sex with a woman, Solitary, APA, myself and Shoe. And of the 4 voices only the female declares with certainty that she understands how a man will act. Thats some rich stuff there.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

drunkenshoe

Quote from: aitm on June 14, 2015, 07:17:11 AM
LOL…..oh my….this has indeed been funny. Thanks Dr. Ruth for the good stuff. Of all the regular posters in this thread I am positive of only 4 actually having had sex with a woman, Solitary, APA, myself and Shoe. And of the 4 voices only the female declares with certainty that she understands how a man will act. Thats some rich stuff there.

This is bullshit in the nutshell. How a 'man will act' is determined by the entitlement given to him. We are saying they shouldn't, because it is NOT something they can't help. There is no biological base for it. Men will act that way, because they choose to. Because they are told that it is OK from the point of their het male sexuality.

You declare that there is a certain way "a man will act" and say that women should accept this, obey to it, because they will, because they are men. Buuuullshit.

And who do you expect will object to this bullshit if not women? Do you think that entitlement is just something they face in bed? It talks to you that people here strongly object to something are all women, but not the ones spewing the same bullshit are all HET MEN?  :think:

Besides, Shiranu is a man. And if we think we have members trying to evaluate this situation by the point of masturbating that 'it is very difficult to stop' he perfectly counts as a support. And he is not a heterosexual man, so that's a big heads up to you if you get it. 

PS I have made out with a woman and kissed another one. I haven't had sex with any. I'll give my report if I do.



"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp