• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women are Angry, Temporarily Powerful—and Very, Very Dangerous

xMathFanx said:
I did, you refused to engage with the (quite detailed) material, as you proceed to do even still
Click to expand...

You used that crap to answer one of my posts. It was not a response, it was a lecture. It did not address my arguments directly.

I find it interesting that you cannot make this distinction.
 
xMathFanx said:
Did you actually read my posts at all? I face "harassment" (and such) in my daily & weekly life by girls/women--at least by the absurdly expansionist definition/concept of "harassment" that women are unidirectionally applying in the current climate (i.e. the standard can only be used toward females, not males)

What are thoughts about this?
Click to expand...

Nope didnt read and not responding to your complaint.

As I dont feel you are capable of responding appropriately. Let's see you try it on my posts first.
 
Lursa said:
It did not address my arguments directly.
Click to expand...

Yes it did, and much more

Edit: How would you even know? You confessed to not reading it..
 
Lursa said:
Nope didnt read and not responding to your complaint.
Click to expand...

Then what are you complaining & arguing with me about if you don't even know my stated views/position?
 
truthatallcost said:
OK, where do I start? How about 'duh' ?

We all know what the laws on consent are. What am I supposed to address here? It's like saying 'the sky is blue' and expecting some serious reply.
Click to expand...

As usual; no substance to back up yet another stupid thread. Par for the course.

You've made it quite evident what your idea of consent is and quite frankly it's both saddening and frightening. And this coming somebody who claims a go-go to be interested in protecting young women from grooming gangs. Your hypocrisy is monumental.
 
Last edited:
Urethra Franklin said:
As usual; no substance to back up yet another stupid thread. Par for the course.

You've made it quite evident what your idea of consent is and quite frankly it's both saddening and frightening. And this coming somebody who claims a go-go to be interested in protecting young women from grooming gangs. Your hypocrisy is monumental.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts concerning the now standard conception of consent on College Campuses in the USA?
 
xMathFanx said:
What are your thoughts concerning the now standard conception of consent on College Campuses in the USA?
Click to expand...
I know sweet FA about US college campuses but their conception of consent should be no different to anyone elses.

My conception of consent in any setting is this: yes means I'm up for it and no means no.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
I know sweet FA about US college campuses but their conception of consent should be no different to anyone elses.

My conception of consent in any setting is this: yes means I'm up for it and no means no.
Click to expand...

That is radically out of step with the current official policy concerning what constitutes "consent" on College campuses in the US. If she said "yes", but was under the influence of alcohol to any extent (defined as 1 drink or more), then that's "rape". Conversley, if a Male was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, while the female was sober and sex occured, than it is considered "consentual".

What are your thoughts about this policy?
 
xMathFanx said:
That is radically out of step with the current official policy concerning what constitutes "consent" on College campuses in the US. If she said "yes", but was under the influence of alcohol to any extent (defined as 1 drink or more), then that's "rape". Conversley, if a Male was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, while the female was sober and sex occured, than it is considered "consentual".

What are your thoughts about this policy?
Click to expand...

Given the differences in male and female anatomy and physiology I think we have to take a step back and not take a one size fits all approach (pun not intended).

Relatively easy for a man to force a drunk woman into oral, anal or vaginal sex. Alcohol can be a factor.
With penetrative sex, I find it hard to see how I as a woman could actually force a drunk man to get an erection and penetrate me. I could fellate him or rim him against his will and that would be a sexual assault, yes. Were I as a result to succeed in getting him hard (against his will) and mount him to the point of penetration (against his will) then yes, I've effectively raped him - but what a highly unlikely scenario.

I would say no blanket policy and take each case on its merits where alcohol is concerned. But in all cases - no means no.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
You've made it quite evident what your idea of consent is and quite frankly it's both saddening and frightening.
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely puzzled by this statement. Can you quote which of my remarks about consent have you 'saddened and frightened'?
 
truthatallcost said:
I'm genuinely puzzled by this statement. Can you quote which of my remarks about consent have you 'saddened and frightened'?
Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:
When a man invites you back to his apartment on the first date, after rushing through dinner, it's safe to assume that he isn't rushing you there to watch Netflix.

.
Click to expand...

Accepting an invite back to somebody's home is not consenting to sex. That is a rapist's logic. There is such a thing as going back to continue the conversation, going back for coffee or a nightcap, going back coz (s)he wants to show off their flash apartment, and a number of other reasons. When you say no to certain acts, that means no.

You go on to suggest that having consented to oral sex she was a "lousy date" if she didn't go further. If you make it plain you don't want a man to enter your vagina or your anus then any many doing so is a rapist, even if you have just wined, dined and sixty-nined.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Given the differences in male and female anatomy and physiology I think we have to take a step back and not take a one size fits all approach (pun not intended).

Relatively easy for a man to force a drunk woman into oral, anal or vaginal sex. Alcohol can be a factor.
With penetrative sex, I find it hard to see how I as a woman could actually force a drunk man to get an erection and penetrate me. I could fellate him or rim him against his will and that would be a sexual assault, yes. Were I as a result to succeed in getting him hard (against his will) and mount him to the point of penetration (against his will) then yes, I've effectively raped him - but what a highly unlikely scenario.

I would say no blanket policy and take each case on its merits where alcohol is concerned. But in all cases - no means no.
Click to expand...

Okay. To be clear--So you don't at all agree with your own stated position from not 2 posts ago? That is, you stated "Yes means Yes, No means No (what is hard to understand about that?)", now you have retracted that and are saying "NO means NO, YES means YES--unless you are Woman, in which case, if so much as 1 beer is involved, then YES may mean YES or may mean NO and that should be determined by the Woman after the fact when they are 100% sober again and able to think the whole matter through (their memory of the event at least--and since alcohol was involved, it is not difficult to imagine that their memory may be impaired)". Is this a fair summary of your position? If not, where am I doing it an injustice?

Also, on the matter of Male's being raped by Female's, you claim it is "hard to see how I as a woman could actually force a drunk man to get an erection and penetrate me... Were I as a result to succeed in getting him hard (against his will) and mount him to the point of penetration (against his will) then yes, I've effectively raped him - but what a highly unlikely scenario." Now, this begs the question, "Do you understand how Male sexual organs work?"--as your post would appear to indicate otherwise. Male erections are fundamentally involuntary and can occur when they are (A) Nearly passed out (B) Unconscious. A women can easily take advantage of a male when they are under states (A) or (B) by getting on top of the Male. This becomes particularly relevant as high levels of Alcohol (or other drugs) are involved. Women are just as capable of "Date Rape"/drugging & raping scenarios as Men (from a Biological standpoint).

What are your thoughts in this regard?
 
xMathFanx said:
Okay. To be clear--So you don't at all agree with your own stated position from not 2 posts ago? That is, you stated "Yes means Yes, No means No (what is hard to understand about that?)", now you have retracted that and are saying "NO means NO, YES means YES--unless you are Woman, in which case, if so much as 1 beer is involved, then YES may mean YES or may mean NO and that should be determined by the Woman after the fact when they are 100% sober again and able to think the whole matter through (their memory of the event at least--and since alcohol was involved, it is not difficult to imagine that their memory may be impaired)". Is this a fair summary of your position? If not, where am I doing it an injustice??
Click to expand...

In simple academic terms, yes means yes and no means no.

In real world terms, alcohol can confuse the issue. So if she's said yes and you do it straight away, fine, UNLESS YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY GOT HER DRUNK BEFORE ASKING. Idem, if she says "yes" sober and you then wait until she's drunk alcohol and don't ask her again, not a level playing field.

Not a contradiction, but an acceptance that real world situations are often more complex than the theoretical.

xMathFanx said:
Also, on the matter of Male's being raped by Female's, you claim it is "hard to see how I as a woman could actually force a drunk man to get an erection and penetrate me... Were I as a result to succeed in getting him hard (against his will) and mount him to the point of penetration (against his will) then yes, I've effectively raped him - but what a highly unlikely scenario." Now, this begs the question, "Do you understand how Male sexual organs work?"--as your post would appear to indicate otherwise. Male erections are fundamentally involuntary and can occur when they are (A) Nearly passed out (B) Unconscious. A women can easily take advantage of a male when they are under states (A) or (B) by getting on top of the Male. This becomes particularly relevant as high levels of Alcohol (or other drugs) are involved. Women are just as capable of "Date Rape"/drugging & raping scenarios as Men (from a Biological standpoint).

What are your thoughts in this regard?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the male anatomy very well thank you.

Of course erections can be involuntary, but the chance of a female rapist coming accross an invountary erection just at the right moment is virtually nil. Granted, not impossible and if she did take advantage against his will, then yes it's a rape. But SO unlikely! Alcohol is a depressant and diminishes the likelihood of getting an erection, hence the colloquial terms whisky penis, too drunk to f***, brewer's droop etc. etc. So while getting your pray drunk may be a good plan for a male rapist, not a clever stroke for a female rapist.

Here's the revealing thing about this thread. The majority of rapes are male on female. There are also relatively large numbers of male on male rapes. Yet you can only get upset about the hypothetical female on male rape scenario which in reality must be a statistical rarity. That doesn't make it less serious if it really happens, but honestly, get with the program honey.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
In simple academic terms, yes means yes and no means no.

In real world terms, alcohol can confuse the issue. So if she's said yes and you do it straight away, fine, UNLESS YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY GOT HER DRUNK BEFORE ASKING. Idem, if she says "yes" sober and you then wait until she's drunk alcohol and don't ask her again, not a level playing field.

Not a contradiction, but an acceptance that real world situations are often more complex than the theoretical.
Click to expand...

First, that is fundamentally out of step with standard University Policy now (that I invoked earlier). If this is your position, do you find that Policy highly-problematic in the extreme?

Second, does this hold for men as well, or just women?

Third, define "drunk" (as I have already told you, the Uni. policy is 1 beer or more). Furthermore, then it is your position that women decide the next day if it was in fact consensual or if they too "drunk" to decide? (That is, don't put up a straw man, if the girl is so drunk that she is slurring her words significantly, going in-and-out of consciousness, vomiting, ect. ect. then of course it is rape--no sane person is arguing against that)
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Yes, I understand the male anatomy very well thank you.

Of course erections can be involuntary, but the chance of a female rapist coming accross an invountary erection just at the right moment is virtually nil. .
Click to expand...

Wrong in the extreme. Have you ever been to a High School or College Party? Or College generally? Spring-Break? Date Rape starting at Night Club/Bar to one's Apartment/Home? There are countless examples that immediately pop into mind.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Here's the revealing thing about this thread. The majority of rapes are male on female. There are also relatively large numbers of male on male rapes. Yet you can only get upset about the hypothetical female on male rape scenario which in reality must be a statistical rarity. That doesn't make it less serious if it really happens, but honestly, get with the program honey.
Click to expand...

First, this isn't true at all--as I already provided the corresponding Stat for Men on College Campuses

Second, this depends tremendously upon how you define "rape" and "consent" as if you are prepared to state that women who have sex with a guy with so much as 1 beer in there system have been "raped" while a guy could be legitimately drunk in the extreme and somehow that's not rape (under the same standards), then of course there is going to be a large disparity at work
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Accepting an invite back to somebody's home is not consenting to sex. That is a rapist's logic. There is such a thing as going back to continue the conversation, going back for coffee or a nightcap, going back coz (s)he wants to show off their flash apartment, and a number of other reasons. When you say no to certain acts, that means no.


You go on to suggest that having consented to oral sex she was a "lousy date" if she didn't go further. If you make it plain you don't want a man to enter your vagina or your anus then any many doing so is a rapist, even if you have just wined, dined and sixty-nined.
Click to expand...

We're both right;

- a woman has a right to say no, even if she's already naked and spread eagle on a man's kitchen counter, after accepting oral sex from him

- a woman who does so is a lousy date.
 
xMathFanx said:
First, that is fundamentally out of step with standard University Policy now (that I invoked earlier). If this is your position, do you find that Policy highly-problematic in the extreme?
Click to expand...

I have answered that question. I do not believe in a blanket policy. Each case should be examined on the facts.
xMathFanx said:
Second, does this hold for men as well, or just women?
Click to expand...

I have answered that as you can see from what I say above. The answer is yes.
xMathFanx said:
Third, define "drunk" (as I have already told you, the Uni. policy is 1 beer or more). Furthermore, then it is your position that women decide the next day if it was in fact consensual or if they too "drunk" to decide? (That is, don't put up a straw man, if the girl is so drunk that she is slurring her words significantly, going in-and-out of consciousness, vomiting, ect. ect. then of course it is rape--no sane person is arguing against that)
Click to expand...

As above, each case on its own merits, percisely because it is too difficult to decide the day after how drunk somebody was. This turns into a "he said she said" situation which is actually the case in most rape cases anyway: so it's for the police and the courts, along with medical evidence to collectively decide. No one person can say "she was or wasn't drunk enough to be raped". It's not black and white which I why I don't support such a blanket policy.
 
xMathFanx said:
Wrong in the extreme. Have you ever been to a High School or College Party? Or College generally? Spring-Break? Date Rape starting at Night Club/Bar to one's Apartment/Home? There are countless examples that immediately pop into mind.
Click to expand...

And compared to millions of male on female and male on male rapes - not to mention the vast swathes that go unreported, female on male rape is not an everyday occurence. Of course it's just as serious, however the worrying thing is you seem to want to use its existence to minimise the experience of female rape victims. "Oh women do it too!" Doesn't make it any less horrific.
 
truthatallcost said:
We're both right;

- a woman has a right to say no, even if she's already naked and spread eagle on a man's kitchen counter, after accepting oral sex from hime.
Click to expand...

Yes. Just like the man who accepts a blow job then zips up and "has to be accross town"
truthatallcost said:
- a woman who does so is a lousy date.
Click to expand...

Like the man who thinks "yes lick me out" is the same as "yes f*** me"

Honey, I've had guys in my youth like the example above who've zipped up after the blow job, or couldn't get a second erection. Hell I didn't try and force them into something (even if xMathFanx thinks female rapists are everywhere on the rampage). I was a willing participant in the blow job and I wasn't promised anything else. These things happen - coming back to my place wasn't a guarantee of full on vaginal - nobody is obliged to perform sexual acts on command.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Yes. Just like the man who accepts a blow job then zips up and "has to be accross town"


Like the man who thinks "yes lick me out" is the same as "yes f*** me"

Honey, I've had guys in my youth like the example above who've zipped up after the blow job, or couldn't get a second erection. Hell I didn't try and force them into something (even if xMathFanx thinks female rapists are everywhere on the rampage). I was a willing participant in the blow job and I wasn't promised anything else. These things happen - coming back to my place wasn't a guarantee of full on vaginal - nobody is obliged to perform sexual acts on command.
Click to expand...

But you also know that men and women are very different when it comes to needing sexual release. I don't think you can relate to the feeling of being denied sexual release, because it's not the same thing for a woman.

If women took more time to learn about men's needs, they would be able to commiserate.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Of course it's just as serious, however the worrying thing is you seem to want to use its existence to minimise the experience of female rape victims. "Oh women do it too!" Doesn't make it any less horrific.
Click to expand...

No--I don't "seem to want to use its existence to minimise the experience of female rape victims". You actually have argued for a blatant double-standard--on an issue that is highly significant (to say the least).

Also, your bit about "female on male rape is not an everyday occurrence" is not valid if you are using the same criteria governing "consent" as is the case for women--I have already sited the statistics here (I suppose you simply didn't bother to look at it). Also, if you're not using the same criteria, than that would obviously make you massive hypocrite--so which one is it?
 
truthatallcost said:
But you also know that men and women are very different when it comes to needing sexual release. I don't think you can relate to the feeling of being denied sexual release, because it's not the same thing for a woman.

If women took more time to learn about men's needs, they would be able to commiserate.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'd forgotten. Sex isn't what two people do together, it's what men do to women. And you poor souls can't just go off and have a wank, you've got to rape the ungrateful bitch that doesn't think about YOUR needs. Come on girls, lets commiserate. We've all been soooo selfish.

I have a sex drive higher than most of the men I've been out with. I know how to use a vibro and I know how to use my fingers and I know that when my man says "I'm tired" or "I'm not up for it tonight" that the answer is NO.

Too many guys like you need a hearing test, or English lessons. Jeez, English isn't even my first language but I do no that "No" doesn't mean "yes". Perhaps you need to start again with the simple present tense. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom