Proposal: That sex without consent is always rape.

[James R]

I would like to challenge angrybellsprout, Randwolf, Kadark, either singly or in combination, to debate the above topic.

I will argue the affirmative side; they will argue the negative - i.e. that in some circumstances (which they may specify) non-consensual sex does not amount to rape.

If I am to debate more than 2 opponents, I would prefer to have at least one other person on my "team" - perhaps Bells.

As a starting point, I suggest we use the standard debate rules in the sticky thread at the top of the Formal Debates subforum.

The current thread is for agreement and negotiation of participants and the debate format. I am open to changes in the format and/or participants.

Please post here if you wish to participate.

[Asguard]

i will be on your side if you want james:p

[draqon]

i will be on your side if you want james:p

think about what James R. is proposing...think of all the consequences.

[James R]

The Standard Rules for debates are here. At this stage, I contemplate a "Team" debate, but if there is only one person willing to argue for the Negative, I suggest the individual debate rules ought to apply.

Also, if my potential opponents think a change in the wording of the topic is desirable, please suggest an alternative.

[Asguard]

draqon re read the question, its gender netural which has been my only complaint in the threads for umm the last WEEK.

Plus i have the legal litricture in my history page:p

[Tyler]

It's awfully hard to know what side I stand on without knowing your exact definitions of "consent" and "rape".

These terms, even in law, are ambiguous at times and many academics and lawyers have made them even more ambiguous.

[shorty_37]

I pick Randolf , Kadark team if they want me.

[draqon]

I am most likely on JamesR. team...but I need some more viewpoints on what exactly he means by that bold statement.

[draqon]

These terms, even in law, are ambiguous at times and many academics and lawyers have made them even more ambiguous.

yea well if they are so ambigious...somehow statistics-wise men get to go to jail for rape neverthless...and not the women.

[Kadark]

Out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to call out the three of us specifically? If my elephant memory is serving me correctly, I recall quite a few people disagreeing with the supposed "rape" scenarios that you outlined in the poll you created. The only people to agree with the statements fully were you and that shichimenshyo guy. Truth be told, debating about what constitutes rape isn't a hobby of mine, nor do I care to discuss it at length (as in a formal debate). Maybe I'll change my mind later, but at 1:30 AM after an exhausting day, I'd rather not participate.

Kadark the Lion

[Bells]

I would like to challenge angrybellsprout, Randwolf, Kadark, either singly or in combination, to debate the above topic.

I will argue the affirmative side; they will argue the negative - i.e. that in some circumstances (which they may specify) non-consensual sex does not amount to rape.

If I am to debate more than 2 opponents, I would prefer to have at least one other person on my "team" - perhaps Bells.

As a starting point, I suggest we use the standard debate rules in the sticky thread at the top of the Formal Debates subforum.

The current thread is for agreement and negotiation of participants and the debate format. I am open to changes in the format and/or participants.

Please post here if you wish to participate.
Count me in if it's a team debate.:)

If it is to be an individual debate against only one individual, the floor's all yours. I'll watch and cheer from the sidelines.:p

[draqon]

yea well Kadark, JamesR. current time is not 1:30 AM, its full day for him.

[Asguard]

actually its 2:04 pm here:p and as i THINK james is on the east coast it would be 2:35:p

[James R]

Note that I have specifically challenged angrybellsprout, Randwolf, and Kadark.

If none of these is willing to participate in this debate, then there's probably little point in going ahead with it.

At least two of them are aware of the challenge.

[James R]

Out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to call out the three of us specifically?

Because you share the most archaic views about rape and you were the most outspoken in the thread that prompted my challenge.

If my elephant memory is serving me correctly, I recall quite a few people disagreeing with the supposed "rape" scenarios that you outlined in the poll you created.

You may gather supporters if you think you may be unable to sustain your argument without help.

Truth be told, debating about what constitutes rape isn't a hobby of mine, nor do I care to discuss it at length (as in a formal debate). Maybe I'll change my mind later, but at 1:30 AM after an exhausting day, I'd rather not participate.

The debate involves one post from you every three days - not a big strain.

I think you're just afraid to take the challenge and stand for what you believe.

But, that's fine, of course.

[Randwolf]

I would like to challenge angrybellsprout, Randwolf, Kadark, either singly or in combination, to debate the above topic.

I will argue the affirmative side; they will argue the negative - i.e. that in some circumstances (which they may specify) non-consensual sex does not amount to rape.

No they won't. At least I won't. Non consensual sex is rape. Maybe you were not paying attention, James R. I challenge you to find a post of mine that alleged nonconsensual sex was endorsed. My issue lies in the definition of consensus.

[Randwolf]

i will be on your side if you want james:p


You don't even know what you are agreeing to here, Asguard. You're just kissing up....

[angrybellsprout]

Considering the fact that the basic premise is a strawman, it is pretty obvious that this is just a sham.

non-consensual sex does not amount to rape

Keep your strawmen to yourself james.

[draqon]

ok I am not on James R. side, because of this case: http://media.www.lawrentian.com/media/storage/paper409/news/2004/10/08/News/Alcohol.And.Sex.May.Not.Mix-742879.shtml?norewrite200609252009&sourcedomain=www.lawrentian.com

were two are drunk basically and only the guy is charged of rape

And that is why I disagree with "sex without consent is always a rape"

[Randwolf]

Good grief, I was AFK for 15 minutes. Where did all this come from?

[draqon]

Good grief, I was AFK for 15 minutes. Where did all this come from?

sexist war never sleeps... :p maybe thats why we all do it at night :rolleyes:

[James R]

angrybellsprout:

I have offered to negotiate regarding the participants and the topic of this debate.

IF you think the topic phrasing is unfair and needs to be changed, please suggest an alternative topic that you would be willing to debate instead.

[James R]

Good grief, I was AFK for 15 minutes.

What's AFK?

Do you wish to participate in a debate on the above topic, or not?

Do you wish to debate an alternative, similar topic of your own wording?

[Asguard]

why would you assume im kissing up to someone who i just ripped through.

I have no problem switching sides of a debate dependent on the cirumstances, used to do it all the time. Comes from trying to stay in the middle when arguing with radical feminsts and radical sexist males or trying to teach tolerance to radical athiasts and fundimentilist christans

i am the eternal fence sitter:p

[Kadark]

Because you share the most archaic views about rape and you were the most outspoken in the thread that prompted my challenge.

You may gather supporters if you think you may be unable to sustain your argument without help.

The debate involves one post from you every three days - not a big strain.

I think you're just afraid to take the challenge and stand for what you believe.

But, that's fine, of course.

First of all, I certainly don't want to "gather supporters". If such is the case, count me out; WWE-esque three man tag-team matchups aren't really my "thing". Besides, organizing that would be painstakingly difficult. That aside, I'm certainly not afraid to debate you, James. Aren't we in the thick of a debate in another thread? Seriously, what a stupid statement to make. If I were to engage myself in a formal debate, it would assuredly be a debate dealing with an issue that interests or intrigues me. Arguing as to what constitutes rape is not high on my list, as my one-liners in the thread would indicate. If you could at least display which aspects of my posts you disagreed with, then perhaps we would have something to work with. As of now, I'm a little confused as to what you're vehemently disagreeing with.

Kadark the Pursuer

[angrybellsprout]

Why not have the topic be something along the lines of, no matter if both implicit and explicit consent are given you are still a rapist in alcohol was involved?

[James R]

angrybellsprout:

Just so we're clear, do you agree with the statement: "Sex without consent is always rape?"

A simple "yes" from you and I will happily stop pestering you to debate this topic.

[draqon]

this rape thing...how do we know in court who is lying and who is not. I mean what if she did say yes, but then realized it would be inconvinient for her to be associated with him so she said to court that she declined to have sex with her...she lied...but the sperm is still on her so he is accountable for sex with her...and he will thus go to jail. Thats what bugs me in this whole thing the most.

[Asguard]

draqon we arnt debating the guilt or inocents of a case, we are debating a PRINCIPLE

[shorty_37]

Maybe you were not paying attention, James R. I challenge you to find a post of mine that alleged nonconsensual sex was endorsed. My issue lies in the definition of consensus.

This is true...

[draqon]

draqon we arnt debating the guilt or inocents of a case, we are debating a PRINCIPLE

well I mean I would like agree that sex without consent is a rape...but the "always" part...you just got to think of all the possibilities to go that far.

[shorty_37]

well I mean I would like agree that sex without consent is a rape...but the "always" part...you just got to think of all the possibilities to go that far.

I agree.....it's the word ALWAYS...

[James R]

Kadark:

First of all, I certainly don't want to "gather supporters". If such is the case, count me out; WWE-esque three man tag-team matchups aren't really my "thing".

I'd agree to a one-on-one debate, if you prefer that.

Besides, organizing that would be painstakingly difficult.

Not at all. That is why I have specifically set out proposed debate rules in advance. No effort from you is required in the organisation. A simple agreement to debate is sufficient.

That aside, I'm certainly not afraid to debate you, James. Aren't we in the thick of a debate in another thread?

I have found that many people run away from a formal debate, when they are very willing to toss random opinions about in the other subforums.

A debate with rules means you have to stand by your views. You can't wriggle out or claim you said something else at a later date.

But don't worry. I understand your reluctance.

If I were to engage myself in a formal debate, it would assuredly be a debate dealing with an issue that interests or intrigues me. Arguing as to what constitutes rape is not high on my list, as my one-liners in the thread would indicate.

You express your homophobia and your dismissal of women over and over again in thread after thread. You're being ingenuous, to say the least. I think my initial assessment was correct.

If you could at least display which aspects of my posts you disagreed with, then perhaps we would have something to work with. As of now, I'm a little confused as to what you're vehemently disagreeing with.

I am in disagreement with every item you checked on the poll list that I posted. Let's start there.


ABS:

Why not have the topic be something along the lines of, no matter if both implicit and explicit consent are given you are still a rapist in alcohol was involved?

Ok. What would your proposed topic be, exactly? Please provide some exact wording.

[Randwolf]

What's AFK?

Away from keyboard, as in not watching what is going on at SF.




Do you wish to participate in a debate on the above topic, or not?

Can you read, dude? I am not going to debate something that I do not believe in. Sex against someone's will is rape. Non concensual sex is rape. I defy you to find a post of mine that says otherwise.




Do you wish to debate an alternative, similar topic of your own wording?
Perhaps.

[angrybellsprout]

Better yet, why don't you find a post where I have stated otherwise, instead of constantly using strawmen?

[shorty_37]

I also have an issue of who we are talking about....

Are we talking about 2 strangers? or a husband and wife? because I think that
also brings up more questions as to what is ALWAYS rape or not.

[Asguard]

what if the topic, is all killing people murder. Now the ovious answer is no but put that aside for a second. What your saying is like arguing "no because there is a possablity that an inocent person could be tried for a murder'. Thats not an argument against the STATEMENT that all killing is murder, thats an argumeht that our legal system SUCKS

Do you see what i mean?

[James R]

Randwolf:

Maybe you were not paying attention, James R. I challenge you to find a post of mine that alleged nonconsensual sex was endorsed.

Ok. Just so we're clear, I ask you the same thing I asked ABS:

Do you agree with the statement "That sex without consent is always rape."

A simple "yes" from you and I will happily stop pestering you to debate this topic.
----

Edit to add: Just saw your post above.

That's fine. I withdraw my challenge to you.

My challenge to ABS and Kadark stands.

[Randwolf]

why would you assume im kissing up to someone who i just ripped through.

I have no problem switching sides of a debate dependent on the cirumstances, used to do it all the time. Comes from trying to stay in the middle when arguing with radical feminsts and radical sexist males or trying to teach tolerance to radical athiasts and fundimentilist christans

i am the eternal fence sitter:p

It's all good Asguard. I was just blindsided by all this, and noticed your immediate acquiesence to James R side, which isn't even applicable. He's making this shit up as he goes. Cite a post James, that shows that I advocate nonconsensual sex.

[Kadark]

Eat a dick, James.

Okay, with that off my chest: find the posts you're disagreeing with. And for the love of God, stop bringing up homosexuality into every topic we argue. What is it with you and homosexuality?

Creep.

Kadark the Determined

[James R]

Better yet, why don't you find a post where I have stated otherwise, instead of constantly using strawmen?

You are incapable or unwilling to post a simple "yes" or "no"?

Really, stand up for what you believe, or just go away. Have some guts.

[angrybellsprout]

You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

That sounds like a start for a topic.

[Randwolf]

Randwolf:

Ok. Just so we're clear, I ask you the same thing I asked ABS:

Do you agree with the statement "That sex without consent is always rape."

A simple "yes" from you and I will happily stop pestering you to debate this topic.
----

Edit to add: Just saw your post above.

That's fine. I withdraw my challenge to you.

My challenge to ABS and Kadark stands.

Just to remove any lingering questions...

YES!!!

[James R]

For the record, Kadark is unwilling to debate me on this topic.

That leaves only angrybellsprout.

Well?

[angrybellsprout]

You are incapable or unwilling to post a simple "yes" or "no"?

Really, stand up for what you believe, or just go away. Have some guts.

Are you incapable or unwilling to post something other than strawmen?

[draqon]

randwolf, you are being pressured by JamesR. to say "yes", think of the consequences of the word "always" in that statement.

[Randwolf]

You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

That sounds like a start for a topic.

Umm, James, this has possibilities. What do you think?

[Asguard]

Randwolf to be compleatly honest it wasnt you i wanted to go up against, it was ABS and Kadark.

im just as tired as james of chacing them around trying to bash some sence into there heads. ABS especially pisses me off because his atitude sabotases any chance of a decent debate on mens issues because he keeps turning them into his anti feminst crusade.

THATS why i jumped in the second i saw this thread, i assure you it had nothing to do with you

[James R]

ABS:

You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

Of course, I will not argue that having sex with somebody who gives you explicit, free and informed consent is rape. That would be silly.

If you want to narrow things down, perhaps we will arrive at a suitable topic.

In the meantime, my original challenge stands.

[Randwolf]

randwolf, you are being pressured by JamesR. to say "yes", think of the consequences of the word "always" in that statement.

I know draq, but I more believe the way it is phrased then I want to nitpick. However, as you know, "always" is never, or hardly ever, true.

[angrybellsprout]

randwolf, you are being pressured by JamesR. to say "yes", think of the consequences of the word "always" in that statement.

13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.

14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.

[draqon]

I know draq, but I more believe the way it is phrased then I want to nitpick. However, as you know, "always" is never, or hardly ever, true.

well than withdraw your "yes". :eek:

[Kadark]

If you want to debate me, James, then I'm entitled to know why you want to debate me. Where are the posts of mine that are so disturbing as to warrant a special thread of its own targeting them?

Tick, tock.

Kadark the Revered

[James R]

Randwolf:

I would be willing to have a friendly debate on what might constitute implied consent to sex.

Are you interested?

[draqon]

13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.

14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.

lol angry bell sprout, you live up to your nick :p

[draqon]

Randwolf...they are sweet-talking you so that you stay on their side...dont get carried away

[shorty_37]

13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.



That's total bullshit!! Then I get raped all the time.

[Randwolf]

In the meantime, my original challenge stands.

Your original challenge is bullshit James and you know it. What did you actually expect to accomplish here? You want the bragging rights to say that no one would debate you that nonconsensual sex is not rape? This is typical of radicals. Take a topic, spin it and see if anyone can follow. Forget it James....

[angrybellsprout]

Your original challenge is bullshit James and you know it. What did you actually expect to accomplish here? You want the bragging rights to say that no one would debate you that nonconsensual sex is not rape? This is typical of radicals. Take a topic, spin it and see if anyone can follow. Forget it James....

I just don't understand how you can call them radicals?

[Randwolf]

I would be willing to have a friendly debate on what might constitute implied consent to sex.



What implied? We were clearly discussing explicit consent. Do you have a problem with sex between two adults if the female had a beer prior to saying "please fudk me"? What if she had two beers? And does it matter if it is the female? Get real with your reactionary BS.

[James R]

Kadark:

Here are some statements that you DISAGREE with. You went on the record willingly to record your disagreement:


You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
If you don't ask permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.
Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape.
If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist.
If you're having sex and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't stop then you're a rapist.
If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.
If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
Women do not owe men sex.

From this, I take it you believe:


It is just fine to get a girl drunk so you can have sex with her, when she wouldn't otherwise have agreed to do so.
Having sex with a woman without her permission is permissible in some circumstances.
Failing to stop having sex if a woman changes her mind is acceptable.
Rape is impossible if you're married.
Rape of a prostitute is impossible.
Women somehow "owe" men sex.

Now, if you in fact believe these things, then it should be easy for you to argue that sex without consent ought not always to amount to rape. For example, you could argue that sex in marriage can never be rape, consentual or not.

Hence, I challenged you to this debate.

However, it appears that you don't really hold any of the above views, despite your show of bravado. Or, perhaps you hold those views but not for any reason you are able to articulate.

Maybe you hold those views but you know they are indefensible; hence your unwillingness to engage in a debate on any of these matters.

Whatever your reasons, I don't really care. My purpose has been served. Your views apparently have no support, and that is enough for me.

Your position is amazingly weak.

[angrybellsprout]

What implied? We were clearly discussing explicit consent. Do you have a problem with sex between two adults if the female had a beer prior to saying "please fudk me"? What if she had two beers? And does it matter if it is the female? Get real with your reactionary BS.

That is why I also throw in the requirement of implicit consent, and not just explicit consent.

[draqon]

James R...on behalf of Kadark...as his advocate...I would like to state that it is proposterous for you to claim that Kadark actually disagrees with those statements.

I state so because the poll is deceptive into tricking people into thinking that what they check is what they "agree" with.

[shorty_37]

I state so because the poll is deceptive into tricking people into thinking that what they check is what they "agree" with.

Very true that is what I said in that thread. It looks like some ppl are confused and ticking off the statements they agree with. I think even Visceral Instinct said "Shit" I ticked off the wrong ones. When I was reading it I almost did the exact same thing. So basically I think that poll is fucked.

[Kadark]

It is just fine to get a girl drunk so you can have sex with her, when she wouldn't otherwise have agreed to do so.

That's a risk associated with getting drunk in an area where you're vulnerable. Besides, how did I get her drunk? Was I forcing the alcohol down her throat or something?

Failing to stop having sex if a woman changes her mind is acceptable.

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.

Rape is impossible if you're married.

Truth be told, I didn't really mean to click this one. My mistake.

Rape of a prostitute is impossible.

Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.

Women somehow "owe" men sex.

If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.

Kadark the Resolute

[James R]

draqon:

The wording of the poll question is very clear.

But, if Kadark actually made a mistake (and I do not for one moment believe he did), then he disagrees with a number of other statements in the poll and should be able to argue his case based on those.

[Bells]

That's a risk associated with getting drunk in an area where you're vulnerable. Besides, how did I get her drunk? Was I forcing the alcohol down her throat or something?



Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.



Truth be told, I didn't really mean to click this one. My mistake.



Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.



If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.

Kadark the Resolute



Oh my god.:bawl:

[James R]

Kadark:

You're starting to debate the topic now.

This thread is for organising the debate, not the debate itself.

You have already said you do not wish to argue my original topic.

So, over to you. Propose a topic statement that you would be willing to argue, and I will consider it.

[Randwolf]

Kadark:
I grant that you are calling out Kadark, here, however...





Here are some statements that you DISAGREE with. You went on the record willingly to record your disagreement:


You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.

First of all, how do you "get" a girl drunk? Are you saying that someone is a rapist simply because the other party is drunk? In and of itself?





If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.

Love the "may" in this one. Apparently even the femnut that wrote this list in the first place couldn't hold a straight face through this.




If you don't ask permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.

Yeah, could be. Could be your a rapist even if your name is "James R".




Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape.

So her initial "no" holds more veracity than her subsequent yes?




If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist.

I said this when I was a teenager, and I bet you did too, James. That doesn't mean we raped anyone.




If you're having sex and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't stop then you're a rapist.

OK.



If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.

"Can" be. Can maybe not be too. Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?




If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.

Prostitutes have no less rights than anyone else, at least in my world.




If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.

Bullshit.




If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.

See above for prostitute's rights... Why do ya'll even attempt to distinguish between "regular" women and prostitutes? Who is the sexist here?




Women do not owe men sex.

No, they don't. What is your point?




Your position is amazingly weak.
Your position is nonexistent. Pffft...

[shorty_37]

draqon:

The wording of the poll question is very clear.

But, if Kadark actually made a mistake (and I do not for one moment believe he did), then he disagrees with a number of other statements in the poll and should be able to argue his case based on those.

I don't think ppl read it clearly James. Go and look at the poll. That would mean Orleander and Visceral think the same way Kardark does. So if that is the case why aren't you breathing down their necks then?

[Bells]

You should debate the following Kadark:

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.



Seriously. I'd be interested for your reasoning behind this.

[Kadark]

Kadark:

You're starting to debate the topic now.

This thread is for organising the debate, not the debate itself.

You have already said you do not wish to argue my original topic.

So, over to you. Propose a topic statement that you would be willing to argue, and I will consider it.

There is no particular statement I'd like to dedicate such time to. I gave you my reasoning for the poll options. Make of it what you will.

You should debate the following Kadark:

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.


Seriously. I'd be interested for your reasoning behind this.

Thanks for the suggestion, sweetheart, but I'm not here to please you.

Kadark the ... uh ...

Shit, I'm running out of words.

Kadark the Impregnable

[James R]

Randwolf:



Your original challenge is bullshit James and you know it. What did you actually expect to accomplish here? You want the bragging rights to say that no one would debate you that nonconsensual sex is not rape?

Of course. :)

The fact is: nobody is willing to argue against me that nonconsensual sex is not rape, even though they have gone on the record as holding that view elsewhere.

This is typical of radicals.

Slapping a label on me doesn't get you out of this.

What implied? We were clearly discussing explicit consent.

Then debate my suggested topic: "That sex without consent is always rape."

You don't think that sex without consent is always rape? Then debate me on the topic. I haven't restricted the debate topic to explicit or implied consent.

But wait! A few posts further up you agreed that sex without consent is always rape.

So, what's your real opinion? You need to take a stand one way or the other, rather than flip-flopping back and forth. Tell me what you really think.

Do you have a problem with sex between two adults if the female had a beer prior to saying "please fudk me"? What if she had two beers? And does it matter if it is the female? Get real with your reactionary BS.

I'll respond to this either in the other thread, or in a debate, but not in this organisational thread.

[Gustav]

are the housewives actually giving sci some much needed dose of commonsense
if so...
you go, girls!

[James R]

Randwolf:

Your position is amazingly weak.

Your position is nonexistent. Pffft...

Then debate me. We seem to have clear points of difference. What are you afraid of?

shorty_37:

I don't think ppl read it clearly James. Go and look at the poll. That would mean Orleander and Visceral think the same way Kardark does. So if that is the case why aren't you breathing down their necks then?

In visceral's case, he explicitly stated in a post that he ticked the options by accident, misreading the poll. I'm not sure about Orleander, but she is very welcome to join the debate if she wishes.


Bells:

You should debate the following Kadark:

Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.



Seriously. I'd be interested for your reasoning behind this.

I'm quite happy to debate Kadark on this. It fits my original topic statement.

But for some reason he seems reticent...

[James R]

So, the current status of the debate challenge:

Kadark, although he is clearly willing to attempt to argue the negative of my proposed topic, has refused to engage in a Formal debate, so far.

Randwolf, after being pushed a little, appeared to change his mind and decided that perhaps sex without consent is always rape after all, but then flip-flopped and decided that in some circumstances perhaps it isn't always rape. And, as far as I can tell, he is also unwilling to engage in a formal debate.

angrybellsprout has run away in fear.

So, no takers?

[shorty_37]

shorty_37:



In visceral's case, he explicitly stated in a post that he ticked the options by accident, misreading the poll. I'm not sure about Orleander, but she is very welcome to join the debate if she wishes.



You should get to know the members more James. Visceral is clearly a female. That is why I think Orleanders answers don't make sense either, because it is against what she says. I wouldn't be surprised if more members who took the poll did it wrong.

[draqon]

James R...like me myself I wouldnt be talking about raping topics...but you seem to be talking about it all the time...what has happened in your life that you are so anti-man's-rights-activist?

[shorty_37]

are the housewives actually giving sci some much needed dose of commonsense
if so...
you go, girls!

Fuck off.

ja/ I said it.

[Kadark]

Kadark, although he is clearly willing to attempt to argue the negative of my proposed topic, has refused to engage in a Formal debate, so far.

Of course I don't want to engage in a formal debate. Truth be told, I don`t think I can muster enough words to make my position seem worthy of a full-fledged debate. Why? The topic doesn`t interest me enough to generate three mammoth posts worth of debate material. It has nothing to do with you, though, James. If you wan`t to debate things that I routinely participate in, such as threads dealing with war and other world events, religion (well, my religion in particular, because the others don`t really interest me nearly as much), etc, then I`d be happy to comply. But debating as to what constitutes rape? Yawn. You can get a paragraph or two out of me if you`re lucky.

Kadark the Commander

[Randwolf]

Randwolf:
Of course. :)

Bully for you. You win. How pathetic.




The fact is: nobody is willing to argue against me that nonconsensual sex is not rape, even though they have gone on the record as holding that view elsewhere.

I am not on record anywhere, at anytime, as advocating nonconsensual sex.




Slapping a label on me doesn't get you out of this.

What label would you prefer? Rational, at least on this subject, certainly doesn't cut it.




Then debate my suggested topic: "That sex without consent is always rape."

James, calm down. This has been covered. No one is debating this!




You don't think that sex without consent is always rape?

Yes I do. Can you really not read? I would have thought the 72 point type would have given my position away....




Then debate me on the topic. I haven't restricted the debate topic to explicit or implied consent.

What? You want to debate whether sex is OK when two adults explicitly and implicity consent to it? Alright, bring it on, I'm your huckleberry.




But wait! A few posts further up you agreed that sex without consent is always rape.

So, what's your real opinion? You need to take a stand one way or the other, rather than flip-flopping back and forth. Tell me what you really think.

I am telling you what I really think. Stop ducking and weaving like some sort of weasel. I believe that sex between two consenting adults is permissable, OK, alright, acceptable, etc. If one of those adults happens to have consumed alcohol, I do not presume to take away their sovereignity over their own body, apparently you do. How fucking hard is this for you to comprehend? You can try to twist my words around all you like, but you end up looking like the fool. I have followed your posts here on SF for a long time James, and I have never seen you act like this. Get real, find any post of mine that says, explicity or implicitly, that I endorse nonconsensual sex, or apologize. Now.

[angrybellsprout]

I just don't understand why James is so obsessed with his strawmen.

[James R]

draqon:

James R...like me myself I wouldnt be talking about raping topics...but you seem to be talking about it all the time...what has happened in your life that you are so anti-man's-rights-activist?

You must be selective in reading my posts. I post on all kinds of topics, ranging from physics to psychology to this kind of thing. I certainly do not talk about rape "all the time". I'm glad my posts on the topic have such a high impact on you, though.

Secondly, why assume that there is a particular event in my personal life that has led me to a particular point of view? For all you know, I might just be trying to balance up an unbalanced topic by taking the other side.

Of course, in this case, that's not entirely true. In my experience (which is not direct, as it happens, except here) I have found self-described "mens' rights" advocates to be, on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals. And that strikes a nerve with me.

It must be a deep psychological issue of mine. Or not.

[Asguard]

Ok Kadark the wimp.

Change the rules,

make ONE post explaining your position why a women (or a man) doesnt have the right to say NO after they start. Explaine your full position and either james, bells or whoever can make one post stating why your an IDIOT.

You can rebute that post and then end the thread if that suits you

Or are you Kadark the chicken?

[angrybellsprout]

I have followed your posts here on SF for a long time James, and I have never seen you act like this.

How have you not seen this before? This is all that I've ever seen from him.

[Asguard]

james again i find that insulting that you would suggest that because someone advocates mens issues they are sexist. What about the people who work on the prostate cancer board?

[Randwolf]

[b]
In visceral's case, he explicitly stated in a post that he ticked the options by accident, misreading the poll.

Ummmm, he would be a she, idiot.

[Gustav]

Fuck off.

ja/ I said it.


ha
obviously you did
backhanded compliments deserve nothing less
i do not take affront

perhaps you think you have been brave or something?

/snicker

[Randwolf]

Randwolf, after being pushed a little, appeared to change his mind and decided that perhaps sex without consent is always rape after all, but then flip-flopped and decided that in some circumstances perhaps it isn't always rape. And, as far as I can tell, he is also unwilling to engage in a formal debate.


F**k off, James. I have not changed my position at all. Perhaps you should slow down, and attempt to read what is posted. Just a thought. :)

[shorty_37]

ha
obviously you did
backhanded compliments deserve nothing less
i do not take affront

perhaps you think you have been brave or something?

/snicker

Listen just because I am a woman doesn't mean I can't kick your ass!! :p


/chuckles

[Kadark]

Ok Kadark the wimp.

Change the rules,

make ONE post explaining your position why a women (or a man) doesnt have the right to say NO after they start. Explaine your full position and either james, bells or whoever can make one post stating why your an IDIOT.

You can rebute that post and then end the thread if that suits you

Or are you Kadark the chicken?

I don`t have to take this from an ugly dyslexic pussy-whipped loser like yourself. I already explained my position on this topic: you`re committed when you start, and unless there`s a legitimate excuse for demanding a halt, then you`re shit out of luck. It`s irrational, disruptive, unfair, and indecisive to demand the man to stop having sex after you`ve agreed and already started. None of those excuses, in my opinion, qualify as legitimate reasons. There you have it.

Note: Sorry for the funny looking apostrophes. My keyboard is acting gay.

Kadark the Boss

[shorty_37]

I am just waiting for either James or Asguard to say.........

I dare you.....actually I double dare you

This is getting pretty funny.

[Asguard]

actually after jame's comment im tempted to challange HIM to prove that people who work in mens health or advocate for male victoms of domestic vilonce are women haters

[angrybellsprout]

I'm still waiting for James to either start backing up his claims or to give up his strawmen.

[James R]

Randwolf:

What label would you prefer? Rational, at least on this subject, certainly doesn't cut it.

What have I said that is irrational? That's just another attempt to dismiss me with a label. Not unlike angrybellsprout's pathetic cries of "straw man", actually.

Then debate my suggested topic: "That sex without consent is always rape."

James, calm down. This has been covered. No one is debating this!

Kadark's position is that in some cases nonconsensual sex is just fine. Do you agree? What do you get from his posts? You know, sex with a prostitute is fine under any circumstances, a wife owes her husband sex whether she wants it or not, etc.

What? You want to debate whether sex is OK when two adults explicitly and implicity consent to it? Alright, bring it on, I'm your huckleberry.

You may have missed the post where I suggested we debate the conditions under which consent might or might not be implied. Read back.

I believe that sex between two consenting adults is permissable, OK, alright, acceptable, etc. If one of those adults happens to have consumed alcohol, I do not presume to take away their sovereignity over their own body, apparently you do.

Apparently you think I do. This is something we could debate, as I suggested earlier, but it would require a different topic statement.

I have followed your posts here on SF for a long time James, and I have never seen you act like this. Get real, find any post of mine that says, explicity or implicitly, that I endorse nonconsensual sex, or apologize. Now.

When you initially posted in this thread that you agreed that sex without consent is always rape, I said "Fine. I have no issue with you." Read back, if you've forgotten. For some reason, you chose to continue to post, as if we still have a disagreement. You could have simply bowed out of this challenge at the point where you agreed with me.

Now, it seems to me that we do potentially have some areas of disagreement about the possibility of rape in an atmosphere where consent is implied but not explicit. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about that; it's something I'd need to explore further with you. But that has nothing to do with the proposed topic of debate in this thread. I'd really rather dismiss the easy targets, like Kadark and ABS, first, with their nonsense that you can't rape a prostitute, and such. But I'm willing to consider a more nuanced debate as a separate issue, as I've said.

I'm sorry if I appear to have landed on you from a great height. I let a lot of things slip by on sciforums without comment, but in this case I had some free time and decided to prod some people to see how committed they actually were to their point of view. You have been caught up in the net on this occasion. There's nothing personal in it, by the way. I hold no grudge against you, and I hope the same can be said in reverse. It should be possible to debate contentious issues in a civilised way. That is one reason why I set up the Formal Debates forum in the first place.

[Kadark]

What do you get from his posts? You know, sex with a prostitute is fine under any circumstances.

Is that what I said? Let`s examine:

Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.

You were saying?

Kadark the Unique

[James R]

Randwolf:

Ummmm, he would be a she, idiot.

You call me an idiot for making an innocent mistake? Why? More labelling?

Apologies to visceral, by the way.


Kadark:

I already explained my position on this topic: you`re committed when you start, and unless there`s a legitimate excuse for demanding a halt, then you`re shit out of luck.

To make this quite clear, let's take a hypothetical. Man A is having sex with woman B, who initially consented to sex. Before the man reaches climax, woman B says "Wait, I don't like this. Stop!" But he continues.

You believe that the man is then under no obligation to stop. In fact, it is just fine for him to continue until he is "done".

Note that after she says "Stop" there is no consent. Therefore, you are arguing that sex without consent is NOT rape in this case.

I challenge you to a debate on this single issue alone, if you have no other arguments. I suggest a change of topic, if you agree, to:

"That a woman cannot revoke her consent during sex."

or

"A man who continues to have sex with a woman after being asked to stop does not commit rape."

Will you debate either of these topics with me?


ABS:

I will "back up" all my arguments in a formal debate.

Do you wish to change your mind and have a debate? Yes or no?

[Asguard]

James i challage you to a debate that all advocates for mens issues are women haters

Its the third time at least you have made that claim now, the first was when we were debating if the howard "vilonce against women" campaine was sexist
The second was earlier this morning and yes you apologised but then you repeated it here

[angrybellsprout]

I'm still waiting for you to point out where I ever said that nonconsentual sex is not rape.

[James R]

Asguard:

James i challage you to a debate that all advocates for mens issues are women haters

No thanks. I do not believe that all advocates for mens' issues are women haters. Some certainly are, though.

I would be willing to debate the topic "No advocates for mens' issues are women haters". I will argue that some are. Agreed?

Its the third time at least you have made that claim now, the first was when we were debating if the howard "vilonce against women" campaine was sexist
The second was earlier this morning and yes you apologised but then you repeated it here

I think you're misreading me.

[James R]

ABS:

You're wasting my time. I take it you are unwilling to debate me.

Now, run along.

[angrybellsprout]

You keep making the claim that I have said that nonconsentual sex is not rape.

Will you back this statement up, or will you admit that you have done nothing but build a strawman this entire time?

[Randwolf]

What have I said that is irrational?
How about the unsubstantiated position that I advocate nonconsensual sex? Do you call that rational? Cite your source, or back off.




Kadark's position is that in some cases nonconsensual sex is just fine.

Who the fuck cares what Kadark's position is? No offense to Kadark, but we are talking about me at the moment.



Do you agree? What do you get from his posts? You know, sex with a prostitute is fine under any circumstances, a wife owes her husband sex whether she wants it or not, etc.

I'm not here to fight your battles for you James.




You may have missed the post where I suggested we debate the conditions under which consent might or might not be implied. Read back.

You may have missed the posts where I came out against nonconsensual sex. Read back.




Apparently you think I do. This is something we could debate, as I suggested earlier, but it would require a different topic statement.

James, what is it here? Do you just want to debate something with me? Anything? Why? If you want to debate that consensual sex between two adults is permissable, whether or not they have been drinking, and does not constitute rape, then bring it on. Otherwise, shut up.




When you initially posted in this thread that you agreed that sex without consent is always rape, I said "Fine. I have no issue with you." Read back, if you've forgotten. For some reason, you chose to continue to post, as if we still have a disagreement. You could have simply bowed out of this challenge at the point where you agreed with me.

Yes, but where would the fun be in that?




Now, it seems to me that we do potentially have some areas of disagreement about the possibility of rape in an atmosphere where consent is implied but not explicit. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about that; it's something I'd need to explore further with you. But that has nothing to do with the proposed topic of debate in this thread. I'd really rather dismiss the easy targets, like Kadark and ABS, first, with their nonsense that you can't rape a prostitute, and such. But I'm willing to consider a more nuanced debate as a separate issue, as I've said.

Fine. Take your shots, and get back to me....

[Gustav]

Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.


heh
the obvious expectation is that the hookers are as dumb as you

lemme role play for your sorry ass

the demands are negotiated prior to actual rendezvous
i do not like anal intercourse. however,for $200 the john can do me up the ass. the only things that get done are that which i agree to.
if he gets rough with me all bets are off. smith and wesson or paco the pimp will handle it from there

your territory is obviously the video rental store and the safety of your couch

/sneer

[James R]

angrybellsprout:

You keep making the claim that I have said that nonconsentual sex is not rape.

No, but never mind.

Let's try to deal with this directly one last time. Here's how it works. I ask you a simple question. You answer with a simple "Yes" or "No."

Here's the question:

"Do you agree that sex without consent is always rape?"

Over to you.

If you answer "Yes", then we're done here. If you answer "No", or refuse to answer, we still have the possibility of a debate, if you're game.


Randwolf:

How about the unsubstantiated position that I advocate nonconsensual sex? Do you call that rational? Cite your source, or back off.

I think we have established quite clearly that you do not advocate nonconsensual sex.

I'm happy to back off. Best wishes.

[Asguard]

why in gods name would i debate THAT, you would win just by posting any of ABS's posts.

My problem isnt with the statment SOME advocates are women haters, that would be like saying no femists are men haters which clearly there are.

Your comment implied that all or at the very least MOST are:

Of course, in this case, that's not entirely true. In my experience (which is not direct, as it happens, except here) I have found self-described "mens' rights" advocates to be, on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals. And that strikes a nerve with me.


Now how does that tie with, the womens housing board calling for a mens housing board, Gay rights activists calling for laws to alow surogocy and gay adoption for gay men, doctors and the families of men who have died of prostate cancer (this one IS personal, my grandfather died from postate cancer) calling for more resorces for prostate cancer treatment, surport and resurch, and people calling for recognition that males are the victoms of domestic vilonce and sexual assult are MUCH less likly to report which means a sexist campaine like howards is compleatly counter productive and more funding needs to be put into shelters for men, advocasy services, public awearness ect of this issue. Not to mention people working to outlaw male genital mutilation (again mainly womens groups). How can you call these workers and achademics "on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals". Especially when alot if not most of them are WOMEN

[Randwolf]

heh
the obvious expectation is that the hookers are as dumb as you

lemme role play for your sorry ass

the demands are negotiated prior to actual rendezvous
i do not like anal intercourse. however,for $200 the john can do me up the ass. the only things that get done are that which i agree to.
if he gets rough with me all bets are off. smith and wesson or paco the pimp will handle it from there

your territory is obviously the video rental store and the safety of your couch

/sneer

I know I don't know much about SF as I am a noob, but Gustav, you are truly the wierdest fuck here. I love your posts... :poke:

[angrybellsprout]

I'm sick of your strawmen.

I talk about when both implicit and explicit consent are given, and you respond with some absurd accusation that I believe that nonconsentual sex is not rape.

[Randwolf]

I'm happy to back off. Best wishes.
Thank you. Maybe I can get some sleep now, as it is 3:00 AM where I am.

:)

[James R]

Asguard:

why in gods name would i debate THAT, you would win just by posting any of ABS's posts.

Why in god's name would I argue that ALL mens' advocates are woman haters? That would be equally stupid.

My problem isnt with the statment SOME advocates are women haters, that would be like saying no femists are men haters which clearly there are.

Your comment implied that all or at the very least MOST are

I said that in my own personal experience, many are. I have no reliable way of deciding whether most are or are not at this stage. I freely admit that I really haven't tried to find out.

Now how does that tie with, the womens housing board calling for a mens housing board, Gay rights activists calling for laws to alow surogocy and gay adoption for gay men, doctors and the families of men who have died of prostate cancer (this one IS personal, my grandfather died from postate cancer) calling for more resorces for prostate cancer treatment, surport and resurch, and people calling for recognition that males are the victoms of domestic vilonce and sexual assult are MUCH less likly to report which means a sexist campaine like howards is compleatly counter productive and more funding needs to be put into shelters for men, advocasy services, public awearness ect of this issue. Not to mention people working to outlaw male genital mutilation (again mainly womens groups). How can you call these workers and achademics "on the whole, narrow minded and selfish individuals". Especially when alot if not most of them are WOMEN

I didn't call any of those people anything. And I agree that those are all worthy causes.

The thing is, my direct experience of self-described "men's rights activists" is confined to sciforums, so I was thinking mainly of examples like ABS and mountainhare. We've had other examples here, too. And there are many radical "mens' rights" loonies out there, just as there are many radical "feminist" loonies. These people give their causes a bad name. Just watch "A Current Affair" or "Today Tonight" for a while...

[James R]

Still prevaricating, ABS?

[James R]

Thank you. Maybe I can get some sleep now, as it is 3:00 AM where I am.

Sorry if I kept you up.

[Asguard]

um james IM a self confessed mens rights activist. I am going to do my resurch assignment on how postate cancer is treated compared to how breast cancer is (in funding, surport services ect). Why do you think i find the comment offencive.

The difference is i also advocate for womens issues as well and tend to refer to myself as a human rights advocate because i cant stand either side of the debate.

[angrybellsprout]

Still prevaricating, ABS?

So says the person that replies to comments about two persons giving implicit and explicit consent by saying that they really think that nonconsentual sex is not rape?

[James R]

Asguard:

um james IM a self confessed mens rights activist. I am going to do my resurch assignment on how postate cancer is treated compared to how breast cancer is (in funding, surport services ect).

I'm not sure that I'd say mens' health issues are the same as mens' rights issues, unless you're talking about something like equal attention being paid without prejudice to the importance of, say, prostate cancer compared with breast cancer.

If anything, I'd be more inclined to call you a mens' health advocate rather than an activist. Perhaps if you lobby health authorities and/or lead protests or have a "one-issue" website you might be an activist, but it doesn't sound to me like that's what you do, exactly.

But maybe I'm splitting hairs here.


angrybellsprout:

So says the person that replies to comments about two persons giving implicit and explicit consent by saying that they really think that nonconsentual sex is not rape?

I've asked you directly more than once, and you will not say that you believe that sex without consent is always rape.

Your silence speaks for itself, does it not?

Now, perhaps you wish to join with Kadark in arguing my proposed alternative topic: that if a woman withdraws consent during sex, no rape can be committed if the man continues anyway.

Will you argue this narrower topic?

[Gustav]

i believe i have a workable analogy
it deals with expectations either on an individual or societal level

sally and jim make a date
they have dinner, watch a movie then agree to fuck
sally, for reasons unknown (irrelevant really), goes into coitus interruptus (pun) mode and walks away

i believe sci holds that jim outta accept his lumps with equanimity and grace.
i say no. it is ok to be frustrated and perhaps angry. i'd mock the bitch the next time i see her and bill her for her share of the nights expenses

so the analogy
not quite the best fit......
sports. a match. a team walks off the field.
what would be the comments in a situ like this?
lemme illustrate with bill belichick

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5363/regioncaptureux4.jpg (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/03/belichick-should-have-stayed-on-the-field)

so there you have it, bitches
it jes aint cricket!

[Gustav]

i am pretty sure i am in the wrong thread

[angrybellsprout]

I'm confused?

[Gustav]

no i am not (in the wrong thread)

/beams

[James R]

Current state of play:

Randwolf and I have sorted out our differences, at least as far as this debate topic is concerned.

angrybellsprout is petulantly refusing to say what he believes.

Kadark has not agreed to a debate, even though he has clearly indicated that he thinks that sex without consent is fine in some circumstances.

---
It has been 3 hours since I proposed this debate. Kadark has left for the moment. Nothing useful is coming from ABS.

Now, I will leave this thread for 12 hours or a bit more, to give you both a chance to consider your positions.

Let's see if you can get your acts together.

[angrybellsprout]

I get the whole bit about how the guy shouldn't club her in the head and drag her back to the cave, but he should make public his unhappiness next time he encounters her.

Then you go to the lol bit about the coach and I'm just lost.

[Gustav]

oh
hahaha

lemme then match (pun) up

the two teams are represented by sally and jim
the game itself is represented by jim and sally fucking
the coach running off the field is represented by sally leaving jim in a lurch

ja? nein?

but he should make public his unhappiness next time he encounters her.


should? nah. thats just temperament. you could always just move on

[angrybellsprout]

Still I also love the story about how the man takes the woman shopping and she keeps going on about buy me this and buy me that, and then when they get to the register the guy goes oh nevermind, then walks off.

[Asguard]

james this is the third time i have wrote this.

For some reason when i tried to copy the definitions from the online dictonary it crashed my computer twice

Anyway the difference is that because of uni i view advocasy as specifically advocating for a pt with there doctor, or social services or whatever it is.

Where as i view activisium as trying to raise awearness for a CAUSE, be it prostate cancer, or domestic vilonce against men or domestic vilonce against women or whatever the issue happens to be.

So i view things like my posts here as activisium rather than advocasy because i have no specific outcome except to raise awearness of a topic rather than get SOMETHING for a PT (or a friend or whatever depending on the cirumstances).

However i can see your point, activisum has taken on a negitive conitation

[visceral_instinct]

You are a rapist for having sex with someone who gives you both implicit and explicit consent to sex, if one or even both parties had been drinking prior to the consent being given.

That sounds like a start for a topic.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY. No one on here said anything like that. Would it fucking KILL you to use some REASON for once instead of ranting and spewing hate? What do you actually want? People try and have a reasoned argument with you and all you fucking do is spew vitriol. You want us to say all woman are the oppressor? Ok, I'll say it just to shut you up.

"All women are big bad oppressors and should be pregnant and in the kitchen."

Now will you grow up and behave like a fucking HUMAN BEING??!!!

[visceral_instinct]

James, I'll happily weigh in on your side if there's a team debate.

[visceral_instinct]

That's a risk associated with getting drunk in an area where you're vulnerable. Besides, how did I get her drunk? Was I forcing the alcohol down her throat or something?

Yes - it is a risk. It does not make it ok to have sex against someone's will.

Let me put it this way. If someone pisses me off they are running a risk that I will assault them. That does not make it ok for me to do so.


[quote]Uh ... obviously. If she decides to go through with the whole ordeal, then there's no going back. Besides, unless the guy's a machine or something, he'll be done soon anyway. It's her fault for accepting and then promptly changing her mind; I don't treat indecisiveness as a legitimate excuse.

It's still doing something to someone against their will.

Of course not. If she's on her "work" hours, then obviously not. Prostitutes know that sex can and will be rough with unknown males, and prostitutes know full well that they're going to have to do things with men that they don't want to do. It comes with the territory.

If a prostitute does not want to sell her body to a particular male, she is not obliged to. There's a difference between paying someone for a 'service' (vlech) when they are willing to provide it, and forcing them to do it whether they want to or not.


If they're married, absolutely. If not, the guy is free to divorce.

She's a human being. A piece of paper does not give him the right to do something to her against her will.

Kadark the Resolute

[GeoffP]

Hmm. Can generally agree with all that in the list, though if I'm paying her mortgage and there's no sex, then I'm not going to be paying that mortgage.

It's like the old joke about a woman that asks her man if he'd die for her and he asks for her to clarify the statement. She gets all offended at the implication, and asks him what he means. He explains: "Well, I'm not going to die for you for fun." Anyway, I'd partner with James or whatever. Call it, Jimmy me lad.

[Bells]

Hmm. Can generally agree with all that in the list, though if I'm paying her mortgage and there's no sex, then I'm not going to be paying that mortgage.



Nice. So you'd use the home as leverage?

Can anyone say 'blackmail'? Or would you be nice enough to understand that sometimes (eg after the birth of a child), there can't be any sex? Or would you stop paying the mortgage then too?:rolleyes:

[angrybellsprout]

Hmm. Can generally agree with all that in the list, though if I'm paying her mortgage and there's no sex, then I'm not going to be paying that mortgage.

It is too bad that not too many men will stand up like that when faced with women who claim to be entitled to having everything paid for them and then give nothing in return. Though I do know one guy who eventually kicked his former wife out of the house, and kept his son after he got sick of her refusal to get a job. Well not just because of her refusal to get a job, but also for her refusal to do much of any housework on top of it all.

[Reiku]

I would like to challenge angrybellsprout, Randwolf, Kadark, either singly or in combination, to debate the above topic.

I will argue the affirmative side; they will argue the negative - i.e. that in some circumstances (which they may specify) non-consensual sex does not amount to rape.

If I am to debate more than 2 opponents, I would prefer to have at least one other person on my "team" - perhaps Bells.

As a starting point, I suggest we use the standard debate rules in the sticky thread at the top of the Formal Debates subforum.

The current thread is for agreement and negotiation of participants and the debate format. I am open to changes in the format and/or participants.

Please post here if you wish to participate.
No, i's not. It;s a two-way thing... well... atleast... not always... but most of the time it is.

[GeoffP]

Nice. So you'd use the home as leverage?

No. It applies to the case where there's no love in the relationship. Sex is an expression of that. If there's no sex ever on a whim, then there's no love. This obviously does not apply to someone with legitmate medical problems. Follow? Not everything is about you.

Hey, you almost timed that pounce right, though. Golf clap.

[James R]

It has now been 22 hours since I issued this challenge.

I note that Kadark and ABS have not accepted the challenge in that time.

[Syzygys]

I could go against both teams and beat both of them senseless. just to help out Kadark, here is a simple argument proving james wrong. (beside that the whole debate depends on the definition of rape, but you guys are not so smart to realize that)

Let's say I, er... I mean Joe has sex with a woman who is unconscious due to alchohol. He gently screws her with condom, no force, no disease passed. The woman will have no recollection of the event whatsoever and she wasn't a virgin to begin with.
There you have it, is that a rape or just a unauthorized use of her body?

let's use an analogy! Let's say Joe takes away the woman's shovel while she is on vacation. he is using it gently for a few days, than cleans it and before she comes home, he puts it back to her barn. Did he steal it? no. He used it unauthorized, just like he did it with her body...

There you have it James, I just proved that it is not ALWAYS a rape....

What do I get? Tomorrow I will prove the other side wrong... :)

[James R]

Syzygys:

I extend my challenge to you to debate the topic that is the title of this thread.

Do you accept?

[Syzygys]

Of course, but I have already won it (it only required to show 1 case when it is not a rape), so it is kind of moot...

It also helps if people agree on the definition...

[Kadark]

Syzygys just tombstone piledriver'd James's argument to hell. He linguistically missile-toe dropkicked James in his figurative coin purse.

Kadark the Impressive

[James R]

Do you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules set out in the sticky thread, Syzygys?

If so, I suggest we give Kadark and angrybellsprout one more hour to gather up the guts to join you on your team.

With or without them, I will start a Debate thread in 1 hour, provided you are still in.

Please post you agreement to this debate if you wish it to go ahead. If you want any changes to the rules, please post those now, too.

Finally, if anybody else would like to join in this debate, please post which side you wish to argue. The list of participants will be final after 1 hour from the time of this post.

[James R]

Kadark:

If you do not intend to debate me, stay out of this thread. I have no further interest in you at this time.

[Bells]

Do you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules set out in the sticky thread, Syzygys?

If so, I suggest we give Kadark and angrybellsprout one more hour to gather up the guts to join you on your team.

With or without them, I will start a Debate thread in 1 hour, provided you are still in.

Please post you agreement to this debate if you wish it to go ahead. If you want any changes to the rules, please post those now, too.

Finally, if anybody else would like to join in this debate, please post which side you wish to argue. The list of participants will be final after 1 hour from the time of this post.

You can count me in if it's a team debate. I'll be on your side if you still want me.

[angrybellsprout]

I'm still waiting for James Retard to point out where I ever stated that nonconsentual sex is not rape.

Until that happens, then it is just another one of his many strawmen.

[James R]

angrybellsprout:

If you do not intend to debate me, stay out of this thread. I have no further interest in you at this time.

You have 20 minutes to agree to the debate if you want in.

[James R]

Bells, I am happy to have you on my team. I will create the thread in 20 minutes, provided we have an opposing team by then.

[angrybellsprout]

You made a claim about me.

Either you justify this claim or you withdraw it.

Either link to where I claimed that nonconsentual sex is not rape, or quit your strawmen.

[James R]

ABS:

Your post is off topic. Please take it somewhere else.

[Asguard]

james how many days does this run for?
i would love to be on your side but i dont have a week to put into this

[Syzygys]

Do you agree to debate according to the Standard Rules set out in the sticky thread, Syzygys?

I forgot those, but if groupsex is involved, I am in!

For fun I could be on even days in one team and on odd days in the other team.

Nowadays I don't take Sciforums very seriously, I think it is kind of obvious.

P.S.: Kadark promised to tell me some secret Muslim sexual practices, so I am paid for my performance in the debate. I am a gun for hire...

[angrybellsprout]

ABS:

Your post is off topic. Please take it somewhere else.

How is my post off topic?

The entire point of this topic is that you called me out to defend a position that you claimed that I stated, but you refuse to point out exactly where I ever made this claim.

This is very dishonest.

[James R]

james how many days does this run for?
i would love to be on your side but i dont have a week to put into this

According to the Standard Rules for a team debate, the debate could theoretically last up to 12 days, with each team member posting only once every three days.

Of course, if all members of both teams have posted within the 3 day round, no matter how quickly, the next round will start immediately, so the minimum possible time for the debate could be as short as an hour or so, potentially.

I would like to have equal numbers on both teams, preferably, and so far only one person has signed up for the negative...

[James R]

Kadark and ABS:

You have 5 minutes.

[Asguard]

well i yeld to you and bells. If ABS and kadark both want in i will go on your side, if not im happy to cheer you on:p

[angrybellsprout]

Why do you refuse to support the claim that you made in the OP?

Do you have anything else to offer than strawmen and lies about others?

Do you always just run away when it is time to link to the claims that you made about others?

[Asguard]

if you join in the debate i might even give you the full story so you can decide for yourself

[Kadark]

So, have we decided what the debate topic is going to be? I may jump in if it's different from the initial post's topic, although I wouldn't be able to construct a formal post until Wednesday (have a fight tomorrow).

Kadark the Executor

[James R]

So, have we decided what the debate topic is going to be? I may jump in if it's different from the initial post's topic, although I wouldn't be able to construct a formal post until Wednesday (have a fight tomorrow).


I have already asked you what topic you would be willing to debate.

Would you like to suggest a topic now, or should I go ahead with my original proposal (now 24 hours old)?

By the way, there will be no "jumping in" once the Formal Debate starts. The participants are to be agreed in advance.

If you feel you cannot make one post every three days, do not participate.

[Kadark]

I have already asked you what topic you would be willing to debate.

Would you like to suggest a topic now, or should I go ahead with my original proposal (now 24 hours old)?

You started this thread, James, and every single person you challenged was dissatisfied with the debate topic. If you're issuing the challenge, then it only stands to reason that you offer the topic. Truth be told, I don't think anybody wants to discuss the original proposal, considering it has been tackled to death in about three separate threads already. Let's spice things up a little, aiight?

Kadark the Veteran

[Syzygys]

I would like to have equal numbers on both teams, preferably, and so far only one person has signed up for the negative...

Told you don't worry about me. It isn't even a challenge...

[James R]

You started this thread, James, and every single person you challenged was dissatisfied with the debate topic. If you're issuing the challenge, then it only stands to reason that you offer the topic. Truth be told, I don't think anybody wants to discuss the original proposal, considering it has been tackled to death in about three separate threads already. Let's spice things up a little, aiight?

I'll take this as a delaying tactic.

I will not wait for you much longer, Kadark.

If you have any serious proposal, please post it now. I am going to get something to eat. When I come back, if you have suggested no alternative, I will begin the debate with the agreed participants on the original topic I suggested, without you.

[Randwolf]

james how many days does this run for?
i would love to be on your side but i dont have a week to put into this


Oh, good grief Asguard, when have you ever gone a week off SF? :p :p

[angrybellsprout]

I already pointed out a proposal a few pages back, but instead James went back to his strawman.

[Kadark]

I'll take this as a delaying tactic.

I will not wait for you much longer, Kadark.

If you have any serious proposal, please post it now. I am going to get something to eat. When I come back, if you have suggested no alternative, I will begin the debate with the agreed participants on the original topic I suggested, without you.

Getting something to eat, eh? Is that "something" a dick? Because that's what you should be eating after wasting all of my precious time. You're asking me if I want to debate you, and you refuse to tell me the topic we're debating (because it obviously isn't the original proposal, considering hardly anybody agreed to it).

I'm asking you for the last time: what in the fuck are we debating? Play your stupid guessing games with somebody else, because this really is starting to annoy me.

Kadark the Crazy

[Asguard]

Randwolf actually i left here fo 2 years:p

[Kadark]

Randwolf actually i left here fo 2 years:p

Those were the days ...

Kadark the Knight

[Syzygys]

I already pointed out a proposal a few pages back, but instead James went back to his strawman.

I have to agree, that it is kind of a strawman, if we define rape exactly the same way as the title. then what is there to debate?

P.S.: I actually have a good counterargument against it, but hey, I am good...

[Randwolf]

Randwolf actually i left here fo 2 years:p

Realy? Before my time, admittedly short... How did you survive? This is addicting. :D


On topic, who are the participants (besides James of course) in this upcoming epic battle?

[Asguard]

whats really amazing is that even with a two year break my post count is back up above 4 a day:p

[James R]

The agreed participants for the debate are:

Affirmative side: James R, Bells, Asguard.
Negative side: Syzygys

The debate is to be a team debate conducted according to the Standard Rules, here.

For the debate itself, please see the Debate Thread.

If you are a non-debater and wish to discuss the debate topic or the progress of the debate, you are welcome to use the Discussion Thread.