Why Are Right Wing Men So Sad?

Post Reply New Topic

So, you are saying that manslaughter is not a crime? A case where a person may not have had intent to kill someone, but due to their actions caused it to happen anyway?

It is also up to a person to take reasonable steps to ensure that they don't cause a crime, which asking someone for their consent is a reasonable step.

Really seems like you are basing your opinions on not understanding many people can freeze up when sexually assaulted, and it is in those cases where taking there being an absence of a "no" cam lead to a crime. It is not entirely your own fault though, there have been a lot of problems this taught wide spread.

This isn't even a one sided topic, if women do things to men without their consent, that too can be sexual assault.

Needing to "autsitically scream" is a big strawman. As I said before, it is a case of asking before different thresholds, and willing to stop in the middle if the other person withdraws their consent.

Gracias!

I'm pretty sure every single one of my first encounters with partners has involved some sort of confirmation of limits and consent, even if it wasn't quite as you describe.

It's sometimes involved confirmation of explicit confirmation of specific forms of penetration, whether or not protection was used and whether involuntary actions like squirting, gagging and puking were agreed to though.

I imagine preventing a pedophile from acting on their urges is like preventing a straight male from having sex. They probably should be able to control themselves but they can't. Another factor is straight males can masturbate to porn. Pedophiles get arrested for having possession of child porn.

So it isn’t creepy to ask “Wanna come to my place and fornicate?”

Ok, but Mikah does make some good points.

I haven’t had a large number of partners, but I rarely got anywhere with women by asking for consent. It didn’t take me long to figure out why, either. Asking for consent when a woman is already willing to have sex comes across as begging for it. At least with the women I’ve slept with, that is highly unattractive. They see asking or begging for sex as pathetic. Consent happens when you slowly slip their clothes off and they don’t push you away. The “freezing up” thing isn’t much of an excuse (for men) because men can be expected to get to know any given woman well enough to know if she’s the type to freeze up. The most memorable gf I had before my wife was a college freshman virgin, and extremely shy, too. I knew she’d never kissed a boy before. So to be sure I wouldn’t hurt her, I asked what she would think if I kissed her. She refused to give me a straight answer, just that “I don’t think.” She meant that literally, too, i.e. she’d let me do whatever I wanted to her and she wasn’t going to overthink it. It was a few months later before we started having sex, because I figured even with her being physically comfortable with me that it would be best to let her adjust to knowing that I expected a sexual relationship at some point. I even brought up the possibility of breaking up and that it was perfectly ok if it was too much, no hard feelings, and she did say that she just needed a little time before taking that step. I knew she didn’t want me asking for sex or consent. So after a few months we were fooling around a little too much one night and it just happened. She didn’t feel that I’d raped her. She wanted to be “taken,” which I figured out after having dated her for some time.

I thought it was a little weird for a virgin since I wasn’t really in the habit of dating them. My first time was with a virgin I’d dated a few YEARS before it happened. On two occasions, I’d gotten physically close to girls who whispered “don’t kiss me” when it was obvious they wanted to be kissed. The woman I married had repeatedly ducked her head to refuse my advances until I gave up when the whole time she’d been plotting to kiss me, anyway. She was just playing a game, which I suspected was the case but didn’t want to press my luck. It’s not fair to scream “CONSENT!” when it’s a fact that girls play games or prefer men take the initiative. The aforementioned virgin wanted me to kiss her. She wanted to know what it was like to have a man put his hands on her body. She just didn’t want the awkwardness of dealing with a guy who thought he had to have permission to do it. She was attracted to the idea of being naked with a man and letting nature take its course. The other, more experienced women I’ve been with had the attitude that if they weren’t going to consent or if they’d ever withdraw consent, they wouldn’t have been that close to me in the first place.

Not sure if you know but body-builder alpha male types on Tinder basically don't do smal talk, they go straight and ask this. And....girls say yes.

Asking for consent isn't a "please may I x,y,z" as though you were asking your teaching if you could go to the restroom.

There's a way of phrasing things.

I don't believe you repeated the particular Pavlovian response I was referring to, no. Using your words again though, if implied consent is not consent which is true, prima facie - we have a serious problem in that most sexual encounters operate entirely on implied consent. In these scenarios I am not actually saying "they consented". I am especially not saying "they asked for rape", but simultaneously it might be the case that the other party is not culpable, they may not have actually committed a crime.



Not a degree but I do actually have some formal study in the subject from way back when. Enough to know about mens rea and actus reus - the very basics of criminal law.



Manslaughter is where some culpability is found for the death in question - but not culpability to the same degree as murder. Most people equate manslaughter with "accidental death" but this is not quite right - if a court finds no culpability through action or inaction - causing a truly accidental death is not a crime at all.



Ugh. I hope you don't take my judgement too harshly - but it sounds like you have a really f****d up unhealthy idea of sex. The ladies on reddit might call it pornsickness. If that's what you are up to - you probably should ask for explicit consent, in fact you should probably get it on video tape and on paper, signed by witnesses, with a doctor's note.

There still exists in large parts of society, areas where the extreme commodification of the human body and the rampant misogyny and power plays of porn have not quite penetrated into every aspect of life - where making your partner alternately vomit or gasp for air is not acceptable behaviour at any time. In this world, there still exists an element of care, of love and romance attached to sex and part of this is the idea of "spontaneity". Getting explicit consent kills romance and spontaneity dead - this is why it will never catch on and why it is an unreasonable expectation.

Far right men are sad, because the modern world is changing too fast for their liking. The social order of their little worlds are being destroyed. The LGBTQ community is winning. It's getting harder for far right men to crush the diverse human population into stuffy little pink and blue boxes. They also realize that people with disabilities are no longer locked away in asylums. People with disabilities now have jobs and half of us are also working for a real, hourly wage as well. They also see the group home people out and about at the malls and amusement parks, where they should be instead of hidden away in their homes, cut off from society. They also realize that women are starting to get into male dominated fields on the career front and women are not going to stay home and clean just because they tell them to.

Those were intended to be extreme examples. I've been lucky enough to have found people similarly f****d up, that might be a factor in why those specific things could be discussed.

That said, I still don't think it's unreasonable to confirm someone wants you inside them before you go penetrating them and if one fails to confirm consent that they don't have, that's on them.

If one doesn't wish to ever deal with the consequences of raping someone they should take measures to ensure they don't rape. Blaming the victim after the fact is revolting and not a defence. Apparently in spite of whatever unhealthy attitudes I might have absorbed I still understand that rape is always the fault of the rapist and never the victim.

Making terrible excuses for rapists in order to redefine their actions as anything but rape is f****d up.

What I'm getting from this thread is that asking for consent is too bothersome and might result in the woman getting "turned off", and the man not getting sex.

So, apparently, a man possibly being denied sex is worse than a woman being potentially raped. Therefore, we women should just accept the potential for sexual violence in our lives since men's sexual gratification apparently takes priority over our bodily autonomy.

Yeesh. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

And if we become pregnant by the rapist we will be forced to carry the baby to full term.

There's another of those Pavlovian conditioned responses, you have to admire the public relations campaign that has been waged in order to shut down thought. In the scenarios we are discussing, there may be no blame to go around - that is the only point that need be understood.

Thank you. I'm glad to hear.

If these little boys need the sex that badly, they can spit in their hand a go fxxk themselves.

If they're not even capable of pleasuring themself, what makes them think they can pleasure someone else?

What makes them so certain that the woman even wants them, let alone will enjoy them?

Again, even if a woman wants sex, that doesn't mean she wants it WITH YOU. Just cos you're looking for a roommate doesn't mean I can just waltz into your house, toss some money at you, and start dumping my things around. Consent matters. And legally speaking, you can't consent by inaction. "If this is ok, do nothing" is not a valid legal defense, no matter how many times one may have seen it in a cartoon.

It's adorable that some people think consent means having to ask explicitly "MAY I INSERT MY PENIS INTO YOUR VAGINA AND INEFFECTIVELY WIGGLE AROUND?", or having to ask it more than once. The fact that they see this as an insurmountable task simply shows their ineptitude at the task.

What somma y'all keep calling "implied consent" is actually just assuming consent. Even if everything quite clearly implies that w a woman wants sex, it's still an ASSUMPTION that she wants it with YOU. Ok, clearly she wants sex. You still need to confirm that she's ok with having sex WITH YOU.

Lets say that a woman is at a sex club, naked, holding a sign that says "I want sex!" and chanting "I want sex!" out loud - consent can be as simple as walking up to her and saying "may I?"

It's like they think if they can just get their little pee-pee inside the girl, she'll see how great it is, and just go along with it! And when their tool still doesn't work as advertised, the blame the woman for mishandling it.

"AsKinNg PeRmIsSiOnIs SoOo HaRd!! !"

It really isn't. Not if you have a spine, and aren't terrified of being told "no" - or are so desperate you'd rather ask forgiveness than permission regarding violating another person, just cos your dongle wants to get plugged in.

The fact that some people see no difference between a basket of apples with a sign that says "free apples", and a woman dressed provocatively or suggestively, really shows just how some people think of women.

Until someone invents clothes that look different to different people, a provocatively dressed woman will look provocative to everyone, whether it's meant for them or not. Even if a woman dresses provocatively for "other people", that STILL doesn't mean it was FOR YOU. She dressed that way for the guy she IS into (not you), you just happened to see her.

Like the damn seagulls from Finding Nemo. "Mine? Mine? MINEMINEMINE!"

Wishful thinking is not implied consent. It doesn't matter how badly you want it. It's not yours! Ask first!

Such "Nice Guys" in here. I can't imagine why they're not more popular with the ladies

I stand by my theory. They're sad cos they expect the world to make them happy, just cos they jumped through a few hoops that someone else told them would lead to happiness and success. Clearly it's the world's fault, for not making itself align with the empty promises of people who told them lies they wanted to hear.

"The world owes me happiness!"

Oh grow up and go find it the hard way like everyone else. You're not going to die just cos the planet doesn't smother you in Mazlow-themed conveniences and comforts. The fact that you think the world owes you "happiness" just cos you exist in it is entitlement at it's finest. "Pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean you're owed happiness, or entitled to happiness, or that you can take happiness from others, or that others must be a part of your endeavor.

The fact that some people convince themselves of such distorted logic as "Banging that chick would make me happy, but she won't let me, there fore IM BEING DEPRIVED OF HAPPINESS!" is disappointing and infuriating.

Like The Stones said...



No matter how much you've convinced yourself you've "earned" it, based on whatever tab of self-important tally-of-suffering you've been holding against the world - regardless of what you think The World owes you, good luck trying to cash that check with the people who inhabit it.

Learn to recognise humour.



While I was exaggerating for amusement, that idea didn't come from nowhere. Much writing regarding "active consent" makes it clear that getting enthusiastic consent at the beginning of a sexual encounter is not enough - you need ongoing consent from beginning to end.

"Active and enthusiastic consent isn't something that happens once at the beginning of a sexual encounter, but should continue the entire way through sexual activity," sex therapist Isiah McKimmie says.

...

Active consent doesn't mean you have to repeatedly ask someone "Is this OK? Is this OK?" during a sexual encounter (although to do that would be better than to assume otherwise).

As an aside right at the beginning of the article:

Mr Lazarus was convicted by a jury and served 11 months of a three-year non-parole period. However, he was acquitted in a judge-only trial after the judge ruled that while Ms Mullins had not consented, Mr Lazarus believed she was consenting.

Look at that, a judge who understands mens rea unlike a jury of morons. I suppose everyone here thinks this was a travesty of justice.