[Quintus Flaminius]

Sex with consent ‘can still be rape’

[WanderingSoul]

I guess feminists are right, every man in the world is a rapist.

[jammer]

That title is completely misleading. That's not consent at all. She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

[Roosh]

Quote:

She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

So it's now automatically rape? Lack of consent for the end feature of sex means the entire act was nonconsensual?

[jammer]

(04-25-2013 09:36 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

So it's now automatically rape? Lack of consent for the end feature of sex means the entire act was nonconsensual?

Its sexual assault. If she consents to doggy style but not anal, are you allowed to do her anal?

What do you think it should be called?

[Millz]

We can have sex but just don't cum inside me..

New rule lads face, tits ass and stomach only cream pies are now illegal

[Therapsid]

(04-25-2013 09:37 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 09:36 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

So it's now automatically rape? Lack of consent for the end feature of sex means the entire act was nonconsensual?

Its sexual assault. If she consents to doggy style but not anal, are you allowed to do her anal?

What do you think it should be called?

Get real. In the test case it was a man cumming inside his own wife. If that's rape, then we can thank the court for confirming that marriage is dead.

[jammer]

(04-25-2013 09:53 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

Get real. In the test case it was a man cumming inside his own wife. If that's rape, then we can thank the court for confirming that marriage is dead.

Yes its sexual assault when she explicitly told him he can't do it. If she told him he can't do it, then its not consent. How hard is that to understand? Just because she is his wife doesn't change the fact that she told him not to do that and he still did it anyway.

[Therapsid]

(04-25-2013 09:55 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 09:53 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

Get real. In the test case it was a man cumming inside his own wife. If that's rape, then we can thank the court for confirming that marriage is dead.

Yes its sexual assault when she explicitly told him he can't do it. If she told him he can't do it, then its not consent. How hard is that to understand? Just because she is his wife doesn't change the fact that she told him not to do that and he still did it anyway.

How hard is it to understand that marriage is a covenant and the woman has to provide sex and children to her husband? Why do you think marriage was invented to begin with? Just to express your love of someone?

Again, these kinds of attitudes just confirm that marriage has been killed by our culture and by the legal system. I say, fine. I'm not a fan of gay marriage, but they can have it if this is the dry husk it's been reduced to.

[WanderingSoul]

(04-25-2013 09:37 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 09:36 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

She didn't consent to him ejaculating.

So it's now automatically rape? Lack of consent for the end feature of sex means the entire act was nonconsensual?

Its sexual assault. If she consents to doggy style but not anal, are you allowed to do her anal?

What do you think it should be called?

Not the same thing. You must have fallen for the ole' "I promise, I'll pull out." trick a few too many times. A word of advice, the next time some dude rawdogs you an hour after meeting you at the bar, tell him you want his cum on your face. He is guaranteed to pull out if you offer up the facial as a consolation prize.

[Samseau]

(04-25-2013 09:58 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 09:55 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 09:53 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

Get real. In the test case it was a man cumming inside his own wife. If that's rape, then we can thank the court for confirming that marriage is dead.

Yes its sexual assault when she explicitly told him he can't do it. If she told him he can't do it, then its not consent. How hard is that to understand? Just because she is his wife doesn't change the fact that she told him not to do that and he still did it anyway.

How hard is it to understand that marriage is a covenant and the woman has to provide sex and children to her husband? Why do you think marriage was invented to begin with? Just to express your love of someone?

Again, these kinds of attitudes just confirm that marriage has been killed by our culture and by the legal system. I say, fine. I'm not a fan of gay marriage, but they can have it if this is the dry husk it's been reduced to.

As straights run from marriage, gays are rushing into it

[Samseau]

I fucked a girl once who said to me afterwards, "I feel guilty for having sex with you, but it's my fault for letting it happen. As soon as I entered your room, I gave you the green light."

Obviously she was foreign to have such "antiquated" views.


But in a sane world, that is how the law would operate: You enter a man's room and it is impossible for him to be charged with rape. If a man forces you to have sex, it's the woman's fault for going to his room. A man should not be held accountable to control his sexual instincts within the confine of his bedroom.

Women need to be dominated in order to enjoy sex and the idea of consent is 100% bullshit. She needs to have her resistance overcome by a strong man and she can't do that if the man is begging for consent.

The laws are bullshit and everyone knows it, but people are afraid to point out the emperor has no clothes.

[soup]

What if you are fucking a girl, and she starts to do something that you don't like?

For example, what if a girl gives you a bad blow-job? I never consent to bad blow-jobs.

Is that rape?

Or, what if she scratches your back with her nails? Maybe you didn't talk about it before hand. But, now you have scratch marks on your back.

Rape?

Same with Hickies. What if a girl gives you a hicky the night before your big meeting? You show up at work with the hicky and the boss fires you because it looks un-professional.

I could make a huge list of things girls do during sex that I don't like or consent to. Are they rape?

[jammer]

(04-25-2013 11:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

What if you are fucking a girl, and she starts to do something that you don't like?

For example, what if a girl gives you a bad blow-job? I never consent to bad blow-jobs.

Is that rape?

Or, what if she scratches your back with her nails? Maybe you didn't talk about it before hand. But, now you have scratch marks on your back.

Rape?

Same with Hickies. What if a girl gives you a hicky the night before your big meeting? You show up at work with the hicky and the boss fires you because it looks un-professional.

I could make a huge list of things girls do during sex that I don't like or consent to. Are they rape?

If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

[Blackhawk]

Once again, trying to use the power of the government to intercede in personal relations fails miserably.
What happened to "Government should stay out of my bedroom"?

[soup]

(04-25-2013 11:23 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

What if you are fucking a girl, and she starts to do something that you don't like?

For example, what if a girl gives you a bad blow-job? I never consent to bad blow-jobs.

Is that rape?

Or, what if she scratches your back with her nails? Maybe you didn't talk about it before hand. But, now you have scratch marks on your back.

Rape?

Same with Hickies. What if a girl gives you a hicky the night before your big meeting? You show up at work with the hicky and the boss fires you because it looks un-professional.

I could make a huge list of things girls do during sex that I don't like or consent to. Are they rape?

If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

Well, here's a an important question. Was she on top, or were they doing doggystyle?

If she was riding him when he ejaculated, he wasn't physicialy forcing her to do anything, so that's not rape.

Also, even if they were doing doggystyle, and he didn't have his hand's on her, and she was doing all the moving, and he ejaculated, that's not rape either.

[Roosh]

The feminist idea that all sex is rape is slowly coming to fruition.

[soup]

(04-25-2013 11:47 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

The feminist idea that all sex is rape is slowly coming to fruition.

Roosh, you mentioned in vitro in one of your recent blog posts. Is there actually a formal feminist movement to have sex banned and in vitro take it's place?

[jammer]

(04-25-2013 11:40 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:23 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

What if you are fucking a girl, and she starts to do something that you don't like?

For example, what if a girl gives you a bad blow-job? I never consent to bad blow-jobs.

Is that rape?

Or, what if she scratches your back with her nails? Maybe you didn't talk about it before hand. But, now you have scratch marks on your back.

Rape?

Same with Hickies. What if a girl gives you a hicky the night before your big meeting? You show up at work with the hicky and the boss fires you because it looks un-professional.

I could make a huge list of things girls do during sex that I don't like or consent to. Are they rape?

If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

Well, here's a an important question. Was she on top, or were they doing doggystyle?

If she was riding him when he ejaculated, he wasn't physicialy forcing her to do anything, so that's not rape.

Also, even if they were doing doggystyle, and he didn't have his hand's on her, and she was doing all the moving, and he ejaculated, that's not rape either.

Considering that she is very religious and was cautious about it, I'm 99% sure they were in missionary.

[soup]

(04-25-2013 11:51 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:40 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:23 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 11:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

What if you are fucking a girl, and she starts to do something that you don't like?

For example, what if a girl gives you a bad blow-job? I never consent to bad blow-jobs.

Is that rape?

Or, what if she scratches your back with her nails? Maybe you didn't talk about it before hand. But, now you have scratch marks on your back.

Rape?

Same with Hickies. What if a girl gives you a hicky the night before your big meeting? You show up at work with the hicky and the boss fires you because it looks un-professional.

I could make a huge list of things girls do during sex that I don't like or consent to. Are they rape?

If you told her beforehand that you didn't want her to give you a hicky, then yes you didn't consent to that. What you are equating it to is completely different than specifically stating beforehand that you didn't want him to cum in you and him saying yes, then doing it anyways.

Well, here's a an important question. Was she on top, or were they doing doggystyle?

If she was riding him when he ejaculated, he wasn't physicialy forcing her to do anything, so that's not rape.

Also, even if they were doing doggystyle, and he didn't have his hand's on her, and she was doing all the moving, and he ejaculated, that's not rape either.

Considering that she is very religious and was cautious about it, I'm 99% sure they were in missionary.

The problem here isn't rape, it's religion.

[Samseau]

Quote:

The problem here isn't rape, it's religion.

Come on dude, every religion in the world is more male-friendly than feminism.

[soup]

(04-25-2013 12:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The problem here isn't rape, it's religion.

Come on dude, every religion in the world is more male-friendly than feminism.

Both religion and feminism are fucked up.

Men who bow to religion are beta. God is an alpha overlord.

It's religious guys who usually the white knights. They don't question what they are told.

[Samseau]

(04-25-2013 12:15 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The problem here isn't rape, it's religion.

Come on dude, every religion in the world is more male-friendly than feminism.

Both religion and feminism are fucked up.

Men who bow to religion are beta. God is an alpha overlord.

It's religious guys who usually the white knights. They don't question what they are told.

Yeah these guys never questioned anyone. bunch of betas

[Fitzgerald]

(04-25-2013 11:47 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

The feminist idea that all sex is rape is slowly coming to fruition.

Andrea Dworkin was big on this. Ugly fat toad of a woman married to a gay guy, go figure. If time travel is possible in my lifetime, I'm going to go push her mother down the stairs when she's expecting...

[KorbenDallas]

Soup-

Your completely right with regard to the modern American church. But with regards to actual Christians, who read and follow the bible's doctrine as best they can, you are completely misinformed. I would consider myself a casual Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ and his message.

The bible says to have strive for natural relationships between the sexes. That all men are fallen, but that we can be redeemed through our belief in Jesus.

The bible says clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman and describes exactly what marriage is. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. The woman MUST submit to her husband for the marriage to be considered a Christian one. She may never refuse him under Church doctrine. She must submit to her husband as well, by serving him. A husband must work hard to provide and protect his family.

The bible also talks about relationships in general describing a society where men have relationships with other men and women with other women or multiple partners as insidious and dangerous. I tend to agree with that.

Jammer-

If a man can't have sex with his wife, then we need to change what we are calling these relationships. How about we call getting married through the state system, "Rent Contract between consenting adults" http://www.returnofkings.com/8966/modern...eking-hell

Mr. Smith, I the Honorable Judge condemn you to the gallows for violating Subsection 1A of your Rent Contract, which, allows for sex only on Tuesday's at 9pm or when your wife specifically tells you you are now allowed to touch her. She told you you could touch her left breast, but then you touched her ass without consent. You are hereby fined 1000 dollars a month to be paid directly to her as well as restricted your Tuesday's sex session for 2 months.

You see how ridiculous it is for the government to be involved in a religious institution designed to create strong families with strong male leaders in communities with woman bound by their Christian faith to serve and love their husbands who serve and protect them and their offspring their whole lives?

Thank god for Eastern Europe, where young, pretty girls, still see the benefits of a traditional marriage to a strong provider, who desires a family and to live in harmony with nature and his religion.

Jammer, keep your marriage 2.0 where you make the money, cook the meals, and lick your females boots in supplication for your yearly blowjob. Your nothing but a sniveling piece of garbage until you can figure out that life isn't about cow-towing to the weaker's sex whims.