Attitudes to rape

[imaplanck.]

I have said this only a dozen times already so one more time won't hurt

I am not talking about the times when you can...I am talking about the times when you cannot

Erectile dysfunction is when you cannot ......it is not a mythical condition it is a real one.

Yes I was aware of that, but thanks for making sure I was.

Some men cannot get an erection when in female company for 'fear' of 'not getting an erection' etc, fear and anxiety hamper erections but I wondered if this was all the time when experiencing fear/anxiety or just a random thing.

Yes but a bit of sucky sucky soon cures that.

Have you ever had an erection while experiencing fear/anxiety?

Yes.

 

[francois]

francois:



Have you bothered to read the thread?

How difficult is it to get the simple message: rape is sex without consent?

Is the guy consenting to the sex? Yes. So, no rape. He's hardly going to complain of rape when he is a willing participant is he?

Apply just a little common sense.

Was he really consenting though? Certainly not in the beginning. But when a person is forcefully coerced into a situation like that, can that person really be said to be thinking rationally, if say, genitals are making contact?

You said it's not rape, but what about this scenario. What if the same exact situation happened to a woman. She didn't want to have sex, but then a bigger, beast of a man coerced her into having sex. She was screaming, "Please stop! Why are you doing this to me? Dear god!" and whatnot. But then in the middle of the act, she found herself becoming quite aroused. And then she started recriprocating and began having a good time.

Was it rape? It is the exact same scenario I mentioned before, except the genders were reversed.

 

[Oniw17]

You said it's not rape, but what about this scenario. What if the same exact situation happened to a woman. She didn't want to have sex, but then a bigger, beast of a man coerced her into having sex. She was screaming, "Please stop! Why are you doing this to me? Dear god!" and whatnot. But then in the middle of the act, she found herself becoming quite aroused. And then she started recriprocating and began having a good time.

I seen that on a movie the other day, lol.

 

[Prince_James]

It's the foundation for all erotica out of Japan.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

It's the foundation for all erotica out of Japan.

and Mills and Boon novels

(the ones I came across in my teens)

 

[nicholas1M7]

Over all, the problem I have with unconsenting sex is that it violates the victim's freedoms. This is inexcusable. Therefore, no condition should reduce the severity of the punishment.

However, this poll assumes the man KNEW he was raping. We should not argue over whether he was crazy or drugged or has sexsomnia.

I thought I would chime in on this. In the event that the woman is drunk while full aware of the risk involved, the onis should lawfully lie on her, alleviating/ exonerating the responsibility of the rapist. Morally, the two would be nearly equal depending on mens rea. Lawfully, this should ring true as well. The logic is uncannily consistent as actions are weighed with mentality. ;-)

 

[J.B]

 

[draqon]

thats two biased graphs...4 sure. no sane man, unless he was secret gay, would say his wife has right to say no to sex whenever she pleases. I mean...the guy married this woman mainly to have sex...he has found the right woman...is not sleeping with any other woman...brings home money...supports the family...and she says no to sex, I say if she does that divorce her.

I mean yea she has a right to say "No" to sex when husband asks her and he not have sex w/her...but if it repeats like for 10 times...its time to divorce her.

 

[outlandish]

thats two biased graphs...4 sure. no sane man, unless he was secret gay, would say his wife has right to say no to sex whenever she pleases. I mean...the guy married this woman mainly to have sex...he has found the right woman...is not sleeping with any other woman...brings home money...supports the family...and she says no to sex, I say if she does that divorce her.

I mean yea she has a right to say "No" to sex when husband asks her and he not have sex w/her...but if it repeats like for 10 times...its time to divorce her.

does a husband have the right to demand anal sex from his wife?

 

[Pete]

I mean...the guy married this woman mainly to have sex...

You can't be serious!
If you want a relationship mainly for sex, marriage is the least suitable option.
It sounds like you want a hooker, not a wife.

he has found the right woman...is not sleeping with any other woman...brings home money...supports the family...and she says no to sex, I say if she does that divorce her.

I mean yea she has a right to say "No" to sex when husband asks her and he not have sex w/her...but if it repeats like for 10 times...its time to divorce her.

10 times seems pretty arbitrary... If there's a serious sexual imbalance in the relationship, it's time for counselling. If it can't be resolved, then there's more wrong with your marriage than sex.

 

[Pete]

Perhaps this question might suit your mindset, draqon:

Does a man have the right to say 'No' to his wife when she wants money?

 

[draqon]

Perhaps this question might suit your mindset, draqon:

Does a man have the right to say 'No' to his wife when she wants money?

no he does not...10 times when it is beyond the normal he should give her money. After those 10 times, they should seek divorce, because she does not care for her husband being...that includes financial.

 

[draqon]

does a husband have the right to demand anal sex from his wife?

yes. but if it hurts her health...or if she says no because it hurts to her...he should abstain from the practice, otherwise he does not care for his wife and should get divorced.

 

[draqon]

You can't be serious!
If you want a relationship mainly for sex, marriage is the least suitable option.
It sounds like you want a hooker, not a wife.



10 times seems pretty arbitrary... If there's a serious sexual imbalance in the relationship, it's time for counselling. If it can't be resolved, then there's more wrong with your marriage than sex.

Men get attracted to women because of women's sexuality...because within the man's genome there is predesigned chemical response of pleasure which is induced by certain shapes of a woman and the pheromones that woman extracts. Everything on automatic...thats why they call it falling in love...falling is the process that does not involve any action of the object that is falling. Fall from heavens...and to keep falling there is nothing you can do, but go into a vortex of attraction. It is like a magnet, the force of which grows stronger the closer the opposite charge gets to it.

 

[Pete]

no he does not...10 times when it is beyond the normal he should give her money. After those 10 times, they should seek divorce, because she does not care for her husband being...that includes financial.

it is interesting that you interpret both situations in such a way as to make it the woman's fault.


You seem to be automatically assuming that the man is not to blame, and interpreting the situation accordingly.

Why do you do that?

 

[Pete]

Men get attracted to women because of women's sexuality...because within the man's genome there is predesigned chemical response of pleasure which is induced by certain shapes of a woman and the pheromones that woman extracts. Everything on automatic...thats why they call it falling in love...falling is the process that does not involve any action of the object that is falling. Fall from heavens...and to keep falling there is nothing you can do, but go into a vortex of attraction. It is like a magnet, the force of which grows stronger the closer the opposite charge gets to it.

That's a reasonable (and poetic!) description of sexual attraction...
But mutual sexual attraction is a good reason to have sex.
It's not a good reason to get married.

Like I said before - If you want a relationship mainly for sex, marriage is the least suitable option.

 

[draqon]

it is interesting that you interpret both situations in such a way as to make it the woman's fault.


You seem to be automatically assuming that the man is not to blame, and interpreting the situation accordingly.

Why do you do that?

huh?

A woman must provide sex to man, if she denies to provide sex to man more than 10 times, divorce must be taken place

A man must provide money to women, if women asks 10 times for more money than physically/financially is logical for spending than divorxe must be taken place. However the man must provide that extra money those 10 times

WERE AM I BEING UNFAIR?

 

[draqon]

That's a reasonable (and poetic!) description of sexual attraction...
But mutual sexual attraction is a good reason to have sex.
It's not a good reason to get married.

Like I said before - If you want a relationship mainly for sex, marriage is the least suitable option.

are you married? why did you marry?

 

[Oniw17]

it is interesting that you interpret both situations in such a way as to make it the woman's fault.
You seem to be automatically assuming that the man is not to blame, and interpreting the situation accordingly.

If a husband says no to sex or asks for money on an unusual occassion more than 10 times, he would be to blame? Anyway, in the first situation, to me, it alright both ways. In the second situation, if they're married, neither shoud deny the other money if the situation is reasonable.

 

[Pete]

huh?

A woman must provide sex to man, if she denies to provide sex to man more than 10 times, divorce must be taken place

A man must provide money to women, if women asks 10 times for more money than physically/financially is logical for spending than divorxe must be taken place. However the man must provide that extra money those 10 times

WERE AM I BEING UNFAIR?

You are unfair in your assumptions. Consider these statements, which are equally logical responses to the cases in question:

A woman must provide sex to man, if man asks 10 times for more sex than physically/emotionally is logical for satisfaction, divorce must be taken place.

A man must provide money to women, if he denies to provide money to woman more than 10 times, divorce must be taken place.​

Why did you choose assumptions in both cases that made the woman at fault? Why did you not consider the case of the man being at fault?


To be clear, I should point out this particular stream of discussion is based on a premise that I don't agree with - the premise that marriage is the exchange of financial support for sex. That premise is what I'll discuss in my next post, in the other stream of this discussion.