~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Ctlaw1
[–]fengpi 54 points55 points56 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
In fact, it can still be rape even if the woman was participating enthusiastically!
After all-- who is to gainsay a woman's feeeeeeeeeeeeelings, yes?
[–]Lethn 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You're right, what people don't realise is even if this mind sound totally reasonable and logical on the surface ( It doesn't when you know how a lot of women behave when being approached by a guy ) but feminists openly want women to be able to 'withdraw' their consent whenever they feel like it.
If anybody cares about due process then they should be completely against all of this, even with hate speech laws. People can just make the complaint whenever they feel like it. It doesn't matter if it happened 10 years ago and a woman felt slightly uncomfortable with what she was doing if she wakes up one morning and decides she was raped you're fucked.
[–]armaadi 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Date Jake. Avoid saying any express "yes's" to all the sex either of us initiate. Break up 2.5 years later after bragging about how great the relationship and sex is. See Jake dating a new girl. Get pissed. Let cops know all the sex didn't come with my "yes's". Laugh as Jake get sent to federal prison as a rapist. Buy a new cat.
[–]29383839293 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Weird… The name "yes means yes"-consent-law implies that "yes" can never mean no, and it makes no assumption about "no", which means no could mean yes sometimes.
That's the complete opposite of what's in the law.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Exactly. You can go around coercing women into having sex with you, and when they accuse you of rape, you'll say: "But they all said yes. Yes means yes!" Boom, free rape.
[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or taken to the extreme; it becomes he said she said when he says she said yes.
[–]ElectraUnderTheSea 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah and how is a guy going to prove she was happily naked partaking in sex? It's her word against his and we all know how that tends to end
[–]hardkjerne 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Secretly film, always!
[–]biff64gc 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"She felt compelled to say yes out of fear. It was clearly rape!"
future criminal charges against some poor guy.
[–]lostapwbm 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Shifting the burden of proof from the government to the defendant. This is a regression to how the law used to work.
Of course, the boatloads of 'refugees' Spain is admitting will be permitted to defend themselves against rape by pleading 'cultural difference' or 'cultural misunderstanding' despite the 'fact' that all cultures are equal.
[–]EduBA 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I empathise with those men but theirs is a defeat too: The forces behind Radical Feminism seek the destruction of man-woman relation as means to destroy the concept of Family and our societies.
[–]TheImpossible1 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fuck off.
This is a war and we should fight back.
No trust in them anymore.
Kids are better off without them.
MGTOW.
[–]OnTheSlope 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The forces behind Radical Feminism seek the destruction of man-woman relation as means to destroy the concept of Family and our societies
no, I don't think there is an aim to the destruction, they're just doing it because it feels immediately good.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh, but she can expressly say yes non-verbally.
Glad that's cleared up.
[–]thefilthyhermit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But I don't know sign language.
[–]omegaphallic 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The irony is this will force a lot of women to act in a way sexually that they won't be comfortable with, a lot of women aren't like Sally from Harry met Sally, they are shy and carrying on sexually is something they find uncomfortable and embarrassing. I think who every came up with yes means yes has watched way too much porn (which is saying something) and think all women want to act like that during sex. So they are going to pressure these women to act in ways they are uncomfortable with.
Still honestly at this point I'm like fuck it, people will have to learn the hard way that there will be negatuv consequences to this and a lot of women will not be happy with the results.
[–]jormaig 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well this has been proposed after a girl was raped by five men and she didn't say anything due to being terrorised. There's a video with the whole thing.
Since in Spain rape involves violence or threads the men were not convicted for rape but for sexual abuse instead.
The bill is supposed to fix issues like this one where if the girl does not say "yes" then it's rape to avoid a case like the previously explained.
[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is not the solution, obviously if someone is threatened into silence or attacked saying saying something should not be required, still this is not the way to address that, it will be massively abused, but the Spanards will have learn that the hard way sadly.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
We don't need more government in our bedrooms.
"It can still be rape even if the victim doesn't resist"
Instead of passing laws we should be teaching people to simply say what they mean with sex. If you can't say "no" or "yes" to sex when it's gearing up toward sex (ie; foreplay) then you aren't ready for sex. But we can't stop people from having sex, so let's encourage people to actually be smarter. Rather than make most sex illegal because reasons.
"If she's naked actively taking part and enjoying herself there is obviously consent"
Until she says it's rape anyway, and it's her word against his. In which case you will take her side. Even if she says yes, along with enthusiasm she can still claim it was rape when the guy blows her off the next morning. Or dumps her.
If she's crying inert like an inflatable doll
That's quite the extreme and specific example to lump into something vague as fuck as the following
clearly not enjoying herself
So does a guy who gets a toothy blowjob from a woman get to say she raped him or no? Because odds are he's going to be clearly not be enjoying himself while it's happening. Unless he has a fetish.
But is he a rape victim or no? Under this he should be. After all, who are we to expect those capable of consenting to sex to be able to give consent and talk about sex and be like "Hey, watch the teeth."
Oh but then she might start to feel like she isn't enjoying herself anymore, and is thus being raped. And we can't expect her to just be like "Fine, I don't feel like it anymore." That would be victim blaming.
What a mess we've made by overreaching and trying to control sex. Soon we'll have to have appointed government officials watch us have sex or never be allowed to have sex at all.
[–]LabTech41 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's going to be a ton of beta simps who'll go along with this law, thinking "all I have to do is get her to say 'yes' beforehand, and everything's cool", to which women will lie as they always do and say they never said 'yes'.
The smarter beta simps will then think "well, if she changes her mind later, I'll just record on audio/visual or some kind of consent form so that there's hard evidence that consent was given and so everything will be cool", to which women will then agitate to get such recordings or hard evidence of consent made illegal on the grounds that they're 'creepy', which apparently is all the proof you need these days to make life-destroying legislation.
[–]dukunt 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But what if she's the initiator? Does she need to get a wholehearted 'yes!' from her partner? Or does the man still need to ask permission?
[–]1LegendaryWombat 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My goodness does this fly in the face of most social interactions. Some girls are too shy to expressly say yes, but will give a nod of consent, or say nothing but lead a man off.
Something i also notice in that statement, so a man can give consent without saying yes? Why can't a woman?
[–]loganblade14 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What about the guy that doesn't want sex?
[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
If this becomes a law then you all MUST believe that if someone doesn't get explicit consent they are a rapist.
Age of consent is a statute. If you breach it, you're a rapist.
Lack of explicit consent is a statute. If you breach it, you're a rapist.
If you believe the law correctly describes when rape occurs by their statute laws, then you have to agree with both of those laws. If you disagree with one, can you admit that there's some ambiguity in the other? Or are you a hypocrite?
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I think there's definitely something wrong with the age of consent "statutory rape" law. You're automatically a rapist even if they're a couple of years underage and it doesn't scar them later or anything. It's a big grey area and should be on a case-by-case depending on the circumstances.
It's still a hell of a lot better than this law though.
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
I can agree to that claim. This law is the worst of the worst. (but people would still technically be sick rapists for breaking it, and eventually we'd all come to see people as sick rapists for breaking it the same way we see AoC violators as sick rapists regardless of situation).
However, lets talk human rights violations. Presuming you make it legal for a 17 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, but its illegal for someone who's 25+, is the 15 year old having their human rights violated by providing an exception for a 17 year old to get in there when they otherwise "cant consent to sex"?
After all, the point of the law is protecting someone who doesn't understand what they're doing from sexual acts. If you might be the type to say "no no no, its protecting them from being manipulated into sex", then the stats on teen on teen sex manipulation is a big splash of iced pepper spray on that argument, because its not like teens are pure little angels and adults are the villains, its almost a form of Peter Pan argument, as Jordan Peterson might say.
If the law is just "to stop adults from having sex with them, but its okay for other teens to have sex with them", there has to be a REASON as to why the former is bad and the latter is not. If we make the claim that its innately harmful, with no evidence, that an adult has sex with them, then we're making a theology/ideology claim. If we can point to evidence as why its bad, then why do we believe that this evidence does not exist for teen on teen relationships? And if teen on teen relationships can be just as bad, then it should be OBVIOUS that it should be illegal for teen on teen as well.
Going back to human rights violation, if you think someone is too young to understand the repercussions of sex or know what they're doing, they should be seen as a victim if someone has sex with them, regardless of the perpetrators' age. Whether 17 or 70, they've violated someone's lack of ability to make good decisions (teen brain) understand what they're doing, and so on.
if you make an exception for a 17 year old, you're saying that the potential consequences or even the actual consequences of sexual activity for this 15 year old don't merit punishment for the 17 year old, in spite of the 15 year old's lack of ability to make good decisions for themselves about such an important issue.
In other words, you've created amnesty for certain groups of people from the repercussions of harming or potentially harming another individual. That means the harmed individual has no legal recourse. That sounds like a human rights violation.
On the other hand, if you say "yeah, 15 year olds can consent to 17 year olds", you're saying they're intelligent enough or have enough self-determination or responsibility to deal with sex and its consequences, however "we should still lock up and dehumanize a 25 year old who has sex with them because reasons". If there is no actual harm, or the harm is on the same scale as having consenting sex with a 17 year old, then locking up someone and dehumanizing them as a "child rapist" is a form of human rights violation because you've admitted "this person can make sexual decisions with their own body" by making an exception for 17 year olds. Locking an adult up because "its icky" is a form of moral policing akin to Sharia Law where a person is treated to long times in prison for their sexual activity.
Either they can or they can't make those decisions. If they can, criminalizing some people and not others is a human rights violation because it locks people up for long periods of time for an arbitrary reason.
If they can't make those decisions, then that is a human rights violation to give 17 year olds a free pass to victimize them sexually.
If 15 year olds can't consent to adults, they can't consent to 17 year olds or even other 15 year olds.
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Those are some good points. I think most 15 year olds are mature enough to understand the consequences, if they're not being manipulated into it. And if they do lower the age of consent slightly, then people more than 4 or 5 years older than them definitely shouldn't be prosecuted either. The law already allows teen sex so it's already violating human rights if the person is significantly older than the minor.
Most countries in Europe have an AoC of 14, and it's not like they have higher rates of abuse in those countries than in the US/UK. I think 14 should be the minimum for minors in general and 15 if the partner is an adult. But like I said, it all depends on circumstances.
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think it should be seen as socially icky and condemnable if someone much older has sex with someone that young, but if they're not being coerced, then essentially putting someone in a 20 years situation and dehumanizing them like they do with gays in Sharia Law is practically speaking a form of human rights violation if we believe that people of that age can consent in some circumstances and we believe that extreme punishments for sexual proclivities which are not actually harmful are human rights violations. But then it falls to proving such young people can consent, and most people would argue they cant. But if they cant, then they should be seen as victims if they're enticed into sex by another teen as well. Whatever the harm is from their "inability to consent" doesnt just disappear because they're with someone close to their own age.
Its the fallacy of "power dynamic" as the marxist/feminist/sjw camp would describe it. Yet we can fractionate power dynamic in so many ways. Low IQ 70 females of 15 years old are easy prey to high IQ sociopathic jock males of 15-18 years old, but that'd be legal. Its like how most men dont commit rape, but most people who rape are serial rapists and have more than one victim. Most 15 year olds aren't sociopathic males who manipulate girls for sex, but those who are will have multiple victims, or 'victims', depending on how you view it, and providing they don't actually do anything illegal.
Anyway, AoC laws were designed to prevent coercive behavior like "I love you, wont you fuck me". Then they transformed into "its just the potentials of danger that makes it a legal reason to punish sex with them". Then it transformed into "power dynamic is the reason, because power dynamic represents an imbalance that automatically, a priori means its an abusive relationship".
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or icky if someone significantly older bangs someone that young, but obviously it all depends if it's coercive or not. I think AoC laws have mostly failed in this aspect as most people who initially agree but regret it later likely won't report it. So I don't think it's made that much of a difference. Either make it more lenient instead of the draconian laws we have now or just lower it, "power balance" be damned.
I mostly agree though.
[–]emof -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
ITT: People not managing to read more than one paragraph, because yellow
[–]armaadi 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And if women do the naked, immovable starfish a lot of women love to use as their go to move? She can make out with you, rub your inner thigh, give you a blowjob and when it comes to sex, just lay there. Is that a yes? Or when she does that, do you need to stop and explicitly get her to say "yes"? If you got her doggy, and she'd just floating on the sensations, but not actively pushing back on you, should you pull out and gain another "yes"? If a woman is riding her guy, does he need to be thrusting up and/or saying "yes" over and over in order to not be a rapist?
"These questions are dumb. Of course these are fine."
But are they? I break up with a girl, and I cant 100% answer that I got explicit "yes's" every single time, I could face a charge. Add in something like mandatory sentences and sexual assault registry, guys should very, very careful with any sexual encounter, while women can do whatever they feel like.
This puts the government way too far in the bedroom.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]fengpi 54 points55 points56 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lethn 20 points21 points22 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]armaadi 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]29383839293 19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElectraUnderTheSea 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardkjerne 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]biff64gc 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lostapwbm 19 points20 points21 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EduBA 13 points14 points15 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheImpossible1 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]OnTheSlope 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thefilthyhermit 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]omegaphallic 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]jormaig 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LabTech41 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dukunt 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1LegendaryWombat 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loganblade14 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]emof -4 points-3 points-2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]armaadi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link