In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...

[Pete at Home]

Despite my angry exchange of words with Pyr over this topic, I think that his is a point of view that should be listened to, although I hope it's ultimately not accepted as the new standard for the language on rape.  As best I can see it, here's Pyr's argument, made much more articulately, and from an ironic point of view.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

I was always in a committed relationship with my partners. This may surprise you, but I’ve always been the committed type. I had three long-term partners before my current, permanent partner to whom I have been legally married for a long time, but none of that stopped me.

When I wanted sex, I took it.

I’ll tell you a secret: it’s easier to rape when you are in a long term relationship. Consent gets pretty murky. My partners were not always into sex when I wanted it. I didn’t care. And because they valued me, and their relationship with me, they accepted it. Their own minds were murky. That’s the perfect storm.

Just what you want.

I didn’t care if they were tired. I didn’t care if they were feeling run down. I didn’t care if they just wanted to go to sleep. I never said it, but in the back of my mind all I could think was “*censored* you.”

So I did.

All the *censored*ing time.

I still do it.

Verbal consent? What’s that? I don’t ask. I impose. Like physically impose. Strip off my clothes and simply declare what is going to happen. What’s going to happen? Sex. Because I want it. I put up with all this relationship *censored* so I can have sex whenever I want, and I’m not initiating any stupid conversations about how and why your feelings are important. I don’t give a *censored*. I just want to *censored*.

I’m not a cheater. Have never cheated on a single partner my entire life. I don’t do cheating, and it’s not because I’m not smart enough to hide it or incapable of such betrayal or I’m afraid of being caught. Who cares if I’m caught? Go *censored* yourself and NEXT! I don’t cheat because being a loyal, honest and trustworthy human being is a central part of my identity and cheating means I give that up. You may not know I’ve cheated, but I will know and the person I see in the mirror matters to me. I want to look at that reflection and see a Marine. Semper Fidelis. Always faithful. It’s who I am.

So I don’t cheat.

I rape.

Or in other words, I take what I want. I coerce. I cajole. To a point. I’ll try and persuade you this is what you want, too, but ultimately, I don’t give a *censored*. I want to get laid. Right now. With you. So get undressed. Or don’t. I can do it for you. I’m more than happy to do it for you.

...

1. The Mustang Rape

We’re in our last year of highschool. I’ve been dating the same person since Grade 9 and now we are in Grade 12. It all ended amicably and I am on the loose. You have piercing blue eyes and jet black, wavy hair and I am totally smitten with your physical beauty. Your brothers have given you a car. A Mustang with an engine that needs to be rebuilt. I’m so in on this. In like Flynn. In hard and deep. We spend days talking, chatting, working on the car. We strip out the transmission and rebuild it. I’m amazed at your knowledge. I’m learning a ton myself but I try to hide that and act like I knew all this *censored* all along. I don’t think you buy it, but it’s clear you are willing to humor me. We have fun. You have a pool in your backyard and we end most days scantily clad in the water. My mouth is ravenous on yours, but you don’t seem to want to cross the line.

I put up with this.

For a while.

And then I’ve had enough. The car is almost done, the summer is almost over and I am sick of your *censored*ing games.

We’re alone. We swim and playfully swat each other back and forth. You get out of the pool, your body streaming with water and almost smoking under the summer sun. I get out behind you and strip off my wet suit. Naked. You’re kind of shocked. You start to talk. To argue. You’re not sure. I don’t care. I wrap my arms around you in a death grip and with a few deft hand moves, it’s done. Penetration. You’re moaning and so am I. I throw my full weight on you and get what I want. We date for a full year and it ends in a marriage proposal, which is refused.

For some reason.
2. The Cigar Store Rape

We meet at college. We’re both auditioning for a Shakespeare play our university is putting on. We both get cast. You love being on stage. Love the spotlight. Love all the attention. You’re beautiful and more importantly, when it comes to this campus, rich. You’ve inherited an unreasonable amount from your Daddy. His work funds your life. I *censored*ing hate acting. The real fun is behind the scenes. I begrudgingly play out my part but spend the next four years working as a stage manager, producer, and ultimately director. The college builds a new theatre. I direct the inaugural play. I cast you as the lead. Of course I do.

After college is over, you are a bit lost. You use some of your money to open a cigar store. You’re not a huge fan of cigars but you see the potential and Daddy’s advisors are incredibly helpful and you get a store up and running. And it’s quite successful.

But it takes up a lot of your time, which leaves me increasingly frustrated.

Sexually frustrated.

You’re just not giving me what I want anymore. It’s all about the store. The store, the store, the store. *censored* the store.

And *censored* you.

Some kind of event, I can’t recall what. You are there, dressed to the nines. Looking gorgeous. Chilling and sipping Laproiagh and I make a decision. I am going to *censored* you. You go down to the basement to fetch I don’t know what and I follow you down. I thrust you up against the wall. You’re protesting. You have to get back to the customers. I don’t care. I shove my hands rudely down the front of your clothes. Basically undress you.

I *censored* you up against the wall while you protest.

I so don’t care.

I take all the time I need to get what I want.

When I’m done, you’re sort of mad but not really and you go back upstairs and no one has any idea what just happened.

We date for another year and it ends in a marriage proposal, which is refused.

For some reason.

I finally meet my permanent partner and attempt rape, as per usual, but I get strongly resisted and it dawns on me that if this person has the guts, the strength, the confidence to resist me, chances are all other comers will be resisted too. I let the first few sessions go down as consensual, but slowly, slowly work my way towards taking what I want.

I’m an expert at this point and I know how to get what I want.

And I do it.

I still do.

I will never ask permission. It’s not who I am. I stop short of violence, because violence is vulgar and well beneath me. I stop short of violence because I doubt I would win. I stop short of violence because it’s ugly and crass and there are so many better ways, subtler ways, to get what I want.

I am a serial rapist.

And on the whole, my victims, love it.

Oh please, with your whining. They love it. They come back for more. Which I’m happy to deliver.

I am a serial rapist and I have no regrets.

PS: I’m also a woman, and all my victims are male.

Comments are interesting

[Gaoics79]

I'm sorry, but I don't think a woman would be strong enough to do what the article describes. Men are vastly stronger than women. Unless she is incredibly strong for a woman AND selecting incredibly weak men what's described in the article would be nearly impossible for most any woman to pull off without using a weapon of some kind.

I also think it would be anatomically very difficult, if not impossible in most cases to force a man to penetrate a woman in the way that's described in the article.

The writer tips her hand when she states: "I stop short of violence because I doubt I would win"

So she's admitting implicitly that if push comes to shove she can't actually "force" anything to happen.

I'm sorry, but none of it rings true. I think she's playing fast and loose with the definition of "rape" and what it means to "force" someone.

[Pete at Home]

I'm sorry, but I don't think a woman would be strong enough to do what the article describes. Men are vastly stronger than women. Unless she is incredibly strong for a woman AND selecting incredibly weak men what's described in the article would be nearly impossible for most any woman to pull off without using a weapon of some kind.

It seems to me that you're replying on your own definition of rape rather than paying attention to what she actually "describes".

I also think it would be anatomically very difficult, if not impossible in most cases to force a man to penetrate a woman in the way that's described in the article.

At no point does she claim to have physically forced any man to penetrate her.

I'm sorry, but none of it rings true. Maybe she's playing fast and loose with the concept of "force" i.e. she's not really "raping".

She isn't playing fast and loose.  She's using the definition of rape that's being used in the universities against men.

Set aside your assumptions, and re-read.

[Gaoics79]

Sorry Pete, I edited my post under your nose. Yes, I agree the issue is definition.

What is there to say except that there's a real definition of rape and one made up by academics and feminists. One definition is real, the other isn't. What's described in the article, if I'm understanding the author's words correctly, isn't actually rape.

I'm not sure what the point of this pseudo confession is,  to be honest.

[Pete at Home]

I'm not certain what her point is either.  But here's what I take away from it:  the activities that feminist academics are calling rape, should not reasonably be called rape, but they aren't particularly healthy either.

Did you see our last thread on this topic?  I think you missed it.

[Gaoics79]

Sorry Pete I'm not familiar with the topic this refers to.

I'm not entirely sure about what the intent of this article is, whether it's supposed to be taken seriously or if it's some kind of satire or criticism of wrong-headed "affirmative consent" laws.

What I do know is that what the author is calling "rape" isn't in any legitimate sense. When she says that she wouldn't win if it came to violence, what she's saying implicitly is that she's not strong enough to actually force herself on any of her "victims". That means that they are either passively accepting it despite having the power to stop it from happening or they are not nearly as unwilling as the author claims.

And I am not suggesting that a rape victim must fight back for it to be rape or that just because the rapist isn't physically stronger than the rape victim there can never be a rape. But when you have a huge power imbalance in terms of physical strength as exists between the vast majority of men and the vast majority of women, and consequently the "victim" already knows that he/she can physically put an end to the encounter (as almost any man would be able to do against almost any woman absent a weapon) and chooses not to, it simply isn't rape anymore.

If my wife wakes me up and demands sex despite me not being in the mood and I let her do it, despite not saying "yes", but of course knowing that I could physically stop her at any time I wanted to, only a fool would call that "rape", which makes a mockery of the word.

[Pete at Home]

While I agree that the collegiate definition of rape is far to broad, you seem to be using an obsolete narrow version where rape comes down to a struggle of physical force.  And you're wrong that most any man could beat almost any woman in such a contest absent a weapon.  I suspect you've not watched many mixed wrestling match, or spent time in court listening to domestic violence cases.  If male on female rape is that easy, then why do so many male rapists use weapons, use groups, or beat a woman into unconciousness prior to raping her?

There are not just two definitions of rape, there are many, by jurisdiction and by time period.  Earlier in America and Canada, and still in parts of the world, it isn't considered rape if someone holds a knife to the victim's throat, or to her baby's throat, and makes her submit.  Or simply beats her until she submits.  The old standard is that she had to rather die than submit to sex, in order to for the attack to be rape.  I think that's too restrictive.

Now in a famous case in Engliand in the 1970s, a woman hired a "bodyguard" armed him with a gun, then took her ex boyfriend at gunpoint in handcuffs, shackled him to the bed in a house she'd rented, and then (with the armed bodyguard still in the house) screwed him while he was in chains.  Now Salon Magazine says that's not rape because the victim had an erection.  Enjoyment is not the same thing as consent.  I hope you agree that no means no, even though you disagree with Pyr that an absence of a sincere enthusiastic sober and competent "yes" means no.

[Pete at Home]

If my wife wakes me up and demands sex despite me not being in the mood and I let her do it, despite not saying "yes", but of course knowing that I could physically stop her at any time I wanted to, only a fool would call that "rape", which makes a mockery of the word.

I agree.  And even if you didn't know you could stop her (say some sort of panic attack or psychosomatic paralysis occurred) and SHE didn't know it, it would be grossly unjust to charge her with rape, and yet you might be traumatized and might benefit from counseling.

[Pete at Home]

Jason, here's the thread that you missed.  Have fun. Could use your input.

...Flip a coin to decide who is the rapist in a drunken hookup

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.  (To be fair to Pyr he did say that the University was too harsh on him).  I think that two young kids waking up and finding out they'd had sex with a stranger while drunk was unhealthy and traumatic, but I find the idea of charging one of them a complete travesty.

[Gaoics79]

If male on female rape is that easy

I didn't say it's "easy". And for the record, re: domestic violence, there is an obvious difference between the ability to injure someone and the ability to physically force yourself on them and overpower them. Any adult, even one with limited strength, can cause damage to a grown man. Heck, my 12 lbs housecat can injure me if she wants to and I'm not prepared. That's why I presume that raping isn't easy when the person you're raping fights back hard.

But the fact remains men are vastly stronger than women, end of story. Even pound for pound that remains true, as a 140 lbs man will easily overpower a 140 lbs woman.

For a woman to hold a man down and force his clothes off and then force him to penetrate her, is basically impossible in most cases, unless she has a gun or something. This just isn't a realistic scenario for the vast majority of men.

[Pete at Home]

If male on female rape is that easy

I didn't say it's "easy".

You said that "most men" could, without weapons or assistance, rape a healthy adult woman.  And I think you're mistaken.  The fact that you seem to be backing of from the original statement suggests that you aren't confident of it either.

Edited: I apologize, Jason. I misread when you said:

as almost any man would be able to do against almost any woman absent a weapon

I originally thought you were referring to rape, but you were talking about a man having the strength to get away from a woman that was trying to rape him by sheer physical force.  And you are right.  Apologies for careless reading.

For a woman to hold a man down and force his clothes off and then force him to penetrate her, is basically impossible in most cases, unless she has a gun or something. This just isn't a realistic scenario for the vast majority of men.

I absolutely agree that the both muscleweight discrepancy, and the simple anatomy of sex, makes it more likely that a male could forcefully rape a female, than vice versa.  That's all an exercise in the bleeding obvious.

What I get from the article cited above, is that the Academic feminist expanded definition of rape, if applied gender-blind, would probably capture a surprisingly high number of women.

I cited you a case where the female rapist used a gun and an assistant.  Other examples would be a combo of rohypnol and viagra (it's been done), using a man who was unconscious in the hospital, or a female doctor taking advantage of a severely retarded man in her care (also been done).  Are there any of those that you would not call actual rape?

[Fenring]

I'm not sure what the point of this pseudo confession is,  to be honest.

At a glance I would say that the point of the pseudo-confession is to illustrate a point about the way the word "rape" is being used now by some people, and there is an obvious double standard in its use. The confession appears to play on the reader's automatic assumption that even by using the word "rape" in reference to oneself that the writer is automatically male, since in pop culture right now rape appears to be tied synonymously to males. In the case of violent forced rape this would no doubt be a reasonable approximation of the truth, even if imperfect. But as mentioned, the term is now being used in Universities (and perhaps elsewhere) to indicate all manner of sexual activity that may lack clear, decisive consent in 100% sober state of mind (i.e. much of the mutually-enjoyed sexual activity worldwide). In this context, there would be no reason at all to associate rape with males any more since rape is no longer strictly a function of strength to overpower, and yet the prevailing assumption is still that rape is something males do to females. The "flip a coin" thread Pete brought up was more or less directly on this point, and illustrated that despite both parties apparently raping each other the female is assessed as a victim and the male as an assailant. Maybe this is lag in the cultural assumptions catching up with the new definition of the word, or maybe this is a major issue with using such a word in a new way despite the old assumptions being more or less fixed. You can try to change what a word means but you're not going to change who people think the word refers to.

In short, I would suggest the article is about reverse sexism.

[Gaoics79]

Fenring, I'm not certain that was the intent of the article, or if it was, I'm not sure that most people are going to take it that way. If you look at many of the comments under the article, it looks like most people are just taking the article straight and are outraged that this "rapist" is brazenly confessing her crimes.

I think part of the problem is that alot of people, male and female, don't really understand the strength difference between males and females. I used to know women who genuinely thought that the only physical difference between men and women was upper body strength, or that the physical difference was relatively minor and that an above average strong woman could equal or overpower a weaker or below average man.

Another problem is the article is kind of fudging words. The part where she states: "I doubt I would win" in respect to violence is kind of the key point. I think most of the people outraged who are commenting haven't actually paid attention to that little detail or thought about its implications.

If the article is meant to lampoon the present "affirmative consent" standard or illustrate how there is a double standard, I don't think it really succeeds. A better illustration would simply point out that if "affirmative consent" were actually taken seriously as a pre-requisite for consent, virtually every relationship everywhere is filled with rampant rape. A point I'm sure someone like Dworkin and many of the "rape culture" types would be pleased to embrace but not something palatable in the mainstream.

[Pete at Home]

I'm not sure that most people are going to take it that way.

Most people didn't take Modest Proposal that way.

But set aside intent.  Are the facts believable as stated by the writer?  Hell yes.  By the expanded definition of rape, what guy here hasn't had women at least attempt to "rape" him?  Buy you drinks to get you in the sack?  Hell, women use roofies too.

If the article is meant to lampoon the present "affirmative consent" standard or illustrate how there is a double standard, I don't think it really succeeds. A better illustration would simply point out that if "affirmative consent" were actually taken seriously as a pre-requisite for consent, virtually every relationship everywhere is filled with rampant rape.

Jason, that would not be a "better illustration" because it's not an "illustration" at all.  It's an argument.  What the author here provides is illustration, and I challenge you to provide a better one.

[Fenring]

Fenring, I'm not certain that was the intent of the article, or if it was, I'm not sure that most people are going to take it that way.

I think what you just said might well be the intent of the article - for it to be taken the wrong way. Let's call it aggressive irony where you get people outraged at something they shouldn't to demonstrate that they are similarly outraged at other things they should not be. By describing a female committing "rape" of this kind the article uses the extreme example where there is no rational way to assert that unwilling behavior occurred. Since the word "rape" is used early in the piece and the reader is convinced for the majority that it's a man speaking, they will be unwilling to face the contradiction in their beliefs and accept that the author is not a rapist by any rational definition. They will instead double down and insist that the author is bad, thus creating an absurdity. Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum where the reader's own reaction is the contradictory conclusion.

Another problem is the article is kind of fudging words. The part where she states: "I doubt I would win" in respect to violence is kind of the key point. I think most of the people outraged who are commenting haven't actually paid attention to that little detail or thought about its implications.

I think you spelled out right here why the affirmative consent idea is ridiculous - precisely because people in their hearts always associate rape with violence and even when they insist on using new definitions of the word their tacit assumptions always include old baggage such as male superior strength. By this logic, when the author specifies that he/she cannot overpower the victims, the reader will be prone to dismiss this comment since the word "rape" has already been asserted, which to the reader tacitly means that the author could, in fact, overpower the victim. In short, it means that the assumption that the author is a man is justification enough to ignore any assertion that violent forcing of sex was actually impossible, as you suggest. The reader's own assumptions about men victimizing women, and how this makes the affirmative consent idea preposterous, is, I think, the point here.

If the article is meant to lampoon the present "affirmative consent" standard or illustrate how there is a double standard, I don't think it really succeeds. A better illustration would simply point out that if "affirmative consent" were actually taken seriously as a pre-requisite for consent, virtually every relationship everywhere is filled with rampant rape. A point I'm sure someone like Dworkin and many of the "rape culture" types would be pleased to embrace but not something palatable in the mainstream.

Since you say people responding to the article doubled down by criticizing the rapist, it seems evident that when producing an argument such as you suggest here - that most real world relationships would be riddled with what they call rape - the people pushing that idea would no doubt double down there as well and agree that most relationships employ rape. In other words, that line would not persuade them in the slightest, and widening the scope of their moral condemnation would surely not come as a blow to them but rather as an augmentation of their point, if anything (despite how absurd their new position would really be). The better way to demonstrate the foolhardiness of the point would be to create a case, such as the one presented, where all of the 'victims' were most thankful for what they got, reducing the criminality of the act to something Pyrtolin has argued for - that a claim of victimhood, rather than the act itself, should specify what is and what isn't rape. Pyr's point on this topic has been that only someone claiming to be a victim is one, since only they can claim they didn't consent. The author here has created an identical scenario - questionable or absent affirmative consent - except where all instances of it resulted in satisfied customers. Ergo, by Pyr's reasoning there was no rape, even thought both the intent and the acts done by the author were the same as what is called rape when a man does them and a woman cries foul. What remains is the crying foul, which means that a claim that someone committed rape becomes identical with a legal fact of that person being a rapist, in this scenario and with this definition.

I think that is what the article set out to show, and I think to an extent that this was one of the few convincing ways to show it. The thoughtful reader needs to be confronted by all the unstated assumptions about what "rape" really implies by an article such as this, and I myself admit to have thought it was a guy and that his actions were bad as I read along. A dishonest reader will either double down or else deny that they were ever condemning the author in the first place. "Ah, I see what you did there" is the natural result of reading it, and although someone with foresight might have guessed the ending, shy of that I think a response of either condemnation or of dismissal largely misses the point. I'm not saying the article is brilliant, but its rhetorical method seems to me sound.

[Pyrtolin]

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.

I never said that he should have been disciplined. I said that he should receive counseling as well, and in both cases that should include a review of why original consent is impossible to rely on when someone is impaired.

I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

[NobleHunter]

I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

Not necessarily. One can consent to action that proves to be injurious and requiring remedial attention. You're assuming that she sought counselling because she hadn't consented. She may have sought counselling because she had consented and was having trouble reconcilling that consent with what she felt was appropriate behavior.

[Fenring]

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.

I never said that he should have been disciplined. I said that he should receive counseling as well, and in both cases that should include a review of why original consent is impossible to rely on when someone is impaired.

You may not say so, but you can't advocate for a certain kind of act to be called rape and then suggest it shouldn't be disciplined; that's completely contrary to reality. If the word "rape" applies to an act then 99.99% of people other than you will insist it be disciplined, and even if you personally appeal for this not to happen you will be ignored. Thus arguing for this definition of rape *is* arguing for such people who do it to be disciplined. But since you mention counseling - should such counseling be forced on them? And if it is, what happens if they decline to attend? Will be they be arrested? How is this different from being disciplined? And if they are not forced to attend, what disincentive is there to prevent people ignoring your definition and doing whatever they want anyhow? In other words, the word "illegal" has no meaning without enforcement.

I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

If need for counseling implies lack of consent, and if lack of consent is criminal, then need for counseling implies treating him as a criminal to whatever extent is appropriate for this particular act. Do you actually not see Pete's point, which is that it is unjust for a person, by deciding they need counseling, to thereby cause another person to become a criminal whereas if they decided they didn't the other person would not be one? This is post hoc criminality, which to whit doesn't exist and possibly should not exist. Note that this is different from whether someone chooses to press charges or not based on their mood; this is an actual classification of someone as having broken the law or not based on someone's mood after the fact.

[Pyrtolin]

You may not say so, but you can't advocate for a certain kind of act to be called rape and then suggest it shouldn't be disciplined; that's completely contrary to reality.

So it's only rape if someone is punished for doing it? That makes very little sense at all. Actions are defined by their circumstances and direct outcomes, not by the legal systems that might be applied to handle them if there is cause to take such action.

Thus arguing for this definition of rape *is* arguing for such people who do it to be disciplined.

No it's not. Please stick to actually making your own arguments instead of trying to make stuff up about what someone else has said.That is distinctly not the argument I made, and no matter how much more convenient you might find it to argue against that position rather than what I presented, it's outright dishonest to try to pretend that it's what I said. If you want to argue against that position go and find someone taking it to argue with.

But since you mention counseling - should such counseling be forced on them? And if it is, what happens if they decline to attend?

This is all on the hypothetical of how they could require it, should they feel hat necessary which is something that you're injecting here:

Since we're talking in context of a school, what happens if they fail to take or attended any other required courses? In the specific case, if the violation is sever enough to merit it, the school could simply withhold credit/transcripts that the person needs to progress until they meet the requirements; not need to take any direct action against them, just to insist that they meet their obligations.

If someone borrows a ladder from you, you don't need to take punitive action against them to get it back if you don't feel its warranted, you can simply refuse to lend them anything else until they return it first if you thing that's more proportional and will provide them with enough motivation to act.

 

How is this different from being disciplined?

Being arrested wouldn't be different from being disciplined, certainly, but ta that point it would be being disciplined for failing to attend counseling as required, not for anything else. If hes' an ongoing threat to the security of campus if he's not in treatment, than arrest in order to remove him to a place where he cannot hurt others is reasonable, but that's well beyond the situation here.

And if they are not forced to attend, what disincentive is there to prevent people ignoring your definition and doing whatever they want anyhow?

Two different things here. There are ways to require them to attend without taking direct action against them, if it's seen as necessary to fully require that. If he wants to declining counselling if offered in the particular case and there isn't a clear reason to compel him, it should be no different than declining any other form of treatment given that this was a relatively minor incident that does not otherwise offer much in the way of need for restitution or actions to prevent him from doing further harm once the harm done itself was brought to his attention.

In other words, the word "illegal" has no meaning without enforcement.

It also has no relevance to the current context, since we're talking about providing services for someone that was involved in a harmful situation to help them recover from it and learn how to handle themselves better in the future.

I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

If need for counseling implies lack of consent,

The need to address the damage done due to lack of consent through counselling, if we want to break it down inch by inch, sure.

and if lack of consent is criminal,

It can be, it can also be accidental. Criminality depends far more on intent than simply evaluating the damage an certain incident caused. Criminal negligence is certainly a thing, but that's a much higher bar to get to than is the case here.

then need for counseling implies treating him as a criminal to whatever extent is appropriate for this particular act.

No, it's treating him as someone who was potentially injured.

If I'm not watching where I'm going, run into you, and we both fall down and end up pretty badly scraped up, it's not suggesting that I'm guilty of a criminal act to offer me treatment for the bruises that I sustained.

Do you actually not see Pete's point, which is that it is unjust for a person, by deciding they need counseling, to thereby cause another person to become a criminal whereas if they decided they didn't the other person would not be one?

Sure, but that's not relevant to saying that, in the case of mutual harm, as this was, that both should be offered counselling as an appropriate reaction (remembering that the point was made that he also came out of this feeling hurt, but had not made the active choice to seek out counseling for it).

Note that this is different from whether someone chooses to press charges or not based on their mood; this is an actual classification of someone as having broken the law or not based on someone's mood after the fact.

No, any talk about breaking the law here is your own insertion. The discussion was about what the school should have done in regards to its own handling of the incident. No one suggested that it should be elevated to a criminal matter; that's pure strawman.

[Pete at Home]

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.

I never said that he should have been disciplined.

That's not true.  You justified the fact that the so called counselor bullied the girl into making the rape accusation, despite her initial reluctance, by the fact that the girl had sought counseling.

Is it possible to consent to a bad sexual experience for which one might need counseling?  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?  I think so.  I asked you that earlier, and you dodged the question.

I said that he should receive counseling as well

Not quite.  You didn't say he should RECEIVE counseling.  If you'd said that, I would have agreed.  But instead, you implied that it was proper for the school to charge him with rape and not her, because of the fact that he failed to formally seek counseling.  On that you're being astonishingly ignorant of the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.  The email trail shows that he was as traumatized by the experience as her, if not more, and the evil beast of a "counselor" used that as evidence that he was "grooming" her.

I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

And that assertion in itself is complete mindless bull*censored*, because anyone who has ever lived recognizes that it is possible to consent and willingly engage in an activity that ends up damaging you.  People willingly commit adultery and end up needing to undergo extensive therapy to deal with the shame and consequences of what they have done.  The fact that you suffer does not mean that you are the victim of another person's wrongdoing.

[Pyrtolin]

That's not true.  You justified the fact that the so called counselor bullied the girl into making the rape accusation, despite her initial reluctance, by the fact that the girl had sought counseling.

I didn't "justify" anything having to do with your accusation.

The counsellor helped her figure out that the reason she was having trouble stemmed from the lack of consent. Any "bullying" there is pure conjecture on your part and not relevant to what I said.

Is it possible to consent to a bad sexual experience for which one might need counseling?

Perhaps, but that's out of context.

  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?

No, because that means that one is not actually capable of full consent, which is something we try (rather roughly and poorly) to address through age of consent laws.

  But instead, you implied that it was proper for the school to charge him with rape and not her, because of the fact that he failed to formally seek counseling.

I never said anything about "charging" anyone with anything. I said, _in the case_ that he did consent and was not experiencing any trauma, that the damage only went one way. And _in the case_ the he was, that it went both ways, and he should be offered counselling. What's more, since the case was that he did express some degree of damage, that offering him counselling would have been the more appropriate response.

  On that you're being astonishingly ignorant of the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.

Am I? Or is that exactly why I suggested that the school should have made the effort to offer him therapy after he failed to seek it on its own?

  The email trail shows that he was as traumatized by the experience as her,

Indeed, which is why offering therapy would have been the more appropriate response.

And that assertion in itself is complete mindless bull*censored*, because anyone who has ever lived recognizes that it is possible to consent and willingly engage in an activity that ends up damaging you.

But not that ends up damaging you _because_ you don't feel like you properly consented.

 

The fact that you suffer does not mean that you are the victim of another person's wrongdoing.

Sure. It's also doesn't mean that tea costs $5 in China. We're talking about a situation where lack of proper consent did damage, so speculation about other possibilities doesn't speak to what actually happened.

[Pyrtolin]

(In regards to the original post here)

I'm surprised that no one has tried to raise Stockholm Syndrome here, where it otherwise gets pretty easily tossed around in response to someone justifying behaving abusively on the basis of the other person coming around to enjoy it after the fact.

It's also to reflect on the preceding discussion in light of Pete very accurately pointing out:

the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.

When it suddenly becomes convenient to fall back on that but not reading the above in light of that context as well.

That people are saying "Oh, it's a woman, so it's okay" is very indicative of the depth to which rape and related attitudes are embedded into our culture (and part of what was actually meant by the statement that it's very hard to separate sex from rape anywhere in our culture because of how deep the damage runs that often gets tossed around and misrepresented as a slander of feminism)

The writer doesn't address the mental health of the men that she interacted with at all there. It would be interesting to see how many are perfectly healthy, vs having some degree of need for counselling that they simply don't own up to (or maybe even do and are in treatment for) which this may have had an effect on in some way or another. Not to mention the degree to which such behavior encouraged them to repeat it or teach it in some way to others.

I'm not surprised at all by it, but rather see it as an example of exactly the kind of attitude that underlies all kinds of rape and perpetuates itself when people try to justify it as being okay in this case simply because of the sex or relationship status of the perpetrator.

[Pete at Home]

[snip my unkind and unnecessary swipe at Pyr, with apologies]

That's not true.  You justified the fact that the so called counselor bullied the girl into making the rape accusation, despite her initial reluctance, by the fact that the girl had sought counseling.

I didn't "justify" anything having to do with your accusation.

The counsellor helped her figure out that the reason she was having trouble stemmed from the lack of consent. Any "bullying" there is pure conjecture on your part and not relevant to what I said.

Bullying was my description of the facts described in the article.  The girl herself recollected going in for help and feeling pressured, against her requests, to call the incident "rape", a term she did not feel comfortable with.  And shouldn't have!  She was basically mind-raped by a counselor who was supposed to help her, but instead used her for a longstanding political agenda.  Read the *censored*ing article.

  But instead, you implied that it was proper for the school to charge him with rape and not her, because of the fact that he failed to formally seek counseling.

I never said anything about "charging" anyone with anything.

I was talking about the propriety of the school charging him, and you said, IN THAT CONTEXT, well he should have come and sought counseling.  I assumed you weren't being an idiot as to relevance.  If his need for counseling wasn't relevant to the propriety of the school charging him, then why did you bring it up in specific response to that point?

Is it possible to consent to a bad sexual experience for which one might need counseling?

Perhaps, but that's out of context.

Not at all.  You claimed that her need for counseling was proof positive that she was raped.  I call bullcrap.  The facts suggest other reasons that might have made her feel traumatized.  She might have consented and still felt traumatized, as an underaged virgin from a protected background.  The very fact of drinking to the point of passing out and missing memory is in itself traumatizing, as I remember well.  I have myself sought counseling for dealing with the trauma of my own former blackout drinking.  There's a reason that we try to prevent 17 year old's from alcohol, and it's not all about the possibility of being raped.  Missing time is traumatic in and of itself.  Your dogmatic insistence that trauma proves rape, even under this specific set of facts, suggests some combination of bad reading, lack of empathy, lack of imagination, and compulsion to evangelize the new rape order.

  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?

No, because that means that one is not actually capable of full consent, which is something we try (rather roughly and poorly) to address through age of consent laws.

Then shouldn't we charge anyone who gave her the drink with rape as well?  That would make more moral sense than charging John, the victim here, who was at least as intoxicated as Jane.

  On that you're being astonishingly ignorant of the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.

Am I? Or is that exactly why I suggested that the school should have made the effort to offer him therapy after he failed to seek it on its own?

That wasn't part of the conversation that I was responding to.  If you'd said that, rather than saying what you said in the context you said it (i.e. that he should have sought counseling if he wasn't guilty of rape) then I would not have responded as I did.

  The email trail shows that he was as traumatized by the experience as her,

Indeed, which is why offering therapy would have been the more appropriate response.

Agreed there.

  And that assertion in itself is complete mindless bull*censored*, because anyone who has ever lived recognizes that it is possible to consent and willingly engage in an activity that ends up damaging you.

But not that ends up damaging you _because_ you don't feel like you properly consented.

Feelings can be manipulated, and in this case, following the facts in the article, it seems that the girl's feelings were manipulated by the counselor in question.  The counselor seems to concur with that since she claims, without explanation, that the girl misrepresented the interview to the magazine.  Well if the girl lied about what the counselor told her, that changes the facts and my assessment, obviously.  But you're the only one that seems to take the position that what the girl said the counselor did was OK.

   The fact that you suffer does not mean that you are the victim of another person's wrongdoing.

Sure. It's also doesn't mean that tea costs $5 in China. We're talking about a situation where lack of proper consent did damage, so speculation about other possibilities doesn't speak to what actually happened.

That's your speculation.  It's possible that the lack of consent caused the damage, but there are a number of other factors that may have caused the damage.

If I have sex when I'm emotionally unready to, e.g. too soon after my divorce, have I been "raped"?  What if I say, "I don't know if I'm ready for this" and the seduction continues ... does that make it rape?  At some point I've got to put on my big boy pants and say, I made a bad choice.

[Pete at Home]

(In regards to the original post here)

I'm surprised that no one has tried to raise Stockholm Syndrome here, where it otherwise gets pretty easily tossed around in response to someone justifying behaving abusively on the basis of the other person coming around to enjoy it after the fact.

I absolutely agree that both stockholm syndrome and what seems to me the separate issue of enjoyment apply in a great number of rape cases.  I'm not sure but am open to arguments that either principle applies to the facts of this case, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that post hoc pleasure defense and Stockholm syndrome are co-terminous.  I can see how they would overlap in some rape cases, certainly, but I don't think they are quite the same thing.

Also, it's possible that a victim might re-cast a completely traumatic incident as pleasurable, after the fact, for reasons that have nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome, but rather in order to create an illusion of restored control.  Good example of this in fiction is the post-rape BDSM practices of the epynomous character in The General's Daughter.

[Fenring]

  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?

No, because that means that one is not actually capable of full consent, which is something we try (rather roughly and poorly) to address through age of consent laws.

I can't decide whether you're making an argument for the state to own the right to decide who is ready to decide what, or whether you have a very strange notion of what consent is. Let's assume the latter: it seems like you think consent is when a person possesses full knowledge of the universe and can make a philosophically complete decision using all information that exists with no possibility of error. To you, if a person feels they're competent to decide but some factor they're unaware of will later reveal to them they were mistaken, that  to you means they didn't really consent. So how does anyone know if they're ready to consent unless God himself tells them they know enough to decide? You seem to be equating consent with making a good choice. Legally there is a fairly clear line about what consent means, and if you want to meddle with this you invoke the state to determine who can have sex with whom. Socially the idea of consent is far more hazy and basically boils down to knowing what you're about to do and saying yes. The social construction of consent, then, is actually far less rigorous to show, and yet you're holding it to a far higher standard than how the law addresses it. You're saying that in casual social situations a person must not only take care to establish legal consent in case they're sued, but also must require of themselves a doctorate in philosophy (German phenomenology, of course) so they can be wise enough to know they're really consenting. It is so darn embarrassing to be informed after having sex that you were unqualified to consent because you were too dumb. Talk about the walk of shame...

I'm surprised that no one has tried to raise Stockholm Syndrome here, where it otherwise gets pretty easily tossed around in response to someone justifying behaving abusively on the basis of the other person coming around to enjoy it after the fact.

This is a funny thing to bring up. I'm a fan of conspiracy theories myself and even try to construct interesting ones sometimes. This strikes me as a conspiracy theory on the level of lizard men ruling the U.S. When confronted with a scenario where an attractive girl jumps guys who already like them for sex and they come out smiling, it takes a truly suspicious mind to assume the guy is happy because he's been traumatized like a hostage. While not impossible, I would rate the likelihood of this explanation somewhere along with the lizard men theory and the theory that aliens build the pyramids.

I think you've fallen prey to the trap the article intends to trap you with: you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys. This isn't some kind of sexist analysis where "lucky" is a euphemism for having to comply with a sexist double standard. It actually means lucky, and no doubt the guys in question felt lucky too. "She's...trying to have sex with me? Well...uh...hell yeah!!!" The fact that it was forceful probably made it twice as good.

If anything the actual harm done by her would have been if she wasn't forthright about being a serial monogamist who had no desire for a long-term relationship. From the sound of it the guys had hope for more of a long-term thing with her and she just wanted to date, not marry. This is a significant issue and I would suggest that she was possibly insensitive to the feelings of her partners in this respect. This does not, however, make her a rapist, it just means she's a little selfish. Then again she never stated that she didn't communicate her lifestyle to the guys; I've seen it happen where a girl just like this is forthright and the guy hopes she'll change her mind (I was that guy once).

[Seriati]

I never said anything about "charging" anyone with anything. I said, _in the case_ that he did consent and was not experiencing any trauma, that the damage only went one way. And _in the case_ the he was, that it went both ways, and he should be offered counselling. What's more, since the case was that he did express some degree of damage, that offering him counselling would have been the more appropriate response.

Can you clarify what you mean here, where you suggest that he could have consented?  There's is absolutely no question, by your standards consistently applied, that he was not capable of consent at the time of the act, that in fact her returning to his room at that time was a deliberate choice (for which her drunkenness is not an exculpatory excuse) to take advantage of a man who was incapable of consent.

[Pete at Home]

you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys.

Speak more carefully.  Actual forceful violent rape is a fantasy for a number of women and men.  There's enough fiction written by women for women to establish that. But that doesn't mean it's not rape.  Idiots and enablers said, particularly when a teacher molested a 12 year old boy, etc., lucky boy.  Well he might have felt lucky, but what happened was still criminal

[Fenring]

you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys.

Speak more carefully.  Actual forceful violent rape is a fantasy for a number of women and men.  There's enough fiction written by women for women to establish that. But that doesn't mean it's not rape.  Idiots and enablers said, particularly when a teacher molested a 12 year old boy, etc., lucky boy.  Well he might have felt lucky, but what happened was still criminal

Perhaps you should read more carefully? The article specified that none of it was violent and that the 'victims' could have overpowered the 'rapist' at any time. What was actually said was that it was aggressive and lacking clear consent, which is why it qualifies as rape by the affirmative consent definition. This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape. What you are describing is a real thing and also irrelevant in context of the article.

[D.W.]

I kinda thought what Fenring just stated was obvious from the piece.   

[Pyrtolin]

This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape.

And then they get really confused when they behave that way toward a woman they're attracted to and she calls it rape.

Don't have time to dig into the more complex replies right now, but this, right here, is the point. It's one thing to have a fantasy that's inherently problematic, perhaps even because it's inherently problematic and look for ways to fulfil it that mitigate the core issues; it's another to declare that it must not be problematic just because it's a fantasy.

"I'm entitled to force someone else to have sex with me without regard for their wishes" is an unhealthy, and ultimately damaging attitude to have, regardless of who has it, and justifying it facilitates and normalizes rape within a culture.

[Fenring]

"I'm entitled to force someone else to have sex with me without regard for their wishes" is an unhealthy, and ultimately damaging attitude to have, regardless of who has it, and justifying it facilitates and normalizes rape within a culture.

You really need to respond to what's actually been said, as opposed to asserting a straw man and responding to that instead. Nothing the author did was forced; it simply had an aggressive (see: assertive) tone and lacked a request for consent. Again, it was a physical impossibility for her to force sex on anyone.

[Pyrtolin]

"I'm entitled to force someone else to have sex with me without regard for their wishes" is an unhealthy, and ultimately damaging attitude to have, regardless of who has it, and justifying it facilitates and normalizes rape within a culture.

You really need to respond to what's actually been said, as opposed to asserting a straw man and responding to that instead. Nothing the author did was forced; it simply had an aggressive (see: assertive) tone and lacked a request for consent. Again, it was a physical impossibility for her to force sex on anyone.

It wasn't _violently_ forced. That doesn't mean that it wasn't forced, it just didn't use physical force; there are many kinds of force that don't require physical power, but still result in one person acting against the objections or without the permission of another.

The writer makes it very clear that she did force sedxual activity to happen, just that she didn't use violence/physical power as the form of force employed.

[Fenring]

force
fôrs
noun
1. strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
"he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion"
synonyms:   strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion; More

2. coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
"they ruled by law and not by force"
synonyms:   coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, harassment, intimidation, threats; More
verb

Force without [threat of] violence or coercion is not force. Since this wasn't violent you must mean it was coerced. So tell me, what were the consequences of the men refusing sex with her? What was the nature of the coercion?

[Pyrtolin]

If you;'re going to play semantics here instead of understanding the references to violence above were pretty clearly qualified as physical violence, it wasn't physically violent. It was mentally/emotionally violent. Again, the fact that she used non-physical force does not mean that she didn't use force. In the first case it seems she took advantage of the guy's confusion and perhaps a bit of his sense of masculinity to force him to act before he could coherently respond to the situation, in the second it was pretty clear that she took advantage of his exhausted and somewhat stressed state (and, for that matter, actively added to it, by the fact the he was clearly upset with her even afterwards by her description)

[Fenring]

So you're saying she waited, like a predator, for moments of weakness, and that this approach would never have worked if the men were energetic and alert? If that is what you think I would suggest your knowledge about men is minimal.

[Pyrtolin]

So you're saying she waited, like a predator, for moments of weakness, and that this approach would never have worked if the men were energetic and alert? If that is what you think I would suggest your knowledge about men is minimal.

It likely would not have worked if she had asked them and respected their actual wishes. It's specifically that she acted without regard for what hey wanted that it both became force and compromise their personal will. (In the first case, maybe she would have actually been successful, in the second it's pretty clear that she actively disregarded a clear refusal)

And trying to normalize it by saying "Well they really wanted it"? The reasons that it worked are the exact same ones that men tend to be the majority of rapists- because they're inculcated with the kind of ideas that make them open to it working on them and in turn allow them to justify acting that way toward others.

[Fenring]

So you completely dodged my question? You said she chose guys who didn't have their full wits about them, and their confusion is how she 'forced them' to have sex. I am asking whether her same approach would have worked on guys with their full wits about them. What do you say? (hint: one answer will undermine your position, and the other will sound ridiculous)

[Pyrtolin]

So you completely dodged my question? You said she chose guys who didn't have their full wits about them, and their confusion is how she 'forced them' to have sex. I am asking whether her same approach would have worked on guys with their full wits about them. What do you say? (hint: one answer will undermine your position, and the other will sound ridiculous)

It may or it may not. It totally depends on the person and their ability to resist being pressured. There really isn't much of a meaningful question there, particularly when you ask a self-contradictory question about whether the same tactic would work if she tried to employ a different tactic.

[Fenring]

It may or it may not. It totally depends on the person and their ability to resist being pressured.

What has being pressured got to do with what we're discussing? You said they were forced into having sex. And if you can't say that being alert would have changed the outcome then your claim that she was able to force them because they were tired or confused was vacuous, yes?

But oh man, this article really got you good. I must say I'm pleased to see the author enjoy some success as I perceive she intended it

[Pete at Home]

you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys.

Speak more carefully.  Actual forceful violent rape is a fantasy for a number of women and men.  There's enough fiction written by women for women to establish that. But that doesn't mean it's not rape.  Idiots and enablers said, particularly when a teacher molested a 12 year old boy, etc., lucky boy.  Well he might have felt lucky, but what happened was still criminal

Perhaps you should read more carefully? The article specified that none of it was violent and that the 'victims' could have overpowered the 'rapist' at any time. What was actually said was that it was aggressive and lacking clear consent, which is why it qualifies as rape by the affirmative consent definition.

What you just said THERE was a good argument.  But you are gravely mistaken to say that good argument is "exactly" the same as the other, incredibly crappy argument that you offered.

This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape. 

That's a very bad argument, and it pains me that you seem to think that it's exactly the same as the good argument you made re "could have overpowered."  There are men and women, both gay and straight, who fantasize about being physically overpowered. There are also people who use such fantasies to argue that such overpowering is not rape, if the overpowerful is handsome, beautiful, or desirable.  See Salon's rape apologetics for the pinup queen that with help of a bodyguard had her exboyfriend shackled to a bed at gunpoint for three days while she took him for a ride.  My point is that fantasy and pleasure has nothing to do with what makes a rape.  The fact that lots of guys would love to have been raped like that by such a cute blonde does not mean that he consented.  Even if he arguably enjoyed it.  If someone says no, and lacks power to physically resist, then the sex is rape.

[Fenring]

This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape. 

That's a very bad argument, and it pains me that you seem to think that it's exactly the same as the good argument you made re "could have overpowered."  There are men and women, both gay and straight, who fantasize about being physically overpowered. There are also people who use such fantasies to argue that such overpowering is not rape, if the overpowerful is handsome, beautiful, or desirable.  See Salon's rape apologetics for the pinup queen that with help of a bodyguard had her exboyfriend shackled to a bed at gunpoint for three days while she took him for a ride.  My point is that fantasy and pleasure has nothing to do with what makes a rape.  The fact that lots of guys would love to have been raped like that by such a cute blonde does not mean that he consented.  Even if he arguably enjoyed it.  If someone says no, and lacks power to physically resist, then the sex is rape.

Uh, ok, I'm not sure why you're jumping on the word "fantasy" and inserting some other fantasy than the one I'm talking about. I said the article describes a typical male fantasy - specifically, to have a girl you like be the initiator of random sex where she is the aggressor. A rape fantasy is a kind of fantasy as well, but it's not this one. Maybe it's more common than people think, but it's not the 'standard' fantasy where instead of having to seek out sex a man is handed it on a silver platter in a steamy setting.

If the article was lampooning rape fantasies you'd have a point, namely that merely by being a fantasy it doesn't mean that actualizing it isn't a rape. But the article didn't describe a rape fantasy (a guy being chained up or whatever), but merely described a female initiator who didn't bother asking if it was ok. Rape fantasies, as far as I've ever heard them described, always involve either physical violence, aggression, or at least the threat of such; the playing out, as it were, of a violent rape but with a sense of safety inserted. The article described nothing like this and I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. The lack of possibility for violence against the men would rule out a rape fantasy reading anyhow, even aside from the fact that nothing in the article suggests that scenario anyhow.

[Pete at Home]

I'm not sure why you're jumping on the word "fantasy" and inserting some other fantasy than the one I'm talking about. I said the article describes a typical male fantasy - specifically, to have a girl you like be the initiator of random sex where she is the aggressor.

Yes, exactly.  You're using language that could easily be confused with the Salon defense of the female pinup rapist.  In this context I don't think that's what you mean.  Not attacking you, just warning that you're using language that narrows the definition of rape to something archaic, unreasonable, and not what I think you want to be saying.

"I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. "

Simply because the fantasy argument tends to signify something other than what I think you mean.  Hence, "careful."

[Fenring]

Yes, exactly.  You're using language that could easily be confused with the Salon defense of the female pinup rapist.  In this context I don't think that's what you mean.  Not attacking you, just warning that you're using language that narrows the definition of rape to something archaic, unreasonable, and not what I think you want to be saying.

I specified my terms both here and in the other thread. I'm not defining rape as anything; I'm commenting on an article that I take to be a lampoon on affirmative consent. I did get into a discussion about force with Pyr, but the issue of the rape fantasy is something you, yourself, introduced. I consider it to be off-topic and clearly not what I was talking about.

"I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. "

Simply because the fantasy argument tends to signify something other than what I think you mean.  Hence, "careful."

No, I don't think it 'tends' to signify any such thing. You think when a guy hears the word "make fantasy" there is an automatic assumption that this means being raped by a girl? On what planet?

[Pete at Home]

You think when a guy hears the word "make fantasy" there is an automatic assumption that this means being raped by a girl?

No.  But Leftist Salon ragazine used language similar to your godsend/male fantasy argument  dismiss a clear cut case of rape, where the rapist used a musclebuilding male assistant, a gun, and manacles to secure her victim.  That's the reason it touched a sore spot for me.  But I've explained that to you three times already, and you don't seem to want to understand.  Let it go, then.  It's not critical to this particular set of facts; only to the general rational definition of rape, which I had previously assumed, based on your statements to Pyr, that you cared about protecting.

[Fenring]

No.  But Leftist Salon ragazine used language similar to your godsend/male fantasy argument  dismiss a clear cut case of rape, where the rapist used a musclebuilding male assistant, a gun, and manacles to secure her victim.  That's the reason it touched a sore spot for me.  But I've explained that to you three times already, and you don't seem to want to understand.  Let it go, then.  It's not critical to this particular set of facts; only to the general rational definition of rape, which I had previously assumed, based on your statements to Pyr, that you cared about protecting.

I understand why you think it's important to keep in mind, but the facts of this case are not those of that one. But let's let it go, sure.

[Pyrtolin]

It may or it may not. It totally depends on the person and their ability to resist being pressured.

What has being pressured got to do with what we're discussing? You said they were forced into having sex. And if you can't say that being alert would have changed the outcome then your claim that she was able to force them because they were tired or confused was vacuous, yes?

Pressure is the application of force. She made it clear in both stories that when she asked previously they had declined, which is why she resorted to applying pressure while they were off-guard in order to force them to give in.

[Pyrtolin]

Uh, ok, I'm not sure why you're jumping on the word "fantasy" and inserting some other fantasy than the one I'm talking about. I said the article describes a typical male fantasy - specifically, to have a girl you like be the initiator of random sex where she is the aggressor. A rape fantasy is a kind of fantasy as well, but it's not this one. Maybe it's more common than people think, but it's not the 'standard' fantasy where instead of having to seek out sex a man is handed it on a silver platter in a steamy setting.

Except hes not asked in either scenario and the sex happened against his stated desires. That makes it a rape fantasy. Having the other partner initiate is definitely a standard fantasy, but that fantasy involved having already consented, not being forced without consent to participate.

[Fenring]

She made it clear in both stories that when she asked previously they had declined, which is why she resorted to applying pressure while they were off-guard in order to force them to give in.

Show me one quote where she said anything like this. I think you just made it up to dare me to go back and check. I did, and now it's your turn. And yes, she applied pressure for sure, but if by "force" you just mean some small amount of force, as in, "forcefulness", and you call that alone "rape" then your definition is wanting. That would be you determining for others what tone their sex has to be and taking away their right to have forceful rather than amiable sex. But ah - you are worried about consent. The first story mentions the guy "arguing", but she doesn't say what he was arguing. You assume his argument was "no", but what if it was "wait, are you sure you're ready?" Your argument hinges on knowing what his argument is and that it's negative. In the second story she says he was "protesting" and continued to do so during. That seems like a clincher, then, except that the only thing she mentions him protesting is that he has customers upstairs. So again his protest could have been of the form "no, I don't want to do this now, some other time", which would validate your position, or it could have been "well of course I want to have sex but there are customers upstairs, this is crazy." How do you know which it was?

There's no question her actions weren't 100% cut and dry cordial, but for you to call them rape requires knowing more than you do. Are you sure you're not just calling it rape because she did and buying into her narrative? Because, again, I believe that is exactly how she wants certain kinds of people to react.

[NobleHunter]

Using what reads like a dubious consent fantasy where the author has deliberately obfuscated her gender and that of her partners to consider issues of consent is a giant waste of time.

[Pete at Home]

Using what reads like a dubious consent fantasy where the author has deliberately obfuscated her gender and that of her partners to consider issues of consent is a giant waste of time.

Why?  You don't seem the type to argue that it's a waste of time to question our presumptions about gender.  Or to obfuscate the difference between withholding information, vs actual obfuscation.  Obfuscation would involve presenting information that to a reasonable unbiased mind would suggest that she was male.