Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Women can't rape men, unless it is in the ass with an object.

Carry on claiming they can. Plus an 120lb woman against a 200k man? You all are grasping and it is pure comedy.

Yes, that's also my understanding.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Women can't rape men, unless it is in the ass with an object.

Carry on claiming they can. Plus an 120lb woman against a 200k man? You all are grasping and it is pure comedy.

So if the woman is sober and the guy isn't ... that's not legitimate rape then?

As for "why did he get in a relationship with this girl?"

Remember the episode of Downton Abbey where Edna seduced Tom and then Edna tried to guilt-trip Tom into marrying her because they slept together and she wanted him to take care of the baby? Same thought process.

If the guy's kind of troubled to begin with, it's all the easier.

Anonymous wrote:To me, the difference in size and strength of the victim and the rapist is a factor, since the rapist (female) is forcing the victim (male) to penetrate her, instead of the other way around. A 200 pound male could easily push the 125 pound female off of him. The female would have a difficult time pushing her attacker off of her due to the size difference.

That's like that tired old bullshit about how it isn't rape until the woman fights back hard enough.

Anonymous wrote:To me, the difference in size and strength of the victim and the rapist is a factor, since the rapist (female) is forcing the victim (male) to penetrate her, instead of the other way around. A 200 pound male could easily push the 125 pound female off of him. The female would have a difficult time pushing her attacker off of her due to the size difference.

And a drunk guy who can barely find his nose for an intoxication assessment?

many rape victims could likely overpower their attackers if it occurred to them at the time. But at the time, it's about power and panic. It's nice to see some folks think they know better.

To me, the difference in size and strength of the victim and the rapist is a factor, since the rapist (female) is forcing the victim (male) to penetrate her, instead of the other way around. A 200 pound male could easily push the 125 pound female off of him. The female would have a difficult time pushing her attacker off of her due to the size difference.

Anonymous wrote:20:39 here - disagree with 21:09, women can rape men sure. And it doesn't take sodomy to be rape, but I would just like for 20:52 to admit to me that there IS a difference between a man being raped and a woman being raped.

I'm not trying to say he couldn't have been raped I'm trying to get you to admit the lines CAN get blurry. Do you deny that?

I've never said that consent is not blurry.

I still take exception that being raped as a man and being raped as a woman is any different. In fact, IME, men tend to experience more distress over rape and sexual assault, mostly because they've been given a false sense of security about their power position in life's pecking order. And as I've posted already, the words both men and women use to describe their assaults, or fallout from assaults are the same. It's a loss of power, invasion of self, and break from the world as one knows it.

I'm really not sure what you're after. I think it's cool to disagree, and I'm happy to bat around opinions, because it helps me see the world differently. That being said, your hostility on the subject is weird. I don't think there is anything wrong with presenting consent as black and white, because that leads fewer people to interpreting the greys on their own and running into trouble, personally or legally.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Women can't rape men, unless it is in the ass with an object.

Carry on claiming they can. Plus an 120lb woman against a 200k man? You all are grasping and it is pure comedy.

Really? So if a man is passed out drunk and a women performs oral sex on him - what is that? Would your answer be different if it was a woman who passed out drunk and man started performing oral sex on her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I don't know what to tell you. If this man feels that he was assaulted, it's probably a good idea to treat him with respect rather than dismissing him as "a grown man with supposedly full cognitive abilities and functioning."

If his account is fabricated, that is still indicative of a pretty troubled individual who deserves compassion and mental health assistance. Since he is not your good friend, I would strongly advise that you just stop thinking about this and let it go. If he was your close friend, I would advise whatever compassion and support you would offer to a female friend who confided that she was sexually assaulted by her boyfriend and manipulated into staying in an abusive relationship.

This. I don't understand what your investment is in this other than wanting to trash someone you don't really know? This is the best response here. You have nothing to gain or lose here, just let it go. The man is clearly suffering for some reason. Get a grip on yourself.

Agree completely.

20:39 here - disagree with 21:09, women can rape men sure. And it doesn't take sodomy to be rape, but I would just like for 20:52 to admit to me that there IS a difference between a man being raped and a woman being raped.

I'm not trying to say he couldn't have been raped I'm trying to get you to admit the lines CAN get blurry. Do you deny that?

200lb.

Sorry. Women can't rape men, unless it is in the ass with an object.

Carry on claiming they can. Plus an 120lb woman against a 200k man? You all are grasping and it is pure comedy.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure you understand what "hyperbole" means.

And, I'm not trying to argue with you that he did or don't give consent. He was too drunk to say no right? Was he too drunk to say yes? Did the "rapist" take his actions and his physiological response while he was inebriated as a signal that he was consenting? It's just not so easy as to say - well, he was drunk, she raped him! If he was so drunk how does he head over to her place and then get raped again?

I'm not arguing consent is required, I'm arguing there CAN be confusion about what consent means. I'm not sure why you're resistant to that idea? I feel like there's been this whole "THIS is what rape means" discussion in this society and we're all nodding our heads and "consent is consent - End of discussion" doesn't always sit well with me. And it goes both ways here. I mean good god aren't 50% of 20-somethings currently fornicating as we type drunk!?

I understand what hyperbole means. And the example of a woman tearing off her clothes while saying no is a perfect example of it. It does nothing to further this thread other than..well, throw around hyperbole. And if it's not, and someone is running into situations like this, they need some evaluation about with whom they're spending their time.

The problem is not necessarily the blurring of consent lines - it's blurring them to serve a purpose, which in this case is basically to say that a 200lb man can't be raped by a 120 lb woman. We need to make it so that the conversation for young people is clear on what consent is and isn't. Because reading on here - some people clearly don't.

I fornicated plenty of times drunk as a 20 something year old. I've even had one night stands. But I've never worried about consent because it IS clear in my mind what is and what isn't consent. As soon as you allow yourself to think there are blurs, then you open yourself up the a whole host of bad potential outcomes.

In this case the man in question was drunk and said no. I don't see how it gets more clear.

Sounds like someone is making up stories, either the "acquaintance" who may think this is some kind of charming foree into a relationship with the OP (yes, he would need to be quite warped) or the OP is making it up. Either way, its weird.

I'm not sure you understand what "hyperbole" means.

And, I'm not trying to argue with you that he did or don't give consent. He was too drunk to say no right? Was he too drunk to say yes? Did the "rapist" take his actions and his physiological response while he was inebriated as a signal that he was consenting? It's just not so easy as to say - well, he was drunk, she raped him! If he was so drunk how does he head over to her place and then get raped again?

I'm not arguing consent is required, I'm arguing there CAN be confusion about what consent means. I'm not sure why you're resistant to that idea? I feel like there's been this whole "THIS is what rape means" discussion in this society and we're all nodding our heads and "consent is consent - End of discussion" doesn't always sit well with me. And it goes both ways here. I mean good god aren't 50% of 20-somethings currently fornicating as we type drunk!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm on board with how this could happen, sure. I guess it's the definition of rape. If someone changes their mind, isn't conscious or isn't actively saying "YES"then it's rape. period. And that applies to a man or a woman.

So - how do we feel about a woman who is saying "no,no, no" but actively undressing, groping a man, and doing all of the work to make intercourse happen. Is it still rape because of the "no" in the scenario?

Yes. And you put her in a cab or just walk away.

I just find that the letter of the law can't really extend to all of the nuances and confusion and miscommunication that can take place during sex. I realize consent must be given, but I also don't think a man should forcefully STOP a woman who is doing everything within her power to have sex with him except for saying the word "no." and risk hurting her to stop the act from occurring. You just "put her in a cab" or "walk away" right? But, it's not that easy, it wasn't that easy for OP's 200 lb man to do - that's what YOU'RE arguing here right?

Everyone wants to act like there's a black and a white here, but there are more shades of grey than I think people want to be comfortable with and that the law can possibly encompass. A petite woman "raping" a 200 lb man, is an area that feels a little more grey to me than if you switched the roles there. That's a fact - and I don't see why we can't say that and have that conversation without being called idiotic, misinformed people.

It wasn't easy for OPs 200lb to do because he was intoxicated. He was saying no. Someone who is in that state doesn't think clearly. The act of saying no is really all he HAS to do. It's pretty clear to me.

Everyone here seems to love hyperbole more than fact. I don't particularly care if he weighed another 50 lbs and she 10 lbs less. Consent is consent is consent.

And for those who love throwing hyperbole around today - if you have a woman throwing herself at you and saying no, the legal ramifications of a potential consent issue are the least of your problems. You don't deal with gasoline by lighting a match. You get the hell out.