Is Grand Theft Auto real life now?
Lol very good point. I blame my own stupidity/naivety that that was the worst thing about him and that he’d fix it. But hey, at least I broke it off before the immigration was finalized! Back to Japan he went!
You’re never going to get it, are you? It’s not about YOU and your ROI. Your response seems to be that it’s kosher to keep forcing yourself on women who refuse you because, in your earlier words, “an explicit prohibition of sex” somehow means she wants to fool around if she’s stopped short of macing you. No. I don’t care that sometimes some women have flipped from no to yes. It doesn’t matter that there’s some percentage of women about there who play silly little head games. What of the rest of them? The ones who made no clear to you, and you still ignored that? They felt, at best, annoyed that even though they were direct with you, using their grown up words, that you still didn’t listen, and at worst they felt violated and/or physically threatened. When someone says no to you, back off. It is absolutely bonkers that the existence of women who play around means to you that you should treat every woman as if “no” means “yes” and keep pressing despite what she makes explicitly clear to you. Because you know, maybe…? Fucking savages, I swear.
Mine is getting signed up for a convent after this thread. Maybe an lesbian feminist anarachist lesbian commune. Certainly an all girls college 
And here is the amazing thing - there is no woman participating in this thread that I believe has never willingly and enthusiastically participated in sex. There may be a virgin or two on this thread, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t you, MOL, myself, WhyNot, Olives or jsgoddess. Even with men (though we may have had a lesbian or two wade in over two threads and twenty pages, I’ll admit, I haven’t kept track of everyone on the board’s sex lives).
There are willing partners. There are even willing partners who have said no one night and will say yes at some point in the future. It isn’t like talking her into sex is your only chance to ever get laid. And if it is, maybe its you that has the problem.
I, for one, am pure and chaste as the driven snow…
Hey! STOP LAUGHING!!!
I haven’t kept track of everyone’s sex lives, but some things do stick in my brain 
This is why I hate these threads. You have a good idea, but then you take it too far. And open yourselves up to obvious counterarguments.
You can’t unwittingly rape someone. It’s just not possible. Not in a legal sense and not in a moral sense. Legally, non-statutory rape requires mens rae, the intent to commit a crime. Morally, you are not considered responsible for accidents. If so, then the fact that you, say, ran over the neighbor’s cat would be immoral. It just doesn’t work that way.
When you go overboard like this, you just encourage people to discount the ideas altogether. These guys see their idols who have sex all the time doing these things and the women not hating them afterwards. When you add something that contradicts their reality, they are thus more likely to discount the rest of your message.
I’ve just had an aha moment with you mentioning ROI. I think treis may not be misogynistic, but rather misanthropic. It’s not that he discounts the feelings of women. He discounts the feelings of anyone other than himself. It’s Objectivism being applied to dating and personal relationships.
Unfortunately, like Objectivism, in the short term, it appears to work.
You have already admitted to not reading the threads in question. How about you don’t walk in and shit all over them like you normally do.
These threads tend toward clusterfuck well enough without “corrections” that get the law wrong, you know?
Mens rea does not mean intent; mens rea means state of mind. Intent is a kind of mens rea. The required state of mind for a person to be guilty of rape is not the specific intent to have sex with them without their consent in any jurisdiction I know of. Recklessness will get you there.
How 'bout if you ran over the neighbor’s cat while not paying attention to the road? Because that’s the gist here - inability or unwillingless to pay attention to what women say. Who the fuck cares if it doesn’t fit the legal definition of rape? Rape may be the gold standard of sexual assault but it’s not like anything less than rape is okay. It’s sleazy as all hell, and yes, the men who do it are morally accountable.
I wonder if it ever sinks into these guys’ minds that their mindset is actively getting in the way of them getting laid. Like, obviously they want to have sex. But it doesn’t seem to occur to them that they are inadvertantly cockblocking themselves.
I mean, if I’m on a date, and inadvertantly kiss/touch a woman in a way that I see makes them uncomfortable (saying “stop/no”, recoiling back, moving away from me, etc) I think to myself, “ah shit, I blew it”. Because I dont believe I’m going to be able to skeeve my way into a woman’s pants, and even if I could, I’d feel incredibly guilty/dirty for it.
Of course people come out of the woodwork and say, “I did what you said and my date thought I was gay!” or other bullshit. You know what? Do you really want to be with someone who interprets decent human behavior as simply “gay” ? I know I wouldn’t. So bullet dodged right there! Normal neurotypical women will respond positively to respecting personal boundaries. If the woman seems inconsistent with what she’s okay with, err on the side of caution. If she calls you gay for acting that way, then she wasn’t worth your penis time.
If anyone is curious about actual research, not anecdotes, about the frequency with which women say “no” and mean/don’t mean it, I just found an interesting article* about a study where female college students were surveyed about this very subject.
37% of respondents agreed that they had, on at least one occasion, said “no” to sex with a man when they actually did want to have sex. 68% reported that they had, on at least one occasion, said “no” to sex when they weren’t sure whether they wanted to have sex or not. 87% had, on at least one occasion, said “no” to sex when they really did not want to have sex. (This adds up to more than 100% because some respondents had said “no” on different occasions when they felt different ways.) The authors cite a previous study** with similar results, 39%/68%/85%.
This indicates that while there’s a non-trivial percentage of women out there who have said “no” when they actually wanted to have sex, they are in the minority. Of the women who indicated that they had said “no” when they actually wanted to have sex, 96% said that on at least one other occasion they had said “no” and meant “no”. 44% said they had only said “no” when they actually wanted to have sex on a single occasion in their lives.
The survey also asked for more specific information about these situations and the women’s intentions, and the authors argue that their responses indicate that most (83%) of the women who self-identified as saying “no” when they wanted to have sex are actually recalling encounters where they initially did not want to have sex but then changed their minds. They later remember having said “no” and remember wanting to have sex but forget that some time passed between the former and the latter. 40% indicated that during the same encounter where they wanted to have sex but said “no” they later explicitly said “yes”. Many of the “said no when I wanted to have sex” encounters were with a man who the woman had been dating for some time but had not previously slept with (70% had no previous sexual experience with that partner), and thus were at a point in their relationship where the woman’s feelings about whether she wanted to have sex with him were likely shifting.
Respondents who said “no” when they actually wanted to have sex did not necessarily want their date to keep pressuring them for sex, though. About 45% indicated that they said “no” because they wanted to assert control over the situation. A little over half of the women who reported having said “no” when they wanted to have sex had other experiences where they’d agreed to sex they didn’t want. Women who indicated that they had said “no” when they wanted to have sex were twice as likely as women who had never done this to have been raped while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. (There was no difference with regard to having been raped through the use of force or threats of force.) So it seems likely to me that many of these women who say “no” when they want to have sex have bad past experiences and are either frightened about having sex (even though they at the same time want to have sex) or need to demonstrate that they have the freedom to refuse sex before they are comfortable having sex again.
*Shortland and Hunter’s “Women’s ‘token resistance’ and compliant sexual behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (1995), pp. 226–236, doi: 10.1177/0146167295213004
**Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh’s “Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1988), pp. 872–879
Edit: in response to posts prior to the statistics given by Lamia
Why is there no room for ambiguity? Why are all cases where differing sexual expectations results in wrongdoing rather than misunderstanding?
If someone is dancing and his hands slip a little lower than the comfortable with, is he skeaving his way into sex?
If someone kisses a little deeper on that goodnight kiss, is he sexually assaulting her?
If during a makeout session he tries to advance the bases a little too quickly is he a rapist? If she says no, does that mean no more making out or just no to going further?
Then all of this doesn’t include the population of women who ARE passive aggressive and DO play games.
Again, I’m not defending the actions of guys who treat “no” as a “maybe” but at some point there has to be concession from both sides of the argument. Empty platitudes of “no means no” either strikes as “no shit” or “it’s wildly impractical”.
If men were to take women at their word 100% of the time and ignore “signals” and subtext it would mean the utter demise of the human race.
Because “no” isn’t an ambiguous word. If the person in question does not mean it, she shouldn’t be using it. And we certainly shouldn’t be rewarding women who say no and mean yes any more than we should reward guys who don’t take no for an answer. Because the impact of it is that some women end up date raped.
I don’t know if you mean this hyperbolically or what, but it’s as wrong as anything that has been posted in this thread. I mean, goddamn. Do yourself and the rest of humanity a favor and read the study Lamia linked to.
The reality of the situation is that my chances of raping someone are essentially zero. It would require that:
(1) I misinterpret how interested they are in me
(2) They never verbally say anything resembling no after we start getting intimate
(3) I completely and utterly misread their body language
Your argument is after school special logic. If I applied this to everything in my life I wouldn’t drive after a beer 3 hours ago, because hey, I’m POTENTIALLY driving drunk. Nor would I try pot, because hey, POTENTIALLY I’ll be addicted and ruin my life. Nor would I ride a motorcycle, because hey, POTENTIALLY I might kill myself. The reality is that my risk of actually raping someone over a baseline of getting signed consent forms before every kiss is maybe 0.00000001% higher.
Do you seriously think that accidental rapes are a problem? Because, to me, the idea seems ludicrous. Rapists know that they are raping people. And I am not raping anyone, or coming close to it.
The point is that what MOL did is the way some women will let you know they want to fool around.
Anticipated response from treis: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance?”
Oh… Jesus fucking… If I had any hope --even the tiniest, only-visible-under-a-microscrope-- glimmer of faith that this was going anywhere, it’s now dead and gone. When you combine complete social cluelessness with cock entitlement, you get the kind of guy who just declares that whenever a woman says no, you can feel free to ignore it. Guys who not only cannot tell the difference between being coy and telling you “Fuck that noise; ain’t happening,” but then coupling this with the decision to then treat all refusals as a green light = I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
However, I think there is a fairly high chance you are one of “those guys.”
In my group of girlfriends there are a number of “those guys.” Guys one or more of us have had sex with - and while it wasn’t rape - it wasn’t sex we wanted to have. These guys, when they come up in discussions are sometimes regarded with pity, but most often classed as “manipulative jerks.” Because they exist within our friend circle, most of us remain civil to these poor excuses for human beings in the interest of group community and not being raving bitches (I don’t, its part of my circumspect life, but it means I avoid parties where these losers are going to be), but their names are well known and they are often the ones whining about not having girlfriends. None of them are married after 20 years. Sometimes, they do have girlfriends for a few months - out of pity, out of guilt (I slept with you, since I’m not a slut I now have to date you for a few weeks), or because they themselves are being used (we have a few predatory women in our larger social circle).
I think one of the things I find most confusing about this line of thought is that I think “who wants pity sex, and who wants sex because putting out shuts him up and is the path of least resistance to getting some guy to stop being annoying and gets him to leave without resorting to the hassle of calling the cops and lodging a complaint.” And guys seem to think “yea! sex!”