TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Flow chart that explains rape. Think this might be good as a reaction sometimes.

Not_An_Ambulance

January 8, 2016
53 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1271#RapeFlowchart
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Flow chart that explains rape. Think this might be good as a reaction sometimes.
Author

Not_An_Ambulance

Upvotes 53
Comments 60
Date January 8, 2016 9:00 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4031xn/flow_chart_that_explains_rape_think_this_might_be/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/flow-chart-that-explains-rape-think-this-might-be.963578
https://theredarchive.com/post/963578
Top posts by Not_An_Ambulance

Alabama woman sentenced to 119 years for conviction involving sexual abuse of 9-year-old (x-post pussypassdenied)

30 upvotes
October 2, 2015
/r/MensRights

Marines unveil new gender-neutral standards for 29 jobs

20 upvotes
October 8, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]xNOM 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The very fact that this flow chart needs to exist is pathetic. It was much simpler under the "demonstrated resistance?" standard before rape became a thought crime.

[–]Not_my_foreskin -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah man. I remember there was a dude who said he was raped by a woman when he was "too drunk to resist". Regret sex =! Rape

[–]MonkeyCB 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not how you make a rape flow chart.

[–]PurpleViolettron 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I take issue with question 6. If I say "Stop," and try to move away but the guy continues to do what he was before, I have withdrawn consent and that's rape regardless of whether he "knows" or not that I meant "Stop," when I said it. If we accept the logic of this flow chart, any person can get out of jail for an actual rape charge by saying "I didn't know they didn't consent. You can't hold me guilty for my ignorance."

Plus, there's an issue with number 5 that I just spotted. "Did you voluntarily agree or allow it to take place" is really bad wording. It reads as "Did you either voluntarily agree to the sex act? Did you allow the sex act to take place?" as if either of those being affirmative answers means there is consent. The first is consent, the second is not. Allowing a guy who is holding me down to fuck me is not consent. I don't get why they put "allow" in there in the first place.

[–]thegrimraeper 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I take issue with question 6. If I say "Stop," and try to move away but the guy continues to do what he was before, I have withdrawn consent and that's rape regardless of whether he "knows" or not that I meant "Stop," when I said it. If we accept the logic of this flow chart, any person can get out of jail for an actual rape charge by saying "I didn't know they didn't consent. You can't hold me guilty for my ignorance."

I'm confused here. so you say "stop" and how does he not know you said "stop?" he's deaf and didn't hear you say it? he doesn't speak the same language? can't be because he's drunk; no jury would accept a person's drunkenness as an excuse for committing a crime.

since when did men acquire telepathy? because it sounds like that's what you're asking for.

Allowing a guy who is holding me down to fuck me is not consent.

I'm confused again. this isn't consent? so when someone says, "last night my girlfriend allowed me to stay over her place and fuck her," that wasn't consent either?

this makes no sense. if you don't like the guy, tell him and walk out. if he forcibly prevents you from doing that, it's rape. but if instead you stick around and take a shower with him well Jesus sorry that's consent in my book.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So... I'm actually an attorney, so.. Going to address these for you. First, regarding allow... If a guy is trying to have sex with you and you do not want it but say nothing, it is not rape... Assuming you have some ability to say no, of course. You can verbally disallow only, it would remain rape. This is a change from the attitudes of 50 years ago.

Secondly, what he knows is literally the most important thing in the entire criminal justice system. We punish bad people, not stupid people, and not people who made you feel bad. That said, if he knows you meant it or not matters a lot when you think about it that way. Oh... And, keep in mind the criminal justice system does not just take his word for it.

On a personal note, I have seen some pretty confusing signals from a girl... For instance... Had a girl tell me "hey! I'm not that kind of girl!" while she had taken her clothes off, been rubbing my cock, and laughing. You have any idea how confusing THAT is?

[–]PurpleViolettron 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So a guy pinning me down, undressing me, fucking me, and me being too afraid of what he'll do to fight back or say anything isn't rape? Let's reverse this and make it even better. Say that a woman does it to a man. He knows that if he pushes the woman off of him, he's going to get the cops called on him. He's in too much shock that this is fucking happening to him to say "Stop" or "No" or anything basically. That's not rape?

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." That's the exact flaw in what you just said. We do punish people for being stupid. We do it all the fucking time. Every regulatory law (what is it, a crime malum prohibitum or something?) is going to catch somebody for simply being stupid.

Oh, and yeah but juries are funny things and defense attorneys are sharks. Which is great and all, but, honestly, I don't want a backlog of bullshit appeals clogging up the courts because "I didn't know she meant it". Gag me with a spoon.

I've had a guy do the same thing to me, so yeah, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what that's like. I got upset but I got dressed and I dealt with it like a fucking adult.

[–]2182much 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I would modify question 3 to include force, violence, and coercion. If you're in a situation where you have reason to believe that you are in danger if you resist, and if the rapist knows that they are making you feel unsafe to resist, then it's rape.

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is the law in my country and I imagine in most places. It is can be phrased "force or violence or threat of violence against the victim or against some other person".

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That is correct. If you say nothing and do not resist, then it is not rape.

How you feel does not make someone a criminal. What they do does.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

dependent on the location, the uk relies on the "reasonable man" principle, if a reasonable man would have thought they were consenting, it isn't rape, but if the reasonable man would have thought they weren't then its rape.

[–]PurpleViolettron -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Except the use of force and violence alone would make it rape in the eyes of any rational human being. How stupid are you?

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually... No. The circumstances matter. Alright, take everything you gave... Add in that they have been dating for 3 years, been intimate before, she has said multiple times she fantasizes about a guy doing exactly what you described (not even uncommon), he asked her earlier that day if she still wants that and she has said yes, and they even decided on a safe word. So... Even with all that she still is surprised about how it really feels and does not want it but says nothing.

... Yeah, no one is possibly getting convicted.

Now, other hand... Stranger does what you described in public... Much more likely to be a problem. But, she still has to say no.

[–]NixonForBreadsident 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except the use of force and violence

Which is not occurring if they do not know about it.

You're a bit of a dense little moron aren't you.

[–]thatlowdowndirty47 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm guessing you've never heard of the world of bdsm?

[–]TR6Cool -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

The flow chart is wrong. My wife and I get completely blotto drunk and have sex, per the flow chart it is rape! But obviously it is not. There are lots of other areas where it is wrong.

The more I look at this I see the flow chart is shit.

[–]SinisterMJ 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think what you describe here would be handled by 3a. She was unable to agree, but if you were drunk as well, it wasn't obvious to you that she didn't agree. And all subsequent steps lead to "Not rape". Same with two shit-faced strangers, if they are both completely drunk, its not rape.

[–]Azothlike 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope, the law doesn't work that way.

"Were they aware" is misleading. "Would a reasonable person be aware" is more accurate. Being drunk and therefore incompetent/whatever can't be used as a defense in that manner.

Legally, if a married couple gets blackout, fall over drunk together, and then one of them takes initiative and penetrates the other, rape occurred.

Maybe you won't report it/etc... but if it was on video and someone reported it, you could be convicted.

[–]NixonForBreadsident 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nope, the law doesn't work that way.

Yes, it does. There is no law that states that drunk sex equates to rape for either party, even if one of the parties is completely sober.

The only specifications is regarding being unconscious or incapacitated because of that intoxication, not being drunk. You are still able to consent or deny consent while drunk.

[–]Azothlike -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it does. There is no law that states that drunk sex equates to rape for either party, even if one of the parties is completely sober.

That is why the conditions I specified went far past drunk, into Incapacitated, which is the legal term used.

If you are drunk enough that you cannot stand up(re: losing bodily control), and don't remember anything, most courts will consider you incapacitated.

If you have two beers and have sex and giggle, no, nothing happened. But that =/= blackout, falldown drunk.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Jos_Metadi 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it doesn't match the law. If a women has sex with a boy under the age of consent it is frequency ruled to not be rape. If both parties are drunk, only the man is judged to be guilty of rape. As bad as the chart is, reality is worse.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Again.. Law vs Application. But, yeah.. You're right, frequently. Either way, it's better to use something like this in response to a feminist who is off the rails than to argue back oneself. Frequently see the whole regret it or not wanting it thing... Which is probably one of the more rage inducing situations one comes across.

[–]Azothlike 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Legally, rape is generally defined as penetrating someone.

Yes, the law is biased against men. Yes, the first flowchart bubble should specify that. No, the attorneys and judges are not biased, they're just following the law.

[–]TR6Cool 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alcohol is regarded as a drug.

[–]TR6Cool 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It is not right for the UK. only men can be convicted of rape. I could be a sleep, drunk drugged and my wife could do anything to me and it would not be rape. What if a man was forced to have sex with a woman, the woman objected but he was forced. Age does not come into it in the UK. A man can have voluntary sex with a 14 year old and it is not rape.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So fucked... :/

[–]unpicked-username 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Did she make it clear she doesnt consent?

[–]_pkmzeta 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I think that depends on what level of inebriation from alcohol or drugs constitutes "obvious" inability to consent. Maybe when the flow chart says "obvious" they mean that if the other person is significantly drunk/drugged too, then lack of consent from the other person is not "obvious" due to your own inebriation.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Your own inebriation is not an excuse for missing or misinterpreting signals, or anything else. In law in nearly all jurisictions a drunk person is judged as if they were sober. The idea is that when you knowingly and voluntarily drink, you accept responsibility for whatever monkey business you may get up to.

This is a separate matter from inebriation voiding consent. You can be too drunk to consent, you can never be too drunk to be responsible.
So in the case that everyone loves so much, two people drunk beyond consent can both simultaneously be guilty of rape. I don't imagine police would receive many complaints for this, I don't think there has ever been a conviction. Why would they even prosecute it?

[–]_pkmzeta 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Okay, good point. So legally it's rape, but it's not considered a bad thing, as it is in the case of a sober person having sex with someone that is too drunk to consent. But how drunk do you have to be to not be able to consent?

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Pretty damn drunk! There is a lot of misunderstanding about this. The law in all countries I know of does not try to protect people from the fact that alcohol reduces inhibitions, impairs judgement and may lead to them acting well out of character. That is why alcohol has always and will always be the drug of choice for rapists and rapey assholes.

From English cases I've seen, "drunk enough to void consent" can occur when people are still able to walk confidently in high heels, not have a memory blackout, not vomit.

If you are not confident that the person you are screwing would not want to maliciously try wreck your life then why on earth would you be getting naked with them? you should be very wary of whether she might be at risk of a memory blackout. If she can't remember consenting and is sure that she would not have, then you could both be in trouble.

[–]_pkmzeta 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You say the law doesn't try to protect people from reduced inhibitions,etc, but drunk enough to void consent can be taken at the same level? I don't get it.

Drunk enough to void consent should not have to do with their inhibitions or judgement, but rather things like slurred speech, falling over, vomiting, like you say, and people that take advantage of that are really heinous.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, you need to be quite wrecked to be beyond the capacity for consent.

The statutes I have seen are very vague, the level is found in case law. I have just seen a few cases where it was at issue.
One was the UK footballer Ched Evans' case, where his supporters published hotel camera footage of the victim walking in high heels, turning rapidly, picking up a pizza box off the ground. She did have a memory blank and it was judged that she was drunk beyond consent.

I don't see it being a problem in practice. If you are with a new partner you are an asshole if you have sex within a mile of the consent limit, so there is zero chance of crossing it.
If you are in a well-established relationship where you know and trust each other then the law is irrelevant, you can get as blotto as you like and the police will never hear about it. If you don't have that trust, you shouldn't be getting that drunk.

[–]_pkmzeta 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, in practice, there are certainly assholes that have sex with drunk/drugged people while sober, but I'm sure telling them that that is assholian wouldn't stop them from doing it.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Just to change the genders in what you have said

If you are not confident that the person you are screwing would not want to maliciously try to rape you why on earth would you be getting naked with them? you should be very wary of whether he might be at risk raping her.

Fuck off with your victim blaming, if women make false accusations its not the victims fault.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It isn't a matter of the victim being at fault. OP asked about the chance of a false complaint, I offered ways to reduce the chance. Your reversal of the genders works. People do things to reduce the risk of rape.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You victim blamed.

You are not a good guy, you are pushing a nasty feminist agenda here.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I imagined suggesting sensible precautions to reduce the risk of rape was approved of on MensRights, and the common feminist line that this is victim blaming would be rejected. Is this not correct?

I've always been in two minds about that one. It is very true that it causes distress to people who have been raped, and sets a time bomb for those who will be raped. And maybe it feeds the rapist idea that some women are fair game or even asking for it.
On the upside, it may prevent some rapes if the advice is not obvious.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are saying knowing in advance whether someone is going to falsely accuse you or not, is a good way to avoid false accusations.

On other threads you are minimizing false accusations.

You are a victim blamer and false accuser apologist.

[–]JebberJabber1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm saying it is possible to identify some people and situations as being more risky re false claims / rape. What people do with that info is up to them. I'm not minimising or excusing anything.
This is not a feminist line. Many feminists start frothing at the mouth if you mention ways to assess or reduce risk of rape. You know that.

[–]ee4m1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many people get annoyed when people imply crimes committed against them are basically their fault and they should have seen it coming.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Just want to disclaimer that I think there are a couple things I would disagree should be rape and I know my state would also count handjobs or fingering and some others probably do too... But, so many times that most horrific things won't stand up to this.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I noticed that Amber (the woman in this story) had arranged a petition to the Georgia state govt to amend their law to recognise rape of men, and rape between same-sex people.

[Edit:] The US is backward on this in most states.

In Australia they have taken sex and gender out of rape law as much as possible.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No. It's actually not. Only three states have not done it, and only one of those three where it is not illegal, the other two have codified lower punishments for rape of men.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, I put strikeout through my sentence. Maybe I have developed a memory inversion bug.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Asshole, but not rapist. Rapist and asshole. That's the two sides of this. And women can do this to men, too.

[–]ABunchofTards 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not entirely true.

Most states, you can sleep with someone who is inebriated within the context a long-term relationship without running afoul of the law.

[–]Compoundwyrds 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This needs to make it all the way around the Internet and back again.

[–]empathica1 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

3a is completely pointless and should be gotten rid of, as 6 covers the exact same cases as 3a. And whether or not the person knows that it was rape is completely irrelevant. You don't want rapists walking free because they uttered the words "I didn't know they didn't consent". In cases like this, it is already difficult to prove in a court of law that a rape occured, adjusting the scales even more in favor of the accused is pointless.

Ignorance isn't an excuse, in cases where the accused is guilty, but is unaware, they are a rapist. That's what "having sex with someone without consent" means.

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that part is probably worded badly, its usually a matter of whether the reasonable man would have realized they weren't consenting (if a woman "stops consenting" in her head but does nothing to notify the man, then that isnt rape, if you do everything upto sex, and she stops consenting but doesnt notify you in anyway, it isnt rape, even if you don't say "do i have permission to have sex with you" because its implied, and the reasonable man would think it was consented and as we are mind readers have no way of knowing they stopped consenting.) that said, it may be different for different areas.

[–]TR6Cool -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

read the comments read the article. This does not fit your flow chart. How do you account for a "fruit and nut" job!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3387273/Activist-27-live-blogged-RAPE-social-media-just-minutes-alleged-violent-sexual-assault-took-place-set-example-survivors-need-speak-up.html

[–]Not_An_Ambulance[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Reading article. The flow chart is mostly about American standards, not international... Honestly though, so far the article - if truthful - is about a naive girl who was raped after she did some pretty stupid stuff.

Edit: Yeah, sort of confused what your point is from reading this. Does not describe what really happened. Is mostly about how she chose to document what happened to her.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I read her account, what she described was unquestionably rape.

She turned down sex with a guy she had flirted with and kissed earlier because she felt he seemed drunk.
But she had a shower with him at least partly for practical reasons, it was a communal shower in a cheap hostel and her own place didn't have hot water. He forcibly raped her on the floor in the shower under protest. She said "stop" twice and was crying. Then she fainted from shock when he anally raped her.
Later she went to the police and had a rape kit done, which should show injuries I guess. She had trouble getting the police to take it seriously at first but they have arrested the guy, now she had to miss her flight out and stay in the country until the trial, otherwise they will drop the case.

Her original story is at the bottom of this article:
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/551474/ambertheactivist-instagram-rape.html

[+]Not_my_foreskin -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

My flowchart for rape:

  • woman raped by man = woman's fault

  • woman raped by woman = woman's fault

  • man raped by woman = woman's fault

  • man raped by man = somehow a woman's fault

[–]NixonForBreadsident 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, we don't consider one gender at fault like you feminists do.

Nothing in that charge blames the woman unless they are directly at fault. If you consent to sex, you can't retract that after the fact.

[–]Not_my_foreskin -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

K

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't change history, yes.

But just to be clear, consent can be withdrawn terminated at any moment.
If someone agrees to sex and signs a contract in front of witnesses, then they jump into bed and are in the middle of sexing, either party can still call a stop at any time without notice and without any reason. If their partner is just about to orgasm it could be very frustrating to stop instantly, but if they don't it is rape.

[–]NixonForBreadsident 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

consent can be withdrawn at any moment

No, you can't withdraw consent after the fact. Once sex is done it cannot be rape, you can't retroactively withdraw consent.

[–]JebberJabber -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, I have replaced "withdrawn" with "terminated" to avoid confusion.
I seem to recall a survey of Australian school kids showed an alarming number felt it would be OK for the guy to finish off if he was near orgasm.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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