Proposal: That sex without consent is always rape.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get the whole bit about how the guy shouldn't club her in the head and drag her back to the cave, but he should make public his unhappiness next time he encounters her.

Then you go to the lol bit about the coach and I'm just lost.
 
oh
hahaha

lemme then match (pun) up

the two teams are represented by sally and jim
the game itself is represented by jim and sally fucking
the coach running off the field is represented by sally leaving jim in a lurch

ja? nein?

angrybellsprout said:
but he should make public his unhappiness next time he encounters her.
Click to expand...

should? nah. thats just temperament. you could always just move on
 
Still I also love the story about how the man takes the woman shopping and she keeps going on about buy me this and buy me that, and then when they get to the register the guy goes oh nevermind, then walks off.
 
james this is the third time i have wrote this.

For some reason when i tried to copy the definitions from the online dictonary it crashed my computer twice

Anyway the difference is that because of uni i view advocasy as specifically advocating for a pt with there doctor, or social services or whatever it is.

Where as i view activisium as trying to raise awearness for a CAUSE, be it prostate cancer, or domestic vilonce against men or domestic vilonce against women or whatever the issue happens to be.

So i view things like my posts here as activisium rather than advocasy because i have no specific outcome except to raise awearness of a topic rather than get SOMETHING for a PT (or a friend or whatever depending on the cirumstances).

However i can see your point, activisum has taken on a negitive conitation
 
angrybellsprout said:
You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

That sounds like a start for a topic.
Click to expand...

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY. No one on here said anything like that. Would it fucking KILL you to use some REASON for once instead of ranting and spewing hate? What do you actually want? People try and have a reasoned argument with you and all you fucking do is spew vitriol. You want us to say all woman are the oppressor? Ok, I'll say it just to shut you up.

"All women are big bad oppressors and should be pregnant and in the kitchen."

Now will you grow up and behave like a fucking HUMAN BEING??!!!
 
Kadark said:
That's a risk associated with getting drunk in an area where you're vulnerable. Besides, how did I get her drunk? Was I forcing the alcohol down her throat or something?
Yes - it is a risk. It does not make it ok to have sex against someone's will.

Let me put it this way. If someone pisses me off they are running a risk that I will assault them. That does not make it ok for me to do so.


Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.
Click to expand...

It's still doing something to someone against their will.

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...

If a prostitute does not want to sell her body to a particular male, she is not obliged to. There's a difference between paying someone for a 'service' (vlech) when they are willing to provide it, and forcing them to do it whether they want to or not.


If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.
Click to expand...

She's a human being. A piece of paper does not give him the right to do something to her against her will.

Kadark the Resolute
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hmm. Can generally agree with all that in the list, though if I'm paying her mortgage and there's no sex, then I'm not going to be paying that mortgage.

It's like the old joke about a woman that asks her man if he'd die for her and he asks for her to clarify the statement. She gets all offended at the implication, and asks him what he means. He explains: "Well, I'm not going to die for you for fun." Anyway, I'd partner with James or whatever. Call it, Jimmy me lad.
 
GeoffP said:
Hmm. Can generally agree with all that in the list, though if I'm paying her mortgage and there's no sex, then I'm not going to be paying that mortgage.
Click to expand...

Nice. So you'd use the home as leverage?

Can anyone say 'blackmail'? Or would you be nice enough to understand that sometimes (eg after the birth of a child), there can't be any sex? Or would you stop paying the mortgage then too?:rolleyes:
 
GeoffP said:
Hmm. Can generally agree with all that in the list, though if I'm paying her mortgage and there's no sex, then I'm not going to be paying that mortgage.
Click to expand...

It is too bad that not too many men will stand up like that when faced with women who claim to be entitled to having everything paid for them and then give nothing in return. Though I do know one guy who eventually kicked his former wife out of the house, and kept his son after he got sick of her refusal to get a job. Well not just because of her refusal to get a job, but also for her refusal to do much of any housework on top of it all.
 
James R said:
I would like to challenge angrybellsprout, Randwolf, Kadark, either singly or in combination, to debate the above topic.

I will argue the affirmative side; they will argue the negative - i.e. that in some circumstances (which they may specify) non-consensual sex does not amount to rape.

If I am to debate more than 2 opponents, I would prefer to have at least one other person on my "team" - perhaps Bells.

As a starting point, I suggest we use the standard debate rules in the sticky thread at the top of the Formal Debates subforum.

The current thread is for agreement and negotiation of participants and the debate format. I am open to changes in the format and/or participants.

Please post here if you wish to participate.
Click to expand...
No, i's not. It;s a two-way thing... well... atleast... not always... but most of the time it is.
 
Bells said:
Nice. So you'd use the home as leverage?
Click to expand...

No. It applies to the case where there's no love in the relationship. Sex is an expression of that. If there's no sex ever on a whim, then there's no love. This obviously does not apply to someone with legitmate medical problems. Follow? Not everything is about you.

Hey, you almost timed that pounce right, though. Golf clap.
 
It has now been 22 hours since I issued this challenge.

I note that Kadark and ABS have not accepted the challenge in that time.
 
I could go against both teams and beat both of them senseless. just to help out Kadark, here is a simple argument proving james wrong. (beside that the whole debate depends on the definition of rape, but you guys are not so smart to realize that)

Let's say I, er... I mean Joe has sex with a woman who is unconscious due to alchohol. He gently screws her with condom, no force, no disease passed. The woman will have no recollection of the event whatsoever and she wasn't a virgin to begin with.
There you have it, is that a rape or just a unauthorized use of her body?

let's use an analogy! Let's say Joe takes away the woman's shovel while she is on vacation. he is using it gently for a few days, than cleans it and before she comes home, he puts it back to her barn. Did he steal it? no. He used it unauthorized, just like he did it with her body...

There you have it James, I just proved that it is not ALWAYS a rape....

What do I get? Tomorrow I will prove the other side wrong... :)
 
Syzygys:

I extend my challenge to you to debate the topic that is the title of this thread.

Do you accept?
 
Of course, but I have already won it (it only required to show 1 case when it is not a rape), so it is kind of moot...

It also helps if people agree on the definition...
 
Syzygys just tombstone piledriver'd James's argument to hell. He linguistically missile-toe dropkicked James in his figurative coin purse.

Kadark the Impressive
 
Do you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules set out in the sticky thread, Syzygys?

If so, I suggest we give Kadark and angrybellsprout one more hour to gather up the guts to join you on your team.

With or without them, I will start a Debate thread in 1 hour, provided you are still in.

Please post you agreement to this debate if you wish it to go ahead. If you want any changes to the rules, please post those now, too.

Finally, if anybody else would like to join in this debate, please post which side you wish to argue. The list of participants will be final after 1 hour from the time of this post.
 
Kadark:

If you do not intend to debate me, stay out of this thread. I have no further interest in you at this time.
 
James R said:
Do you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules set out in the sticky thread, Syzygys?

If so, I suggest we give Kadark and angrybellsprout one more hour to gather up the guts to join you on your team.

With or without them, I will start a Debate thread in 1 hour, provided you are still in.

Please post you agreement to this debate if you wish it to go ahead. If you want any changes to the rules, please post those now, too.

Finally, if anybody else would like to join in this debate, please post which side you wish to argue. The list of participants will be final after 1 hour from the time of this post.
Click to expand...

You can count me in if it's a team debate. I'll be on your side if you still want me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top