Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
interesting tangent, cause i guess its much more easier for a guy to rape another guy, than it is for a women to rape the same guy
i am pretty intrigued as to how a woman could rape a man actually. i can see that it may be something that could happen on rare occasions, but i'd be amazed if it was something that occurs frequently - the sheer mechanics of the situation seem to prevent it. but correct me if i'm wrong, and if you know that there are thousands of men out there who have been raped by women. i', aware i could be wrong, but it seems improbable to me.
its a whole pantomine issue
oh you want it
oh no i dont
OH YES YOU DO
SHES BEHIND YOU!!!!
Ive always wondered how a woman can rape a man.
She'd have to get the bloody thing hard in the first place, so surely he must want it at least a little?
I think there's a difference between consent and informed consent though. Anoretics are often considered unable to give informed consent for treatment of their condition, and therefore can be checked into treatment by family members, because they're seen as being in an unfit state of mind to decide for themselves. I'd say being so hammered you can hardly see straight is probably an unfit state to decide if you want to sleep with someone.
Women already do sleep with people and then cry rape the next day - this law doesn't change that, does it?
One of the ways that doctors check to see if it's 'true' rape or not is bruising etc around the vaginal area; drunken women sleeping with someone are unlikely to have those physical clues, just as a woman who's cheating and then crying rape the next day.
Yeah. Except what's proposed would mean that sleeping some consensually can be turned into a crime the next morning. I wonder what would happen if both of them accused each other of the same thing.
Which of course completely ignores the fact that many rapes leave no bruising because the woman is either unconscious or didn't struggle for a variety of reasons - most often because she is physically unable to due to fear. Any bruises obviously help a prosecution case but to imply that this checks whether it was a real rape or not is completely abhorrent.
girl with sharp teeth wrote:
Of course it can.
I think this is more of a P&D thread than a Sex one. Rape is nothing to do with sex.
I know that it is possible to rape a man. My and a bf had an arguement and i was really pissed of. He wouldn't have sex with me and I well, forced him. Pinned him down. So yeah its possible and was very wrong of me
Now, if it was a guy posting a similar thing, everyone would be "shouting" at him and calling him names, while other would be describing his violent death in details, and he'd probably get banned. And this was ignored why?
well i suppose the rationale is that since it's the bloke who's putting his penis inside something, his consent can be assumed... has anyone ever forced you to put your penis inside something that you really didn't want to?
for godness sake, rape isn't a gender neutral crime -- it affects men and women differently -- so to try and make gender-neutral policy about it is ludicrous.
Yeah, cos that's what women do, we just love falsely accusing men of rape :banghead:
This is because women and men in my eyes are totally different species, women see sex in a totally different light to most men. But in both these cases its basically rape. Only one of them would be likely to get reported. If both got reported only one would be taken seriously imo.
I think its being ignored basically because in some weird kind of way its accepted that if the missus wants a bit n her chap doesn't she can kind of force him into it.
The lad will never make an issue of it and cry rape and this also explains (to me) why the figures given of 10% of rapes are against men are so far off the mark its untrue.
This is because women and men in my eyes are totally different species, women see sex in a totally different light to most men.
Only one of them would be likely to get reported. If both got reported only one would be taken seriously imo.
Who is it accepted by, exactly? Men? I don't find it remotely acceptable. The reason I didn't address it was because I already broached the issue with that particular poster about the inherent general differences in rapes of women by men and rapes of men by women.
I don't know how far off the mark the figures are, but it seems that you're saying because men don't "cry rape" when they have actually been raped they are some kind of superior being. It is incredibly trying and difficult for a man or woman to report a rape, so don't bother saying that the reason the figures show more women are raped then men is because women make more of an issue of it.
Yes. But as GWST said, rape is rarely if ever anything to do with sex.
I will repeat again, most male rapes in situations such as those we are discussing are committed by other males.
I can't believe this dicussion has turned into a men vs women in terms of rape, it is baffling.
girl with sharp teeth wrote:
I don't see the problem with these guidelines actually. If a woman is so bladdered that she has no idea what she is doing then you'd have to be a sick bastard to want to sleep with her anyway.
It is sad that we need laws to tell us to have conset before we have sex with someone, male or female, sober or drunk.