We have a new one here. CNN had the balls to headline this story about rape on college campus with the following tale that even the Lifetime channel would laugh at:
"Yes, he was her boyfriend. No, he hadn’t pinned her down, or threatened violence. But Espinosa insists that he coerced her, psychologically and physically, into having sex against her will for most of their three-year relationship. She resisted, told him no, pushed him away. More often than not, he persisted and she gave in “just to get it over with,” she says.
“I knew that it was sexual assault, but at the time, I felt extreme shame and was not ready nor willing to fully accept what was happening,” said Espinosa, 24. “Like most unpleasant truths, I buried it until the end of my relationship, when I realized I was holding onto a relationship with a man who was abusive.”
That is some world class crazy there. The main thing that is notable about it is that at someone at CNN thought that it would be a good story to run. Either they are insane too or they have some deep cover men’s rights activists on the payroll.
Uh, Shagnasty, I suspect she’s talking about psychological, verbal, and emotional abuse. It’s probably not just having sex when she doesn’t really FEEL like it, but does so anyways. I’m guessing there’s a LOT more to the story than they have there. It doesn’t sound like the women in the OP at all.
Maybe but that is just supposition. There are one of two things we know that are true based on this story:
The CNN journalist is a horrible writer in which case they never should have been given this assignment.
She had a ‘boyfriend’ for three years which more than implies that it was consensual to some degree. It even says there was no threats of violence involved or any evidence of coersion of any other sort either other than vague references. In short, college girll goes out with a guy for three years and then they break up. She doesn’t like him so much any more and regrets the relationship. There is nothing surprising there. The only other outcome would be that they stayed together and are planning a wedding now.
I disagree that it it sin’t a version of the same type of victim mentality. She consented to penis in vagina action until she regretted past actions and now wants to take it back out of spite when that isn’t possible.
What take-home message could you possibly read into that article based on the facts given? There is no possible male defense against that level of crazy. If the 50 Shades or Gray and Twilight have taught us anything, it is that male sexual aggression towards a willing partner is a desirable thing…unless it isn’t anymore. There is no way to know the difference in advance and it can be revised unilaterally and retroactively.
Perhaps I have been dating or in relationships with the wrong women, but I have found that the overwhelming majority of them were actually rather upset when I told them that I was too tired to put Penis In Vagina.
Some even voiced suspicions that I was putting Penis In another Vagina…but I think that’s another story entirely
It’s just the classic, “every viewpoint but mine is wrong” idea. Also, my view is not an idealogy because I’m just stating facts.
And yeah, you really cannot argue with this person because their view is not based on facts and cannot be swayed by facts. They believe that which they want to be true.
“You aren’t really happy, you just think you are” is a really difficult idea to sell, and I think that’s what this person is trying to say. It’s particularly difficult to sell when the pitch is “Listen to me and you will soon be just as miserable as I am”.
It is trolling, sort of, but in a specialized sense. The person puts out these ridiculous and extreme ideas so that people will react with anger so she can say “Look how you hate women”. And thus have her ideas validated.
:shrugs: Some people are never happy until they are miserable.
Actually, I did.
Her.
I actually met the authoress of this blog in the OP at a vegan shawarma bake-off / crystals cultivation be-in, under the gaze of a quiescent, saturnine Wolf Moon. We approached each other somewhat coyly, in a kind of crabwise sideways walking awkwardness that I won’t really get into, but the short of it basically was that in my serindipitous offering of my warm, reassuring avuncusplaining of the ways PIV can really open neural pathways into a glorious consciousness of unhindered non-trauma-bonding, it soon became apparent that Amelie Ravenscroft (she’s perfectly fine, btw, with this full-out doxxing, after several prepping sessions) has embraced a wonderfully new, raving horndog outlook on life, viewing me now like I’m from on high, as though through a wide-angle lens, my open and kinda alpha palm reaching down, in succour.
I’ll try to get her to join up, here, and maybe she can helpfully contribute a thing or two, be a bit of a catalyst.