In my last thread about rape, a common theme I got from BPers was that my definition of rape was wrong. They felt that I did not understand the difference between real rape and a rape fantasy.

I think I do: a fantasy is something in your head, in which the woman is in control, while in reality, the woman is not in control. [1]

Now, here is the problem. Blue pill women and men say that because a woman fantasizes about rape, if something similar were to happen in real life, she would not want it (because fantasy = / = reality). This makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is the following: a woman says she wants to be "ravished" by a man she is attracted to. Since she is consenting to the sexual encounter, by definition, she can't be raped. This is what BPers are telling me.

The problem with that is legally speaking she is being raped.

See, if a woman says "no, stop, I don't want this" etc as a part of her ravishment fantasy in which she resists but an attractive male who she knows has his way with her, she might be consenting to the encounter on the inside, but, in a legal sense, since she never gave explicit verbal consent, she was raped.

I don't really know how else to put it. In today's legal climate, women need to give explicit consent. Lack of a no does not mean yes, and lack of a yes certainly does not mean yes. Moreover, many no's suggests that she does not mean yes.

PROOF:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

Before you start going on and on about "but, that's California's law! Not the national one!" please understand that the U.S.A. has no national rape law. I'm not going to post all 50 states laws.

Here's some additional variety, courtesy of New York Penal Law:

A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when: He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person`s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.

So with that, please, CMV. A woman can have a rape/ravishment fantasy, act it out, consent to it (implicitly) and still legally be raped.

As an aside, I'd like to make something clear. I did not make my last post purposefully inflammatory, nor am I making this one purposefully inflammatory. If you get offended and find this inflammatory, I cannot help you.

I'd like to thank the BPers who took my post seriously and gave honest, thoughtful replies to it. I did learn a couple of things. I'd like to also thank the BPers who insulted me and shamed me, like they usually do. You help me decide who to take seriously and who not to.

[1] On a side note, there is a divide between RPers and BPers when it comes to fantasies vs realities. I noticed that RPers by and large said they'd love for fantasies to come true, while BPers said that fantasies should stay as fantasies