When you say no to a woman, it is a lot different from saying no to a man. Many women see sex as only they have to give consent. It's I am a woman, I want to have sex with you. You as a male have no say in this. After all, you are a male and will fuck anything. So when you say no they are shocked and some do not take no as answer. Some will really force the issue and threaten you(I will tell your girlfriend you attacked me, I will tell people you are gay, etc.). When you are young, these threats are real and you do not know how to deal with it. Most men will not physically fight a woman. So the size thing is a false argument.
As for the OP "friend", he was in the army. There are many things one can threat him with to control him. Sexual harassment is down over all in the work place, but sexual harassment by women is up 15% in the last 10 years.
As a side note, how many parents talk to their sons about how to deal with aggressive women? None it all about the how to protect women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seduction and guilt-tripping are not forcible rape in the eyes of the law.

Why are you turning this into a criminal defense trial? (Note the qualifiers: "forcible" "eyes of the law'")

Having sex with someone who refused or who is unable to consent is rape. Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is rape. I'll stipulate that you might not be able to get a conviction, but that doesn't make the victim any less raped.

Seduction and guilt tripping are not forcible rape in my eyes either. Is there an objective standard?

If you ask someone 50 times for sex, and they say " no" 49 times and agree on the 50th, that's consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about double rape? When both people are too drunk to consent, but so it anyways and feel terrible the next day. what do two rapes make?

Blame the man of course.

Young men are being kicked out of college due to this double standard. A drunk man is still held responsible for his actions. A drunk woman is absolved of responsibility and is a victim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seduction and guilt-tripping are not forcible rape in the eyes of the law.

Why are you turning this into a criminal defense trial? (Note the qualifiers: "forcible" "eyes of the law'")

Having sex with someone who refused or who is unable to consent is rape. Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is rape. I'll stipulate that you might not be able to get a conviction, but that doesn't make the victim any less raped.

Seduction and guilt tripping are not forcible rape in my eyes either. Is there an objective standard?

Is it seduction when you're having sex with someone passed out (what OP said)? I guess we need to inform the Steubenville football team, then.

As for guilt tripping, it's not illegal, but it does explain why OP's friend stuck it out (something PPs had said invalidates any rape claim.)

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the "too drunk to consent" argument. Unless you are passed out (in which case you actually did NOT give consent) you are responsible for your own actions, drunk or not. If I get a DUI I don't get to say I was "too drunk to consent" to driving my car, do I?

There's varying stages of drunk -- there's "giggling but still in this universe", there's "barely able to stand", and there's "passed out."

I'd like to think you buy the "too drunk to consent" for "barely able to stand". I can hear you out on "giggling but still in this universe" -- especially when both parties are equally drunk.

Anonymous wrote:I used to take these "consent can be so ambiguous" arguments at face value as a good faith statement of fact. Because there is the possibility of it being ambiguous.

But, as I've seen this debate play out, I've seen guys who are *really* invested in the idea of how confusing consent can be. To them, it's like fucking Schrodinger's cat.

The presence of these guys tells me that people (mostly women) need protection from predators who will exploit the potential for ambiguity to rape someone. They aren't confused. They just don't give a shit about her consent. The potential for confusion just gives them room to operate and plausible deniability.

Because of these guys, we need clear rules on consent with the default being don't have sex unless consent is clear. And, if it means as collateral damage that I, as a guy operating in good faith need to keep my dick in my pants until she sobers up; I can live with that.

Thank you for this.

I used to take these "consent can be so ambiguous" arguments at face value as a good faith statement of fact. Because there is the possibility of it being ambiguous.

But, as I've seen this debate play out, I've seen guys who are *really* invested in the idea of how confusing consent can be. To them, it's like fucking Schrodinger's cat.

The presence of these guys tells me that people (mostly women) need protection from predators who will exploit the potential for ambiguity to rape someone. They aren't confused. They just don't give a shit about her consent. The potential for confusion just gives them room to operate and plausible deniability.

Because of these guys, we need clear rules on consent with the default being don't have sex unless consent is clear. And, if it means as collateral damage that I, as a guy operating in good faith need to keep my dick in my pants until she sobers up; I can live with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't drive a car properly, why would anyone think you can consent properly?

A person is not a car. Stop using the car metaphor to describe a violation of someone's body.

Except I am using the metaphor to support the fact that if someone is unfit to be in care and control of a vehicle, their ability to consent (legally) should be brought into question.

Anonymous wrote:If you can't drive a car properly, why would anyone think you can consent properly?

A person is not a car. Stop using the car metaphor to describe a violation of someone's body.

If you can't drive a car properly, why would anyone think you can consent properly?

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy the "too drunk to consent" argument. Unless you are passed out (in which case you actually did NOT give consent) you are responsible for your own actions, drunk or not. If I get a DUI I don't get to say I was "too drunk to consent" to driving my car, do I?

This argument has been made before, over and over. The situations are not analogous. Having sex with someone who does not consent is a crime. There are a number of conditions under which a person is not legally able to give consent, such as being intoxicated, being unconscious or being a minor child. A car does not give consent when you drive it. A car is an inanimate object, a tool to be used. When you discuss rape, you're talking about a human being, not a tool.

I understand that there are many people who do not believe that intoxication should render a person unable to give consent. I also understand that there are people who take that argument to the extreme and suggest that two drunk people who have sex are ALWAYS raping each other and should both be charged.

I don't buy the "too drunk to consent" argument. Unless you are passed out (in which case you actually did NOT give consent) you are responsible for your own actions, drunk or not. If I get a DUI I don't get to say I was "too drunk to consent" to driving my car, do I?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seduction and guilt-tripping are not forcible rape in the eyes of the law.

Why are you turning this into a criminal defense trial? (Note the qualifiers: "forcible" "eyes of the law'")

Having sex with someone who refused or who is unable to consent is rape. Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is rape. I'll stipulate that you might not be able to get a conviction, but that doesn't make the victim any less raped.

Seduction and guilt tripping are not forcible rape in my eyes either. Is there an objective standard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seduction and guilt-tripping are not forcible rape in the eyes of the law.

Why are you turning this into a criminal defense trial? (Note the qualifiers: "forcible" "eyes of the law'")

Having sex with someone who refused or who is unable to consent is rape. Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is rape. I'll stipulate that you might not be able to get a conviction, but that doesn't make the victim any less raped.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seduction and guilt-tripping are not forcible rape in the eyes of the law.