Kinos with this feel?

looks like someone doesn’t understand power dynamics

>formerly consensual sex

>Yea Forums - Television & Film

The US is such a shithole.

Nobody has power over the other here because they're both drunk idiots fucking each other.

The only one you posted that’s actual rape was
>forcibly holding a woman down and having your way with her.
Not sure how we let the word get watered down to the point of being anything, but it’s sad.

Nothing gets a woman hotter than asking her permission to kiss her. Thats why the birth rates are so high, because all of our society and culture is oriented towards producing healthy nuclear families, the engine of civilization.

Men have institutional power and women don’t. Have sex sweetie.

You fell for bait

Because women are strong and independent, but do t you dare let them make you their own minds about sex, they can’t make the decision I. Their own or after a glass of Merlot.

according to you. not according to the court of public opinion which has overturned many actual legal cases.

fuck of back to plebbit

>institutional power
Stopped reading at this.

actually that's not true
a contract signed while heavily intoxicated can be ruled to be invalid

men are stronger and dicks can do more physical harm than vaginas

the desire for the rape charge to have nuance is not an inherently bad thing - how do you prove a rape occurred where the victim didn't want to have sex but froze up after saying no or stopped resisting out of fear?

umm sweaty those are both rape, why don't you never creep on another girl again okay? Haha.

>drive while drunk
>DUI because you should have known better
>have sex while the woman is drunk
>rape because she couldn't have known better
At least those are the scenarios if my cousin didn't work for the sheriff's department. For the average pleb it's reality, and reality is hypocrisy incarnate.

Spoken like someone who has never been smothered and suffocated by an overzealous broad sitting on your face.

if she cant consent while drunk why can he? by this logic they raped each other

>by this logic they raped each other
Unless she has four male witnesses she only raped him. Ishallah.

FUCKING MYSOGINSIT DRUMPF SUPPORTER MGTOW VIRGIN lNCEL

Ok snowflake. I know trumptards can’t logic.

men are always dtf
women aren't.

men are physically strong
women can be crushed like paper cup

men are confrontational and argumentative
women are nice and tend to agree and go along

sorry sweetie but gender differences are real and you have to choose whether you think that or not and stick to it rather than being a hypocrite and crying about hypocrisy from some third strawman position.

Attached: Abigail-Breslin--15.jpg (3095x4334, 1.13M)

Consent is sexy. Asking for permission is necessary and it gets you in the mood.

youtu.be/bVHYvUpeqKI

soi the post^

Because unless Josie is a "she" Jake will probably do the penetrating

>froze up
Not rape. If you can’t tell someone to duck off or kick them in the nuts you’re weak, that’s not rape. The “no” in that situation is more important than freezing up. I don’t get broads I don’t freeze up, especially over something trivial like fucking

>men are always dtf
I submit Al Bundy as evidence to the contrary. Don't tell me he's just a character either, because all sitcom characters are the spiritual gestalts of millions of average Americans.

Women don't know any better.

Well people have been convicted of rape over those very situations.

it’s almost like that post is blatant fucking sarcasm you retard and wtf is ^ for

This is the kind of shit that gets Bill Nye excited and meanwhile turns a pussy into a mummy

not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, in the scenario i posited the no is verbal. if someone tells you no (a serious no, not some something that can be misread) and you don't stop that is rape.

It's a mans responsibility to atleast try to gauge whether the woman wants to have sex and stop if he thinks she doesn't.

Unfortunately many men don't care or consider this. It's not rape so much as poor sexual behavior that should change. Explicitly asking questions for consent is one answer but the larger issue is simply giving a shit if they're into it or not.

Attached: peugeot106.jpg (2898x1975, 1.57M)

I don't really remember your boomershow but obviously it's a generalization.

We agree about the verbal no. We disagree about this freezing up business. Had the no not be utter and let’s say the guy is doing something she doesn’t like but she doesn’t say shit about it, like Louis beating off, then freezing up isn’t a defense, it’s you not saying what you want and you have to live with that. But no certainly means no.

I think assigning that all to the man is unfair but whatever, I do think sexual communication needs work. Both parties should verbalize what they want and not just give in. I’m a dude and have given in to sex I wasn’t really wanting to have. Wasn’t raped, I made the decision to go through with it.

>I don't really remember your boomershow
Translation: I was born in 2003.

>but obviously it's a generalization
Backpedaling from hard ironclad facts to "it's just a generalization?" I hope they never have to put you in front of a jury.

I'm not assigning it all to men im just solely talking about male responsibility. Thinking and caring about whether a woman wants to have sex is not unreasonable.

It's not to say that women shouldn't also try to be clear about how they feel and learn to say no. But it's much easier to do that in the context of being with someone who cares at all what you might want and is trying to work it out.

Women are also far more agreeable in general than men, while men are more confrontational. So it's naturally harder for them. That's not a bad thing, in many ways it makes them charming, but it's foolish to assume they can and should behave like we might. I also highly doubt you've ever felt threatened in a sexual situation. That's not a bad thing either, women enjoy that dangerous dynamic in many ways. But it is reality and a point of difference that shouldn't be ignored.

>sorry sweetie but gender differences are real
EXCUUUUUUUUUSEMEEEEEEEEE?!?!?///!?

if someone freezes up on you in an intimate encounter why would you continue to initiate? and no one ever said louie raped anyone, no idea why you are even bringing that up.

They're obviously just a bunch of generalisations you retard.
Some men are disabled.
Some women are weightlifters

Some men are timid and mentally feeble
Some women wear the pants.

And I was born 10 years earlier and i have seen it i just don't remember anything about it and a sitcom isn't a good arguement.

>It's a mans responsibility to atleast try to gauge whether the woman wants to have sex and stop if he thinks she doesn't.
Maybe in the 1800s, thot. Women are equals now, not children. Grow up, grandma.

Never have felt threatened in a sexual situation but I went through with sex with a broad I thought might have an std because I had a rubber and didn’t want to hurt her feelings.

That’s pretty agreeable for a guy, no?

I grew up learning women wanted what they said, not this post game analysis, regret rape. I still think women should be held to that standard, unless they want full Victorian treatment.

Am I supposed to be cure into a tinder chicks non verbal shit to make sure she really wants to have sex, or should I take her undressing as a sign it’s ok? Where do we draw the line and say this standard of consent is teetering on ridiculous.

Well technically Jake can't consent either, so wasn't he raped by her too?

Supposedly this poster came from a shitty East Coast liberal arts college where even the students thought it was retarded, and discontinued them by the next quarter.

>playing this game
You tell her, "NO, FUCK YOU, FIX YOUR SHIT."

>men are always dtf
I don't see a some in there, but I am an aging boomer so maybe my vision isn't what it used to be.

>And I was born 10 years earlier
Oh you'd remember it if you were, but I get it. Don't need Janny Law breathing down your neck for being jailbait on 4channel after all ;).

If they aren’t saying no they are saying yes, that’s why I brought up Louis. The argument “I was afraid I froze up” doesn’t fly with me in post sexual revolution culture. You’re starting to sound like a chick

>jake was drunk
>josie was drunk
>jake is responsible for his actions
>josie is not
really makes you think

They can still vote, too.

equality without responsibility is just tyranny

>if they aren't saying no they are saying yes
yea, you're a piece of shit dude. false rape charges are serious and an issue in today's society and the nuance of rape can absolutely go too far (like the poster in the OP) - but your statement completely discounts an actual physiological response to fear.

Jesus Christ, I think I’m taking some pretty weak bait but if this is how you feel your a fucking fag. Women have total agency of what they want or don’t want to do, they don’t say no? Tough shit. I’m not treating them like kids, but I’m also not going to do any of these things to a broad either. It just pisses me off the insane amount of slack given to women just because. If you’re afraid say no clearly and leave. Always have the nut kick to consider. If you didn’t do any of those, then how can anyone know? I.E you can’t be breaking consent if it’s hidden away when everything seems fine on the surface. You want women to be treated like children? Fine, have fun with that.

>if she didn;t say anything how could i possibly know!?
it's pretty fucking easy to tell if a woman is interested in having sex and not afraid of you dumbass.

We aren’t operating on the same level in re: to our discussion. I’m saying the woman looks totally comfortable, it seems you’re saying she looks fearful. I’m arguing that it’s not okay to lay blame on the guy if she’s not giving off any signs of discomfort. If she’s cowering and afraid, yeah might want to reconsider you’re approach to sex.

fair enough, but my use of the word "freezing up" had pretty obvious connotations. i understand where you are coming from, the aziz situation for example is definitely not rape or even a crime.

I’m coming from the aziz type where freezing up isn’t physical, it’s this secret mental thing that no one can gauge. If the girl is literally physically frozen up, yes sir we have an issue. I think a lot of the more nuanced sexual dynamic discussions should be had but I’m tired of hearing some dude lost his life over nothing, I get a little defensive because that’s equally fucked up and it’s been steam rolling for a good 18 months. Despite my hard hearted language I actually am fairly polite in bed, but I’m tired of men just being Gilliam’s. Sorry for getting defensive, user.

And sorry for phone posting

You don't understand what a generalization is.

>In everyday language, a generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that is applied to a group of people or things. Often, generalizations are not entirely true, because there are usually examples of individuals or situations wherein the generalization does not apply.

Attached: 0039a8c93fa030d77ed6d48d54f73c3317dcf9443602cb384927d99b40297bb0.jpg (750x500, 31K)

I already told you what I think you're supposed to do.

>try to gauge whether a woman wants to have sex and stop if you think she doesn't.
>simply give a shit if they're into it or not.

Why is that so unreasonable?

>Often, generalizations are not entirely true
>entire argument hinges on the statement being entirely true
You're stupid, but it's kind of cute given your age.

RIP Vegas wedding industry

No, my argument hinges on it being generally true. Which is what a generalization is. Exceptions are irrelevant and obviously occur.
I'm sorry you had to just learn the meaning of a common word/concept. Try to process it.

Dont forget the classic

>consensual sex but the woman changes her mind and accuses the guy of rape 20-30 years later

>my argument hinges on it being generally true
>universally applied law dependent on a condition that is only sometimes true meaning there are cases where the universally applied law will not be appropriate and the result will be a clear cut miscarriage of justice
This is a considerably less endearing kind of stupid.

>>>she consented but it doesn't count because she had 2 glasses of wine
>Not rape.
OP's pic literally proves otherwise.

Wait, if both of them were drunk why is the man responsible? Are they saying that men have greater agency than women?

surely the most interesting one. very kafkaesque

how confusing would this shit be if they were lesbians

the law is not universally applied though
drunk sex is exceptionally common and laws around it and social attitudes towards it are applied with extreme discretion and highly dependent on circumstances

Many many laws aren't unequivocally positive and suiting every person and situation or universally applied identically either. That's an absurdly naive standard to require in every instance.

Do you think saying 'men are stronger than women' is utterly irrelevant because it's not always true?

what about when a woman has sex with an underage boy, like those high school teachers

You're also taking one point in my post out of context

How common honestly is a situation where:
a:
a man puts himself in a sexual situation with a woman but does not want to have sex
b:
the man is physically weaker than the woman so feels physically threatened
c:
the man has a timid agreeable personality and the woman is domineering over him

This is a once in a blue moon reversal of 3 common gender dynamics.

That's not rape unless she's ugly.

>Have sex sweetie.
No thanks, I don't want to be charged with rape.

why not, what if shes emotionally controlling and abusive

>the law is not universally applied though
The law universally exists, and doesn't stop existing if they choose not to pursue you under it. Leaning on the existence of something as ethereal as prosecutorial discretion to defend your point is poor form since it hinges on an entirely unknown variable i.e. how hardline a specific prosecutor wants to be in pursing a specific crime. Your notion that "imperfect laws exist so it's fine to have other also imperfect laws" is just circular logic.

If the words "on average" aren't in there then it is a fallacious statement.

Playing out hypothetical isn't a defense of the core premise. You can construct any scenario to suit an argument, actually forming a quality argument requires refuting the opposing points absent any imagined context. In this case you're basically already fucked since you first established a list of definites that had to be true for your argument to hold water and then revised them to being generalizations, essentially undermining yourself in the process.