Woman on trial for raping 10 men.

[Darius871]

Now you're just playing semantics.

You said this:

No, only insertion into the male would be rape. It's not rape if he screws her.

This is factually incorrect. It is rape without inserting anything into the male. If he screws her without his consent, it is rape.

You also said this:

Men can't be raped by women without an instrument of some kind. It's physically impossible.

This is factually incorrect as well. A man can be aroused and not consent to sex, yet have it still occur. That is rape.

You still don't understand. Forget about insertion for a minute. Your entire argument is premised on the underlying assumption that heterosexual men are capable of not consenting to sex thrust upon them for no cost. It is that assumption that I question, nothing more.

[Asher]

You still don't understand. Forget about insertion for a minute. Your entire argument is premised on the underlying assumption that heterosexual men are capable of not consenting to sex thrust upon them for no cost. It is that assumption that I question.

Yes, they are capable. Someone may not consent for deeply religious reasons but be very physically aroused.

What a dumb thing to question.

[Darius871]

I guess this is coming from the perspective of being willing to take virtually anything. I haven't seen photos of this "Valeria K." yet (and therefore this thread is useless), but judging by feedback from the "victim," she must be less than two axe-handles wide.

[Theben]

Darius can't just say no to the tail.

[Docfeelgood]

I don't know bout you lil boys, but I have what is called pecker control.
If I don't want to do it, I don't do it.

Now from what I have read, some of you have not a clue as to what pecker control is.

[Straybow]

this thread is worthless without pictures

[Asher]

Straybow wants to see the damaged penises.

[Space05us]

You still don't understand. Forget about insertion for a minute. Your entire argument is premised on the underlying assumption that heterosexual men are capable of not consenting to sex thrust upon them for no cost. It is that assumption that I question, nothing more.

You can be aroused without wanting to be. If another man tied you up and stroked your wiener it would become erect. He could then squat on it if he wanted while you cringed at the thought of getting poop on your penis. That would be rape.

Or maybe you have awesome powers of the unconscious mind, in which case he could just give you a sedative and do his thing.

[Docfeelgood]

You can be aroused without wanting to be. If another man tied you up and stroked your wiener it would become erect. He could then squat on it if he wanted while you cringed at the thought of getting poop on your penis. That would be rape.

Or maybe you have awesome powers of the unconscious mind, in which case he could just give you a sedative and do his thing.

pecker control

[Space05us]

pecker control

Or maybe you have awesome powers of the unconscious mind, in which case he could just give you a sedative and do his thing.

[Darius871]

You can be aroused without wanting to be. If another man tied you up and stroked your wiener it would become erect. He could then squat on it if he wanted while you cringed at the thought of getting poop on your penis. That would be rape.

I don't remember anyone talking about a dude. I would not consent to that.

Or maybe you have awesome powers of the unconscious mind, in which case he could just give you a sedative and do his thing.

I can't believe some people still don't understand. I never denied that one can be physically aroused without consent; in fact I think I conceded that at least once. Rather, I denied that I could decline consent in the first place. I can't believe one lame self-deprecating joke has been dragged on this long.

[Space05us]

I don't remember anyone talking about a dude. I would not consent to that.

Hence it would be rape.

Rather, I denied that I could decline consent in the first place.

You declined consent to the man in my above hypothetical situation.

[Darius871]

I don't remember anyone talking about a dude. I would not consent to that.

Hence it would be rape.

Rather, I denied that I could decline consent in the first place.

You declined consent to the man in my above hypothetical situation.

Funny how the context of every post in this thread dealt with a woman thrust upon a heterosexual male "victim." I don't know why you feel the need to harp on an apples-and-oranges hypothetical. Just because I wouldn't consent to a male bunghole, that doesn't mean I am capable of declining consent to a vagina. Nope, not gonna happen.

[Asher]

I think it's more funny that you're so desperate to get laid you cannot fathom of a situation of a man not wanting to **** a woman.

If a 80 year old fat **** was going down on you, I guarantee you would not consent.

[a.kitman]

grrr