TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

twistytwisty Archive

View 0 posts and 12 comments by twistytwisty on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

In the case where the other party's power is not used at all to part the legs, voluntarily doing so is kind of a receptive signal. Not really. People react differently to threats or agression - some freeze, some fight, some go limp, etc. Just because a particular person doesn't fight or stops fighting, doesn't mean they're consenting. This is part of why people are advocating to move away from "no means no" to "only Yes means yes".
/r/MensRights08/05/13 07:48 PM
1

lol ... I mean that just because doesn't struggle and try to keep their knees pressed together, ie they let their legs part, doesn't mean they've given consent and aren't being raped.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 12:49 PM
1

Honestly, I agree and that's why I think this case is so solidly in the grey. There's just no way to no at this point, though I lean towards probably not rape but maybe he was an asshole. I wouldn't say that calling ambiguous situations rape is insulting to unambiguous rape victims. But that would be a totally individual response of course.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 09:49 PM
2

Yeah, I agree that aggressor or aggressive is not always the best word for sexual participation. You are correct, voluntarily spreading your legs can be an overtly receptive sign. Just as not needing to wrestle and pull apart the legs does not mean that someone was NOT raped. Sometimes people just want to get it over with as quickly as possible. She clearly made no attempt to resist, but from what she wrote it sounds like a safe inference that she probably didn't maintain a level of enthusiasm f…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 12:33 AM
2

Hrm. The reason I'm hinging on that, unenthusiastic partner bit, is because it really can be rape. Some people don't deal well when they're scared and will freeze up - I bet that can come across as unenthusiastic. But really, here's where that thought takes me. If your partner is enthusiastic at the beginning and becomes unenthusiastic, don't you wonder why? If they start by kissing you back and moaning and touching you and then transition into someone tense, who just goes passive or tries (even…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 12:26 AM
0

Yes, and I agree with THAT statement. But he in fact used the words "in this case", which takes it from a hypothetical example of what a hypothetical woman might do to escalating what the actual woman has related - which is not much.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 11:15 PM
1

Agreed, lack of a verbal "no" does not automatically make it rape but to say that this particular woman was "on top riding him" is to assign her actions that we don't and can't know. And it's far and away from the tone of her letter, so to extrapolate that and try to use it as a hypothetical is terrible. She didn't write in and say something like "I was out partying, got a little drunk, had a heavy makeout session with this guy and it went farther than I would have done sober but I didn't protes…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:30 PM
2

I wouldn't call it ridiculous - this is the kind of grey situation that crops up when two people don't communicate well. Though I would not call it rape, more of an unfortunate misunderstanding (unless we got more detail and found out she basically turned into a stiff board and he proceeded anyway without even a "what's going on, you were hot before but now you're just laying there??") But, she does explicitly state that he did not scare her, that she was just too scared to say no. So, clearly s…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:35 PM
2

Sure, but it's a terrible hypothetical to base off this article.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:29 PM
3

I guess I don't know where this is coming from. The case outlined in the column is fairly grey. What you're talking about is not. We don't have enough detail from the column to know how she responded when the foreplay went farther than she wanted. But, I doubt someone who was thinking "no, no, no" in her head was being the agressor. Anything is possible I suppose, but definitely not equally probable.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:02 PM
2

Nowhere in the column does she actually give us enough details to know what her response was, except that she was saying "no" in her head. She doesn't actually tell us if she was an active participant or fair unresponsive or what. So please don't assume she was "the one on top riding the dude..." - we don't know that.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:56 PM
6

Exactly! And there is not enough detail in the column to say what her actions and body language were as the encounter went on. Did she put on a front that she was okay with it or did she pull back and stop responding and he didn't notice or ignored it?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:53 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter