Speaking of entitlement feminism...

Post Reply New Topic

I'm well aware of this. That doesn't mean that the restraining order has no use, nor that it is a frivolous mechanism as was previously implied.


Yes, and if she has a restraining order against him, he and/or his family is less likely to be successful in suing her if she does, in fact, shoot him.

Yes, I would hope that men are into enthusiastic partners enough that they want unambiguous consent when they have sex. But if you fall asleep with someone after having had sex with them, and then that person wakes you up to have sex again, and you're not bothered enough by it to even say no, I don't think that it should be considered 'rape.'

edit: it diminishes the experiences of women who have been drugged, or abused as children, or violently attacked, or battered by their partners to call such a thing by the same word.

Ever heard of "Castle Laws"? They authorize the use of deadly force against an intruder who breaks and enters your home or in certain cases trespasses onto your property and poses a very real threat to your safety and also grants legal immunity from a wrongful death lawsuit. Men are generally more likely to respect and respond to a show of force(which doesn't mean actually firing the gun but showing that you have a loaded gun and are prepared to use it)then they are by legal authority. Wrongful death lawsuits are often dismissed in cases like this where the person killed was a vengeful man stalking and threatening his ex.

Honestly LKL, you put far too much faith in the law to protect you and your kin. There are way too many stories of people in danger who sought the law for protection and were turned away....Only to be harmed or even killed. My sister is attorney so I actually know something about this matter and have become familiar with the ins and outs of restraining orders.

Because there is NO "pro-feminist conception" of autist civil rights! Most feminists are neurotypical and having talked with many of them on other sites and feminist blogs(like manboobz dot com), they are mainly concerned with gender issues far more than any civil rights issues and quite frankly, those NT feminists really don't give one iota about civil rights for folks like us who are on the spectrum! PARTICULARLY for autistic men.

Why do you object to autistic unity that is based on a neurological rather than a gender identity?

My understanding of the Assange case is that she was asleep when he starting penetrating her (correct me if I'm wrong). It counts as rape to me because he didn't seek consent from the start. The fact that she didn't say no when she woke up could mean she was in shock...but I don't know, I wasn't there. The problem is that he didn't get consent before he started. If he woke her up with caresses, or whatever, that's different because then she has time to decide what she wants.

I think about rape cases on an individual basis.

Hopper, WTF does that music video have to do with this discussion? And YES, I watched it and that woman is the red dress is certainly a piece of ass.

Stop, this is ridiculous. I never said anything whatsoever about all responsibility being on the guy and fail to see how what I said is unbalanced. All I said is that in the case that you can't read the non-verbal cues, and yes, I know that a lot of men don't, then ask because asking is a way of obtaining verbal consent when the possible non-verbal consent may be ambiguous. So no, this is actually not a case of expecting men to pick up the non-verbal cues, it's a case of making sure that there is consent, or isn't, when the non-verbal cues are unreliable. Note that I also said that females should probably do the same thing if the genders were reversed and she's the one wanting the sex rather than him, even despite the fact that female on male rape is normally considered rare. In fact, it should even apply if both parties are the same gender, so no, this is not male female thing. Aspies should probably always try to obtain verbal consent in this way because if you know that you have trouble reading non-verbal cues then surely it is illogical to rely those cues to determine whether there is consent?

With regards to what's "unbalanced" or not, consider the worst consequences of whether or not you choose to obtain verbal consent in this scenario. The worst thing that can happen to you if you choose to try and obtain unambiguous consent is that you may miss out on getting laid when both parties might otherwise of wanted to. On the other hand, if you choose not to, then the worst consequence is that the other person is psychologically damaged. Is it really worth risking the psychological well-being of someone else just to avoid missing out on getting laid?

I will add to this, did you know 94% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted...

I was specifically addressing the case when nonverbal cues are not picked up on, that is why I was suggesting that verbal consent would still be possible.

Jono, with regards to this as well as your prior post in reply to TM, you sound like what you are talking about is bedroom conduct and NOT interacting with a female stranger in public. THAT is where the 'consent' issue comes into play! And I certainly would say that it's probably for the best to get her verbal consent or better yet discuss what you guys are going to to do before you take off your clothes and get it on so there isn't any confusion.

But would you REALLY go up and ask a woman you've never met "can I approach you"? That's cheesy as hell. The blogpost I linked to dealt with aspie guys hitting on/approaching women out in public and was NOT dealing with what couples should do in the bedroom.

There are some women who will play about with your head when it comes to consent - not answering "yes" or reassuring you, or saying "yes" and "no" or giving mixed signals. With those types of people, unless they're forthcoming, they can be playing mind games. In which case, leave 'em.

*sigh*
sure, 'cause a stalker only ever goes after you when you're at home.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... salon.html


are you being deliberately obtuse?
I agreed, flat out, that a restraining order doesn't always 'restrain' the guy. What it does do, is show that you've done due diligence in going through the law, and establishes that the stalker has a history of bad behavior, so that when you blast him after he shows up at home, or at your place of work, or at your supermarket, or wherever - because a restraining order is based on the person, not just the residence - the stalkee gets the benefit of the doubt.

All of which is beside the point, since you initiallly brought up the subject to claim that restraining laws are sought frivolously in order to punish innocent men.

Amen to that, some of those kind will lure you in then fasly try to file sexual assualt or rape charges. Usually those types are loony anyway.

Well it is true that restraining orders are grossly abused and sought frivolously to screw over innocent PEOPLE as a nasty vindictive tactic. And yes I am aware that stalkers don't always target their victims at home. But the fact of the matter is that restraining orders are only effective against someone harassing you but not against someone stalking you with the intent to harm you.

evidence, please, beyond an anecdote or two, that restraining orders are abused more than any other facet of law?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-manda ... 37636.html