Proposal: That sex without consent is always rape.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ABS:

You're wasting my time. I take it you are unwilling to debate me.

Now, run along.
 
You keep making the claim that I have said that nonconsentual sex is not rape.

Will you back this statement up, or will you admit that you have done nothing but build a strawman this entire time?
 
James R said:
What have I said that is irrational?
Click to expand...
How about the unsubstantiated position that I advocate nonconsensual sex? Do you call that rational? Cite your source, or back off.



James R said:
Kadark's position is that in some cases nonconsensual sex is just fine.
Click to expand...
Who the fuck cares what Kadark's position is? No offense to Kadark, but we are talking about me at the moment.


James R said:
Do you agree? What do you get from his posts? You know, sex with a prostitute is fine under any circumstances, a wife owes her husband sex whether she wants it or not, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not here to fight your battles for you James.



James R said:
You may have missed the post where I suggested we debate the conditions under which consent might or might not be implied. Read back.
Click to expand...
You may have missed the posts where I came out against nonconsensual sex. Read back.



James R said:
Apparently you think I do. This is something we could debate, as I suggested earlier, but it would require a different topic statement.
Click to expand...
James, what is it here? Do you just want to debate something with me? Anything? Why? If you want to debate that consensual sex between two adults is permissable, whether or not they have been drinking, and does not constitute rape, then bring it on. Otherwise, shut up.



James R said:
When you initially posted in this thread that you agreed that sex without consent is always rape, I said "Fine. I have no issue with you." Read back, if you've forgotten. For some reason, you chose to continue to post, as if we still have a disagreement. You could have simply bowed out of this challenge at the point where you agreed with me.
Click to expand...
Yes, but where would the fun be in that?



James R said:
Now, it seems to me that we do potentially have some areas of disagreement about the possibility of rape in an atmosphere where consent is implied but not explicit. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about that; it's something I'd need to explore further with you. But that has nothing to do with the proposed topic of debate in this thread. I'd really rather dismiss the easy targets, like Kadark and ABS, first, with their nonsense that you can't rape a prostitute, and such. But I'm willing to consider a more nuanced debate as a separate issue, as I've said.
Click to expand...
Fine. Take your shots, and get back to me....
 
Kadark said:
Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.
Click to expand...

heh
the obvious expectation is that the hookers are as dumb as you

lemme role play for your sorry ass

the demands are negotiated prior to actual rendezvous
i do not like anal intercourse. however,for $200 the john can do me up the ass. the only things that get done are that which i agree to.
if he gets rough with me all bets are off. smith and wesson or paco the pimp will handle it from there

your territory is obviously the video rental store and the safety of your couch

/sneer
 
angrybellsprout:

angrybellsprout said:
You keep making the claim that I have said that nonconsentual sex is not rape.
Click to expand...

No, but never mind.

Let's try to deal with this directly one last time. Here's how it works. I ask you a simple question. You answer with a simple "Yes" or "No."

Here's the question:

"Do you agree that sex without consent is always rape?"

Over to you.

If you answer "Yes", then we're done here. If you answer "No", or refuse to answer, we still have the possibility of a debate, if you're game.


Randwolf:

Randwolf said:
How about the unsubstantiated position that I advocate nonconsensual sex? Do you call that rational? Cite your source, or back off.
Click to expand...

I think we have established quite clearly that you do not advocate nonconsensual sex.

I'm happy to back off. Best wishes.
 
why in gods name would i debate THAT, you would win just by posting any of ABS's posts.

My problem isnt with the statment SOME advocates are women haters, that would be like saying no femists are men haters which clearly there are.

Your comment implied that all or at the very least MOST are:

Of course, in this case, that's not entirely true. In my experience (which is not direct, as it happens, except here) I have found self-described "mens' rights" advocates to be, on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals. And that strikes a nerve with me.
Click to expand...

Now how does that tie with, the womens housing board calling for a mens housing board, Gay rights activists calling for laws to alow surogocy and gay adoption for gay men, doctors and the families of men who have died of prostate cancer (this one IS personal, my grandfather died from postate cancer) calling for more resorces for prostate cancer treatment, surport and resurch, and people calling for recognition that males are the victoms of domestic vilonce and sexual assult are MUCH less likly to report which means a sexist campaine like howards is compleatly counter productive and more funding needs to be put into shelters for men, advocasy services, public awearness ect of this issue. Not to mention people working to outlaw male genital mutilation (again mainly womens groups). How can you call these workers and achademics "on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals". Especially when alot if not most of them are WOMEN
 
Gustav said:
heh
the obvious expectation is that the hookers are as dumb as you

lemme role play for your sorry ass

the demands are negotiated prior to actual rendezvous
i do not like anal intercourse. however,for $200 the john can do me up the ass. the only things that get done are that which i agree to.
if he gets rough with me all bets are off. smith and wesson or paco the pimp will handle it from there

your territory is obviously the video rental store and the safety of your couch

/sneer
Click to expand...

I know I don't know much about SF as I am a noob, but Gustav, you are truly the wierdest fuck here. I love your posts... :poke:
 
I'm sick of your strawmen.

I talk about when both implicit and explicit consent are given, and you respond with some absurd accusation that I believe that nonconsentual sex is not rape.
 
Asguard:

Asguard said:
why in gods name would i debate THAT, you would win just by posting any of ABS's posts.
Click to expand...

Why in god's name would I argue that ALL mens' advocates are woman haters? That would be equally stupid.

My problem isnt with the statment SOME advocates are women haters, that would be like saying no femists are men haters which clearly there are.

Your comment implied that all or at the very least MOST are
Click to expand...

I said that in my own personal experience, many are. I have no reliable way of deciding whether most are or are not at this stage. I freely admit that I really haven't tried to find out.

Now how does that tie with, the womens housing board calling for a mens housing board, Gay rights activists calling for laws to alow surogocy and gay adoption for gay men, doctors and the families of men who have died of prostate cancer (this one IS personal, my grandfather died from postate cancer) calling for more resorces for prostate cancer treatment, surport and resurch, and people calling for recognition that males are the victoms of domestic vilonce and sexual assult are MUCH less likly to report which means a sexist campaine like howards is compleatly counter productive and more funding needs to be put into shelters for men, advocasy services, public awearness ect of this issue. Not to mention people working to outlaw male genital mutilation (again mainly womens groups). How can you call these workers and achademics "on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals". Especially when alot if not most of them are WOMEN
Click to expand...

I didn't call any of those people anything. And I agree that those are all worthy causes.

The thing is, my direct experience of self-described "men's rights activists" is confined to sciforums, so I was thinking mainly of examples like ABS and mountainhare. We've had other examples here, too. And there are many radical "mens' rights" loonies out there, just as there are many radical "feminist" loonies. These people give their causes a bad name. Just watch "A Current Affair" or "Today Tonight" for a while...
 
um james IM a self confessed mens rights activist. I am going to do my resurch assignment on how postate cancer is treated compared to how breast cancer is (in funding, surport services ect). Why do you think i find the comment offencive.

The difference is i also advocate for womens issues as well and tend to refer to myself as a human rights advocate because i cant stand either side of the debate.
 
Asguard:

Asguard said:
um james IM a self confessed mens rights activist. I am going to do my resurch assignment on how postate cancer is treated compared to how breast cancer is (in funding, surport services ect).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I'd say mens' health issues are the same as mens' rights issues, unless you're talking about something like equal attention being paid without prejudice to the importance of, say, prostate cancer compared with breast cancer.

If anything, I'd be more inclined to call you a mens' health advocate rather than an activist. Perhaps if you lobby health authorities and/or lead protests or have a "one-issue" website you might be an activist, but it doesn't sound to me like that's what you do, exactly.

But maybe I'm splitting hairs here.


angrybellsprout:

angrybellsprout said:
So says the person that replies to comments about two persons giving implicit and explicit consent by saying that they really think that nonconsentual sex is not rape?
Click to expand...

I've asked you directly more than once, and you will not say that you believe that sex without consent is always rape.

Your silence speaks for itself, does it not?

Now, perhaps you wish to join with Kadark in arguing my proposed alternative topic: that if a woman withdraws consent during sex, no rape can be committed if the man continues anyway.

Will you argue this narrower topic?
 
i believe i have a workable analogy
it deals with expectations either on an individual or societal level

sally and jim make a date
they have dinner, watch a movie then agree to fuck
sally, for reasons unknown (irrelevant really), goes into coitus interruptus (pun) mode and walks away

i believe sci holds that jim outta accept his lumps with equanimity and grace.
i say no. it is ok to be frustrated and perhaps angry. i'd mock the bitch the next time i see her and bill her for her share of the nights expenses

so the analogy
not quite the best fit......
sports. a match. a team walks off the field.
what would be the comments in a situ like this?
lemme illustrate with bill belichick



so there you have it, bitches
it jes aint cricket!
 
Current state of play:

Randwolf and I have sorted out our differences, at least as far as this debate topic is concerned.

angrybellsprout is petulantly refusing to say what he believes.

Kadark has not agreed to a debate, even though he has clearly indicated that he thinks that sex without consent is fine in some circumstances.

---
It has been 3 hours since I proposed this debate. Kadark has left for the moment. Nothing useful is coming from ABS.

Now, I will leave this thread for 12 hours or a bit more, to give you both a chance to consider your positions.

Let's see if you can get your acts together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top