Dimples129:


Yes. Because all rape shares the same mental process and reasoning. Putting your need before the other person's rights. Knowing the consequences and choosing to deal with them later. It quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Rape is all the same and the reason you don't want to understand it is because you are sympathising with the perpetrator and not the actual victim. His name and future is more important to you than her name and future effects. So... Yes! Throw the book at them...

All rape doesn't share the same process and reasoning. There is a difference between the mental state and intention of someone who forces himself on a woman who refuses to have sex with him, or is unaware of his desires to have sex with her, and the mental state of someone who has already been given access to a woman's pusssy by the woman herself, after a period of reciprocal pre-intimacy, and been allowed to thrust in and out repeatedly for a period of time, and then for some reason, most of which I'll argue has physiological underpinnings, refuses or is unable to pull out his dick when the woman tells him to.

There are certain cases where sensitivity and empathy demands that you put a person's need before your rights. Unless you are some unemphatic psychopath who doesn't care about anyone but herself. The fact that the law gives you rights doesn't mean you should sacrifice your humanity to express it.

The aspect of this argument that just surprises me is your willingness to support the proposition that a man be sent to prison for years, maybe even a lifetime, just because he refused to pull out when commanded by a woman, after the woman has giving him consent and participated in a period of sexual intercourse with him. Also, you aren't nuanced in your argument. You don't seem to care about the circumstances of the situation and you aren't interested in distinguishing between forms of rape & considering that minor forms of rape be treated with minimal legal punishments. All you care about is that a man be sent to jail and his reputation destroyed with the rapist tag, just because he refused your order to pull out when you arbitrarily asked him to.

I'm not sympathizing with the perpetrator. I'm just being objective and empathic - qualities you seem to lack. You aren't even making the same argument Misswrite was making. You are saying that irrespective of the circumstances, irrespective of the reasons underlying the woman's request, irrespective of the timing, any man who refuses to pull out is a rapist operating under the same mindset of men like Bundy & Panzram and should be punished the say way every other violent, sadistic rapist is punished. I find this to be reflective of the thinking of an insensitive person who just hates men and wants to exercise power over them. I mean, if you were a ruler who had the power to issue punitive decrees, based on your argument, you are just going to line up all the men who were reported to have refused to pull out after being ordered by women, irrespective of the circumstances, and send them to prison, or to concentration camps on some isolated island so they won't be able to harm women ever again.

Dimples129:


You don't know what rape feels like so I guess you could talk like this.... Deeeep, sigh

So his lost pleasure, and feeling scammed [b ] verses [/b] her feelings of powerless-Ness

I wonder which is worse

Please answer this question honestly:

Do you think a man who refuses to pull out midway during sexual intercourse with a consenting partner who engaged in reciprocal pre-intimacy with him and willingly opened her legs for him should face the same legal punishments as the typical rapist?

Tozara:
@ MissWrite & Faxole.

Excellent discussion. You guys both made some valid points. And I must confess, I learned a lot from the both of you.

I think I've been able to pick significant points from each one of your inputs, and I'd like to tell you what I think.

OK.

If MissWrite's position is the THESIS, and Faxole's is the ANTITHESIS, you might as well think of what I'm about to say as the SYNTHESIS.

MissWrite contends that there should indeed be a legislation against failure to stop after suspension or withdrawal of consent, and believes it should be termed rape. But we all know the bargain that carries----rape is not a joke. It's a serious crime that carries sever punishment, so......

Faxole considers it callous to categorize such under RAPE, given the grave consequences it carries for the accused. Hmmm.

I think you guys are both RIGHT AND WRONG.

I would suggest that we look at it from this angle:

Rape should be classified into different TYPES/LEVELS.

There should be MAJOR rape, and there should be MINOR rape----and there can be other levels inbetween. Some types of rape are more serious than others, and the milder ones shouldn't be treated on par with the really severe ones. Like Faxole had pointed out, a rape that happened without any consent at all is not the same as one that happened after the lady had given full consent and in the process of withdrawing it. Both are not equivalent.

So the severe punishment prescribed for rape should not be the same as the punishment for its milder varieties----so that justice can be more JUST and appropriate. The punishment shouldn't be disproportionate to the crime committed. It should be much less severe than the normal penalty for rape.

This way, the lady's right is protected (catering for MissWrite's concerns), and the man is not punished unjustly (that solves the issue for Faxole?).

You are right in your conclusions. I concur. I understand Misswrite's arguments and I understand how the legal system works, but I was more concerned about the level of moral reasoning that undergirded her arguments and that of people who support her position.

MissWrite:


If there isn't a signed lease, you can take back your property from someone at any point you please. It might be insensitive of you, but it's your absolute right. The guy can grumble, but if you're there to relieve him of the keys, he cannot claim he's got a right to drive it to said destination. He cannot insist that, since you already said "yes" you cannot change your mind. Unless there's a contract. The best he can do is call you an unreliable friend and never borrow your car again.


"No" can be used by anyone. It doesn't matter if it's a woman or a man.


Yes, this part is clear to me. I only tried to explain (earlier) that there are non-vindictive reasons for retracting consent. Therefore, a woman who urgently needs her car to drive her sick mother someplace, shouldn't be treated too harshly for retrieving the vehicle from a friend who was only looking to oppress some guys. Sometimes a girl has genuine issues, which is why her request to be left alone should be respected.

. Men are coming from a place where women couldn't even bring these kinds of suits, so I understand how it can feel like you're "losing ground". It's all relative.

I'm usually pragmatic when discussing issues like this. I don't just argue for theoretical purposes. I'm usually more concerned about the practical implications of an argument. I find how you are justifying being insensitive quite shocking and morally reprehensible as well. Someone once said that extreme left wing ideology has the potential to undermine society. I've always found that to be quite a profound statement and when I think about issues like this, the validity of the statement continues to shine forth. Ideas like the one you are holding have the potential to turn humans into apathetic robots who don't care about the effects of their actions on others, on the basis that they have rights and freedoms. One of the things that has helped sustain society, is the acknowledgement that an individual's actions have consequences and these consequences can affect others, so when we make a decision to act, we should do it with the awareness of the negative effects it can have on others, even if it temporarily infringes on our so called rights. You don't just sentence a man to jail for years and destroy his reputation and life just because he couldn't pull out after consentingly opening up your legs for him to fuçk.

It's not just insensitive to take the keys from the friend halfway through his journey, it's also selfish, callous and cruel. And the selfishness, cruelty and callousness of that action doesn't seem to faze you. All you care about is imposing your perceived rights. This is the kind of mindset that led to the death of millions of people in the Soviet union and this is the kind of mindset that's going to lead to the collapse of society as we know it. What you feminists actually care about is power and exercising that power over men. You don't care about the consequences of your actions and the implications of your arguments. You don't care whether they are selfish, insensitive, cruel or callous. You just want to exercise power.

MissWrite:

If you give "entrapment" the same attention as this, they'll cancel each other out. But you cannot negotiate the validity of "No". You can simply prepare a defense of entrapment. This would protect those who didn't set out to seduce a man to "play with him".

The validity of "No" can be disputed if the circumstances suggest an arbitrary utterance. The validity of "No" can also be disputed if the consequences are harmful in some way to the other party. If we grant that "No" cannot be disputed, then we can as well apply that to every domain of life. We can say that people should be free to say no to the utilization of something that belongs to them, whenever they like, even after saying yes. So going by your argument I could lend my car to a guy to travel with and then half way through his 12 hour journey I could just say "No" and then tell him to fuçk off and find a bus or trek. You cannot dismiss the consequences of saying "No" after already saying Yes. The potential consequences on the other party matters. I think it's quite insensitive to say that the validity of "No" cannot be negotiated, especially after saying yes.

I'm sorry if I implied that women don't have to be sensitive as well. We all have to be. That's why I used "woman/man" to make my point earlier. Sometimes a woman is only ready for some heavy petting. But in the books of a lot of guys, after the pre-intimacy comes the play. It's important that decisions can be made (and can be valid) at every point of the activity. A lot of things can happen in the minds of participants. You insert your penis and she suddenly has a flash of a memory that ruins the whole mood (a demon of the past). And if you continue, you're hurting her in more ways than you can imagine. Guy's aren't without their demons either.

Since we don't know what's happening in the mind of the participants and the potential consequences saying "No" or refusing to pull out may have on either of the partners, why then are we legislating this as a rape crime of which the only victim is the woman?

As you've noticed during my argument, I've always been specific about what I'm against. I'm against a woman telling a guy to pull out after consentingly opening her legs for him to fuçk. I know there are cases where a woman can unwillingly open her legs, but I'm specifically referring to the cases of full consent.

Yes, this is true. Fight it out in a courtroom. But that would be the case either way; the law will give the man or the woman the edge, and the other the motivation to sue.

If you are familiar with most courtroom cases surrounding this kind of issue, women usually win. And that's why I find the legislation to be dangerous, insensitive and one sided.

MissWrite:


Yes, I agree with you: it's absolutely tantamount to rape. It's the only way to get a hypothetical dick into a straight guy's hypothetical ass. But this is the point: once the dick is in, is it possible to take it out in the midst of his enjoyment when he's asked to remove it? Or would one have to wait it out?




I commend your perspective.



So back to that guy's dick in the straight guy's ass and the justifications you've made for a person who has been given an initial green light: in the moment they're both caught in the same (mechanical) situation. Now in the first instance, I would assume, the guy would be expected to be able to stop immediately his victim wakes up. In the second instance, somehow, he's unable to stop (because he had been given initial consent?). I think that the difficulty to stop would be experienced in both cases. So, I believe that this isn't a question of "can he?" But "should he stop?" in the minds of people who say it's impossible to withdraw consent in this context.


Yes, you're making a solid point when you say that both parties should be comfortable and certain before proceeding. But sometimes a man can read a girl's uncertainty as clear as day, but he's hoping she'll go through with it. He's setting himself up that way. But incidences like the one which inspired this conversation aren't very popular I hope (I don't know): where a girl is into it until she climaxes. That's a rubbish thing to do. Of course we have "users" out there who only need people for their own gratification; tough luck if you end up with one (like guys who don't finish the job on a girl), but it's still no reason to rape someone.

A guy who is told by a woman to pull out after being shown the green light has the same ability to pull out as does the guy who is raping a sleeping victim who immediately wakes. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the circumstances matter and the results and after effects of both situations differ, and we really need to take them into consideration.

I have issues with legislatively categorizing a situation where a guy refuses to pull out when a woman who has expressed consent, and even allowed him fuçk her for a period of time, asks him to as rape and attaching punitive measures to it. I know rape is defined as a forceful appropriation of the body of another person to satisfy a sexual need and one could argue, although not conclusively, that refusing not to pull out is tantamount to rape. But rape is also considered rape because of the victim status of the person who's body is being appropriated. I'm finding it hard to see how a woman who already gives a guy green light, kisses him, engages in pre-intimacy with him and opens her legs wide for him to penetrate, and then at an arbitrary point during the penetration insists that the guy pulls out, is the victim, even if he doesn't pull out. In this situation, how is the woman more of a victim than the guy? Who is experiencing more suffering in this situation? Isn't the guy also a victim since his pleasure and happiness has been forcefully cut off for arbitrary reasons after getting his hopes up? Isn't this an equivalent of deception and manipulation which is also a crime, hence making the guy the victim?

You are also implying in your argument that women have no obligation to be sensitive to the potential negative effects of their actions on a man. Let's be honest. What valid reason could a woman have to insist that a guy pulls out, after kissing, touching, engaging in reciprocal pre-intimacy with him and being pummeled for over a minute? I honestly can't think of one, besides maybe experiencing pain from the intercourse, which in most situations isn't the case. Most women who insist that a man pull out during intercourse do it for arbitrary reasons that I regard as insensitive and of lesser magnitude than the negative effects it would have on the man, which they don't seem to give a fuçk about.

Like I said in another response, there is also the potential problem of cases of malicious intent on the part of women that could spring up as a result of legislating this as rape and attaching punitive consequences. This kind of law gives women too much power and some can abuse this power. Any woman can invite a guy to her home, seduce him, kiss him, engage in pre-intimacy with him and open her pants for him to slot his dick into her, and whenever she likes, even if he is about to cum, she can tell him to pull out and when he doesn't, he is a rapist.

Dimples129:
NO MEANS NO.

Analogies aren't actually proper ways to evaluate the validity of an argument. Because the interpretation of an analogy seems to bear some similarity with an argument doesn't make that argument valid. I think people who aren't very smart tend to be easily swayed by analogies because on this surface they seems to legitimize an argument, but when you pry deeper and think more critically, you realize they don't.

I think you should be more concerned about raising women who are decisive and empathic. A decisive and empathic woman wouldn't allow a guy penetrate her when she has misgivings about having sex with him, because not only does she possess the ability to make quick rigid decisions, she is also aware of how difficult it would be for a guy to pull out his dick when having sex with a woman.

This kind of legislation gives women too much power and because of this certain women can use the legislative advantage for malicious purposes. Any woman can invite a guy to her home, seduce him, kiss him, engage in pre-intimacy with him and open her pants for him to slot his dick into her, and whenever she likes, even if he is about to cum, she can tell him to pull out and when he doesn't, he is a rapist.

Another aspect of this that lots of you feminists don't take into consideration, and this ties in with my claim about the lack of empathy you guys seem to not possess, is the physiological processes that occur when a man is having sex and how those processes influence his ability to be rational and make decisions. When men have sex, lots of the blood in areas of the brain that control rational processes are drained by the limbic system to sustain erections. When this happens, these areas of the brain, like the prefrontal cortex are unable to function like they should. So it makes it quite hard for a guy to think rationally and evaluate the situation when in such position.

We need to think deeply about these issues.

MissWrite:
It's an ugly situation here in Nigeria (and probably other African countries as well). It's sad that many of us are still confused about this. We should all be free to decide when we aren't comfortable with something anymore. If we cannot do that, how are we ever supposed to feel safe to engage in the first place?

Agreeing to have sex is not like jumping off a building where regret half-way down is futile. The reason it seems so to many men (and women) is that male sexuality is routinely indulged in Africa (at the expense of women). We believe that a man cannot control himself. But it isn't so much "cannot" as "would not". If a man likes to Bleep around, we say it's in his nature and he gets a pass for promiscuity (it's God's fault for giving him more sperm cells than he knows what to do with). Some guy would guilt a girl into feeling responsible for appeasing his excited dick, just because she's the one who "inspired" it (most of us have heard the myth that a guy would "die" from blue balls). And here again we accept that a man cannot pull out halfway through sex until he cums. They aren't built that way .

I guarantee that this won't fly in this scenario: a man wakes up from sleep to the feeling of another guy's dick in his ass. I bet he won't say "I know your biology prevents you from pulling your dick out of my ass this very minute; but after you've cum, I'll &$@*# ......."

Human beings can all be controlled by their brains. That's our design. The moment that ceases to be true for any particular individual, then he's a mental case and a danger to society. He needs to be removed and rehabilitated.

But in a court of law, however, it would be difficult to establish withdrawal of consent because it's a he-said-she-said situation. I wish we would make progress with 24/7 personal surveillance chips.

Waking up from sleep to the feeling of another man's dick is tantamount to rape. It's not analogous to a situation where a woman already shows consent after having kissed and engaged in pre-intimacy with a man, but decides that half way through penetration, the man should pull out.

If two gay men begin having sex, after reciprocating an indication of attraction & after kissing and touching, and a minute into intercourse, the guy who is being penetrated tells the other guy to stop. I believe in this instance if the one who is penetrating refuses to stop on the basis of the difficulty of pulling out half way when the gratification he is deriving is so intense, he shouldn't be penalized as a rape offender.

I think the burden of blame should belong to the one(whether male or female) who obviously lacks the quality of decisiveness. If a woman has apprehensions with having sex with a guy, then let her indicate this before the guy puts his dick inside her. I'd even argue that she shouldn't even begin pre-intimacy since she knows where it can lead. Like someone said, a man isn't a toy that you just tell to start and stop whenever you like.

People like you who are making this argument tend to be unemphatic to the plight of a man who is being told to pull out his dick during sex. It's the equivalent of taking the orgasmic plug off a woman as she just begins experiencing orgasm. It's very hard to do this.

HopefulLandlord, I'm curious to know what your opinion is on the double split experiment? I'm asking this question because you seem like an intelligent individual who is interested in the truth. What do you think are the possible implications of the result of the experiment?

hajidel:
You guys just don't like the truth but rather believe in teachings that soothe your heads and lie to and oh collect your hard earned money as tithe and enrich your leaders that are meant to preach and keep you in the straight path.

I'm not a christian, but I'd rather be a christian in 100 life times than be a muslim for a day. And my reason for this is predicated on my preference for the moral framework of Christianity which is light years ahead of Islam - A religion whose moral framework is still anchored to 7th century Arabia - A religion that cannot tolerate criticism - A religion that punishes by death people who leave the faith - A religion that at it's core is intolerant of other faiths. A religion that endorses the killing of people who draw a picture of their prophet - A religion that regards people of other faiths as lesser humans - A religion that supports pedophilia.

ollah2:


Isn't it funny, hypocritical and sentimental that someone somewhere tweeted that something is haram without a Quranic back up and you wrote tales to castigate a religion practiced by billions of people and it's worshippers ?


The biggest hypocrite here is you.

Are you more literate in Islamic jurisprudence than the mullahs of various Islamic countries who formulate Sharia codes that classify forms of expression between unmarried lovers that are milder than what you find in pre-wedding pictures as haram?

Gerrarahia mehn!

alBHAGDADI:


Poeple the world over are now seeing Muslims for what they are. It's only those politically correct obama people that still don't get it.

Look at the idiot criticizing pre-wedding photos, one would think he's actually a saint. No, the dude is a pornographic pictures lover. If you ask him to state which one is good to look at between pre-wedding photos and porn, he will pick porn.

He learnt from his profhet

The political correct leftists who support Islam and shield it from criticism are mostly ignoramuses who know nothing about the history of the religion and the danger it poses to the world. They are just neo-marxists who see the world through the lens of oppression of minority groups and they always side with the minority, irrespective of the demerits of that minority.

According to them, the problem isn't with Islam, the problem is with the west and it's patriarchal, oppressive structures. They see the current woes of Islam, like terrorism, as a direct product of western imperialism and they see any hostile behavior of muslims towards other cultures as a response to racism and the attempt to impose their cultures on the muslim societies. To them, there isn't any link between the behavior of muslims and Islam. What a load of bullshit!!

These airheads most certainly haven't read the Quran and the Hadiths. If they have, they'll see that there is no internal contradiction between the violent behavior of muslims around the world, and the doctrines of Islam. And another thing that surprises me is that most of these same political correct leftists are also feminists, but yet they side with the most misogynistic religion in the history of time.

hopefulLandlord:
Let me do the talking self

Faxole, do you have a list of prominent atheists that tried committing/successfully committed suicide because they are atheist?

I listed Atheists who experienced depression and extreme psychological crises when contemplating the lack of meaning in life. I didn't mention any atheist who attempted suicide. I said I had read of one who actually committed suicide, but I forgot his name. I only said statistically, atheists tend to make more suicide attempts than religious people.

This argument on suicide wasn't between me and you. It was between me and Martinez. The argument I had with you was on christian values and how it had influenced western culture and the Nigerian society.

vaxx:
may be marthins19 will not be bias or faxhole himself satisfy this issue . l wish i can give you the names as fax name it, but i can not have access to it. i am sure you aware. but you decide to keep shut about it budaatum can testify? budaatum hope you read the post of fax with marthin19 when he gave the names of scholar who went on suicide mission when they conclude that GOD is not real.these moniker i mention are atheist

What's the dispute about?

What a hypocrite.

In my experience on this earth, I haven't met bigger and more dangerous hypocrites than muslims. This doesn't mean I haven't met people from other religions who are hypocrites, I have. I've met christian hypocrites. But the troubling thing about muslim hypocrites is that they are the only ones that have the tendency to harm and even kill others for the same thing that they are guilty of. And they'll justify it with their holy scriptures.

And even when they commit a crime that's so dehumanizing and reprehensible, they'll just brush it aside like it's nothing and say that Allah will forgive them. Just look at this guy brushing off his own more reprehensible action without any remorse whatsoever, yet labelling harmless pre-wedding pictures as haram.

If this was a muslim country and this guy was a member of the bureaucracy, he'd have issued a fatwa already, and tomorrow and in subsequent days you'd see dead bodies of recently married couples littering the streets.

Islam needs a serious reformation.

You have to be really dense to believe that the Revelation story is a literal foretelling of the future. And you have to be denser and very ignorant to think that the world will end by a rapturing of Christians into heaven.

Biblical scholars have traced the chronology in the bibilical texts conclusively to around 6000 years for the creation of the world. Scientifically, this might seem false since the earth is over 4 billion years old and the universe over 13 billion years old. But the interesting thing is that this date of 6000 years correlates roughly with the age of the earliest human civilizations. We know that the genesis story was borrowed from older creation myths, notably the ancient Mesopotamian myths, and then modified. And we know that the ancient Mesopotamians were the oldest civilization, even predating the Egyptians. What if they knew something we don't?

hopefulLandlord:

that's interesting, were you once an atheist? if yes, what made you dump the idea?

Yes. And I also argued against Christians and Muslims on this forum. It's very easy to argue against religion.

I dumped the idea for the same reason I dumped Christianity. I became enlightened. Over the years I have gathered lots of knowledge that just run in direct opposition to an atheistic conception of reality.

hopefulLandlord:


tell me more

I think our current understanding of the nature of reality is incomplete and our scientific method of evaluating truth is still in it's infancy. I think humans throughout history have obtained knowledge about truths that even current science doesn't fully grasp and these truths have been passed down through time, mostly secretly, and some of these truths have been embedded in religious books and religious beliefs, howbeit in a distorted and implicit manner.

God in the sense of an anthropomorphic creator of the universe might not exist, but does that mean all the instances in various religious books where people were interacting with beings who weren't human is just mere fabrication? I don't think so. There is more to it. Same with the various religious experiences that have abounded through time and still abound. Discarding all as just illusions or fabrications is unwise.

hopefulLandlord:


so you're a deist or just irreligious or both?

I'm someone who believes that there is a lot humans don't know about the nature of reality. I don't believe in the existence of a God the way the monotheistic religions do, but I don't discard them as mere fabrications of ignorant minds. I believe there are lots of universal metaphysical principles that are embedded within most religions, and there are things that the inventors of these religions know that humans today don't. And this applies to the ancient Mesopotamians, the ancient Jews and the so called Bishops who canonized the christian scriptures.

rekinomtla:
Everyone says he was evil, only atheists say otherwise. To them he was just an animal, a product of darwinian evolution like everyone else. Once Stalin realized this, he knew (thought) morality was just a human invention, so he decided to embrace atheistic morality to its fullest and became the dictator and monster we all know.

The same way atheism could lead to genocide, an adherence to religion could also lead to genocide. More people have been murdered in the name of religion throughout history than all the deaths in the regimes of Stalin and Mao combined.

There are inherently good and bad aspects to every belief system. What you do as a result of the belief system is what's more important.

hopefulLandlord:

I thought you're a Christian?

I'm not. I am not an atheist either.

Being exposed to painful things is a consequence of limitation. Humans are limited in various ways - We die. We die because we are destructible and can be harmed. Without limitation there is no being and hence no existence. Forms of limitation like pain and death are a necessary requirement for being.

Rex123:



That part shows you don't know what you saying? Latinos are the creation of the white invaders and the inhabitants of the land, some of the African slaves brought to America also bred with the inhabitants and their masters! The Indians roamed America not Latinos

I know what I'm saying. I used Latino as a cultural delineation not as a racial one. Even still, the Latinos(as a racial term) still trace their origins, and much of their genetic material, back to the natives/Indians. There are still millions of people in Southern and Northern America who hail from the direct unadulterated blood line of those killed during the Spanish conquests. In places like Peru and Bolivia, natives make up majority of the population.

amakadihot87:
......................so we should talk about science in romance section?

I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the video you posted. Go online and you'll see that these are the only kind of discussions you see black youths gather together to have. As if it's talking about relationship and sex that will move their society and culture forward.

The sarcasm and humour in this is Gold.

The only thing black youths are good at discussing is relationships. Go on YouTube and you'll be hard pressed to find a single black channel dedicated to talking about intellectual/scientific subjects and interesting ideas. If it's not BkChat relationship nonsense, it's make-up and hair advice. Even currently in Nigeria, if the average youth isn't talking about Big brother Naija, they are talking about football. After you all will be wondering why black societies are all backward.