(October 18, 2016 at 7:43 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 5:25 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Ha, it's funny how you purposefully left out the second definition, you troll...

verb
1.
make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force.
"they broke into Fred's house and forced every cupboard door with ax or crowbar"
synonyms: break open, burst open, knock down, smash down, kick in
"the door had to be forced"
2.
make (someone) do something against their will.
"she was forced into early retirement"
synonyms: compel, coerce, make, constrain, oblige, impel, drive, pressurize, pressure, press, push, press-gang, bully, dragoon, bludgeon; More

Dammit, Just when I thought I was out...[he] pulls me back in [with his stupidity].

I was just about to post the same thing.

When people are talking about forced sex, they're using the second definition of forced.  Which makes it rape.

Of course, trollishly leaving out that second definition that utterly torpedoes his 'argument' (such as it is) dovetails nicely into the portion of the conversation addressing special pleading....

But he's so much smarter than the rest of us.  Just ask him, he'll tell you!

and i am using the first.

In that a man physically forces himself onto a resistant but willing partner. I've said that 10's of times..

Can't you see by doing that, I qualified the statement and my specific use of the definition by providing a legitimate context that backs my usage of the term.

I have said several times my usage of the word forced does not mean one is made to do something against their will.

I have many times described the physical force used in a consensual way...

So the big question is why am I holding to my definition?

To demonstrate that one does not have to rank and file think and act in accordance with the popular consensus and still have a valid point. That thier is more than one way to view a subject, and most importantly if you are not flexible enough to consider anything other than what you bring into a conversation, I want you to understand your mind is closed. Closed to anything you don't already think you know.

Subsequently I want to point out that you all have been condition to only receive new information if it is present one specific way. That you frown on original free thought and will not openly debate any real topic. If you think you know something you are not willing to examine it any other way.

In this thread are many sub-topics this last one on the word forced is a prime example. most of you locked on to a tradition understanding of the word forced in a sexual context. this brought up a very singular picture of how 'forced sex' can work. To which I countered a senerio that showed a very popular example of forced sex NOT incompliance with your stereotypical view. I outlined the usage of the term, i even provided back ground and showed you that your understanding of sex is indeed in a minority view. Yet you all assume my use of the word is in error...

Here's the thing morons...

We are BOTH correct.

Forced sex per the second defination of the word is to coherse sexual intercourse against the will of another.
However to have Forced sex, describes sexual intercourse with physical resistance, and one partner forced or over comes the other physically.

The difference???

CONSENT

So Again for the very slow among you Forced sex is to coherse (against the will of another) sex from an unwilling partner.

AND

It can describe Consensual sex where one partner resists another physically and yet consent to the act.

The devil here/The evil is in the details. If I give an senerio that does not support a legal sexual assault yet physically describe an act that could play for play leave the same exact physical evidence as a sexual assault then know I am not talking about the sterotype you automatically associate with when the words forced and sex are used together.

Your mind should be flexible enough to ask a question, seek a defination and examine the senerio to see if the defination fits. if it does then open the rusty vault you call a mind and make room for a slightly broader POV.

(October 18, 2016 at 11:55 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 5:36 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: The problem with your rebuttal is that we were never discussing the accused when all this nastiness went down, were we?  We were talking about the trauma, and how victims process it.

That trauma is what you objected to so crudely.  I honestly don't believe that you were talking about legal implications for the accused at all, otherwise you wouldn't have alluded to alleged victims having ulterior motives for reporting rapes late after the fact.  You were asserting the motivations of victims.  

I think you know it was a nasty thing to say, even for you, and now you're trying to wiggle out of your implications with legal definitions and semantics.  Of course...this is nothing more than my opinion based on how I've interpreted your posts.

Look at it this way:  If someone steals my car and I don't report it, then perhaps you can argue that that the "crime of car theft" never technically, legally occurred.  But, someone STILL stole my car. I still suffer the consequences of my car having been stolen.

If a man breaks into a woman's house and forcibly, vaginally penetrates her...then...he forcibly, vaginally penetrated her.  It is an intimate, violent action against another human being, and that human being is going to suffer the psychological/emotional consequences of such an assault, regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized as a "crime of rape" in the eyes of the law.  You jerking-off in response to that trauma is the issue here.

But again, in order for actionable response to any alleged crime, one must report it.

If you don't then as I said it is like it never happened.

My Emoji was meant to illecite a negative response. Why? because if you took any or all of those excuses to any cop 5 years after the fact, I'm sure you'd get a Catholic Lady's response to your report, but in the end what the emoji is doing is all your going to get in the way of 'justice.'

Now ask yourself what is better if you are 4 years and 360 days in from being raped yourself... Being mad at me for telling you that your rights/legal recourse you had are about to be flushed in a way that makes you uncomfortable.. Or would it be better if i just took my turn in line to offer you pity so that you could continue being a silent victim and find out 10 years down the line when you finally feel ready to do or say something that my emoji truly represents what can be done for you.

Could I have done it more tactfully?

Yes..

bold MINE:

But it's not like it "never happened" for the victim.  That's my entire point.  It's like you have a blind spot for empathy.  Look, I understand what you're saying:  telling a woman that it will essentially be like her assault never happened in the eyes of the law if she fails to report it within the SOL set by her state.  A motivator.  I see that.  But, I don't get why you think that a simple acknowledgment of someone's pain is encouraging them to hold a victim mentality.  It seems like, to you, saying "I'm sorry that you were hurt" is as offensive as taking the lord's name in vain.

(October 18, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't think you guys realize exactly what Drich is saying.

He is basically saying that if a man is good enough sexually, she will give consent mid rape, therefore making it simply "rough" or "forced" sex and no longer rape.

(October 18, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Drich Wrote: That's crap..

Consent is the difference.

Some people like the 'fight/struggle.'

Alot of traditional Asian sexual culture is based on this type of sexual experience. Boarder line rape is almost like missionary sex here.

A woman is not suppose to like/enjoy sex in a traditional context. the hook, for the guy is to be so good that he can make her drop the cultural values and force his partner to enjoy themselves.

The point being forced sex is not always rape. What makes it rape is consent which points back to my original argument that consent is the only difference between rape and any other type of sex. And you can not prove consent.

*emphasis mine*

That's just fantasy bro, women aren't wired the same way men are, they require some foreplay...

Or i could mean exactly what i said is past posts...

(October 18, 2016 at 8:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Particularly since korea, for example....defines rape by consent and aggravated rape by presence of force (and even has categories of crimes included that are much more broad than our own), doesn't require an accusation by the victim, and have been scrapping what SOLs they once had.

weird how you have created your own narrative to vilify me..

Or can you show me where I said rape is not defined by consent?

(October 19, 2016 at 1:22 am)Losty Wrote: White girls are so vanilla

well not the crazies.. It is just easier to find vanilla..

unless you are pulling in you own definitions/preconception to the word vanilla.

To me, vanilla is the base or foundation to endless possibilities..

When you have lime sorbet, all you can have is variations of lime ice cream...

I'll leave it at that.

Again, I am trying to get you guys to think past the sterotypes you have adopted.

(October 18, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 6:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Bold mine:

There is no distinguishable difference between "forced sex" and "rape" with regard to the harm it causes those who are on the receiving end of such an act.

That's crap..

Consent is the difference.

Some people like the 'fight/struggle.'

Alot of traditional Asian sexual culture is based on this type of sexual experience. Boarder line rape is almost like missionary sex here.

A woman is not suppose to like/enjoy sex in a traditional context. the hook, for the guy is to be so good that he can make her drop the cultural values and force his partner to enjoy themselves.

The point being forced sex is not always rape. What makes it rape is consent which points back to my original argument that consent is the only difference between rape and any other type of sex. And you can not prove consent.

Apologies if I'm repeating anyone, or myself, I'm just thoroughly catching up here.  

Drich, you seem to have a real issue with definitions here.  You want to twist "forced" to include certain instances of role play/"forced" consensual sex?  Okay.  Fine.  Take that one for the win if you want.  It's totally irrelevant anyhow.  It's a distraction.  You knew EXACTLY what I meant by my statement about the pain and suffering of a victim.  Playing semantics doesn't really get you any closer to refuting (or even addressing) that point. I'm happy to re-word it in a manner that better suits your understanding of word meanings, if you like:


There is no distinguishable difference between "non-consensual sex" and "rape" with regard to the harm it causes those who are on the receiving end of such an act.

Do we understand each other now?

(October 18, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 9:52 am)Shell B Wrote: Drich, the problem here is that you are asserting that the definition of rape is the criminal act. I've provided an entire Internet full of definitions that contradict that. You have yet to provide even one that supports your narrow definition. Whether you like it or not, you're provably, undeniably incorrect. Your entire argument rests on, at best, a bad grasp of the language or, at worst, a manufactured fallacy designed to discredit rape victims. I won't presume to know which it is, but you could at least try to back up your assertion. It should be easy enough, if that is the true definition.

so rape is not a criminal act? what post number has this information again? i must have missed it.

No, no, no.  Your assertion was that the word "rape" has no meaning or real world significance outside of a court room.  It's this assertion that people are asking you to provide evidence for.  Which you, so far, have failed to do.  Why are you playing dumb?

I'm considering we play a game called "don't respond to Drich," wherein none of us respond to Drich and he stops posting paragraph after paragraph of responses that aren't responses.

(October 19, 2016 at 10:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 18, 2016 at 11:55 am)Drich Wrote: But again, in order for actionable response to any alleged crime, one must report it.

If you don't then as I said it is like it never happened.

My Emoji was meant to illecite a negative response. Why? because if you took any or all of those excuses to any cop 5 years after the fact, I'm sure you'd get a Catholic Lady's response to your report, but in the end what the emoji is doing is all your going to get in the way of 'justice.'

Now ask yourself what is better if you are 4 years and 360 days in from being raped yourself... Being mad at me for telling you that your rights/legal recourse you had are about to be flushed in a way that makes you uncomfortable.. Or would it be better if i just took my turn in line to offer you pity so that you could continue being a silent victim and find out 10 years down the line when you finally feel ready to do or say something that my emoji truly represents what can be done for you.

Could I have done it more tactfully?

Yes..

bold MINE:

But it's not like it "never happened" for the victim.  That's my entire point.  It's like you have a blind spot for empathy.  Look, I understand what you're saying:  telling a woman that it will essentially be like her assault never happened in the eyes of the law if she fails to report it within the SOL set by her state.  A motivator.  I see that.  But, I don't get why you think that a simple acknowledgment of someone's pain is encouraging them to hold a victim mentality.  It seems like, to you, saying "I'm sorry that you were hurt" is as offensive as taking the lord's name in vain.

Because I am not a believer in perpetual victim hood. There is a time to mourn and a time to grieve, which again is ultimately up to the victim to set a limit on, but approaching the 5 year mark/SOL someone needs a push or kick in the pants IF they are ever to be anything more than a perpetual victim.

Which again is fine if that is what they need to do. However forever victims also need to know the rest of the world is going to move on with or without them. That is where the reality of  what I said comes in. The Law/Justice will turn a blind eye to you and the terrible thing that happened, if you do not act. What I said is a kind of focused litmus test. If what I said bring out the acid then you know something inside you does not want to be a victim forever then that means you must act/My comment becomes a call to arms. If you roll over into yourself and have to 'relive' everything again then you know you want to be a forever victim.. If that is the case then in a sick way what I said only furthers that person's end goal.

Look at the response everyone gave when I acted harshly.. A virtual pity parade was thrown, if it's been 15/20 since the act, then all the fussing and 'nurturing' that went on was well received.

Again I know the pain. I also know the sickness that one creates for themselves being or thinking of themselves as a victim, and I am well aware of what needs to happen inorder for that cycle to be broken.

(October 19, 2016 at 11:06 am)Shell B Wrote: I'm considering we play a game called "don't respond to Drich," wherein none of us respond to Drich and he stops posting paragraph after paragraph of responses that aren't responses.

You guys already did that in this thread twice now. (tire burning pic/starve the fire of oxygen by not responding to it...)